Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

September 2005 NO CHILD LEFT 

BEHIND ACT 

Education Could Do 

More to Help States 

Better Define 

Graduation Rates and 

Improve Knowledge 

about Intervention 

Strategies 

GAO-05-879 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-879.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-879, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2005

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Education Could Do More to Help States 

Better Define Graduation Rates and 

Improve Knowledge about Intervention 

Strategies 

As of July 2005, 12 states used a graduation rate definition—referred to as 

the cohort definition—that tracks students from when they enter high school 

to when they leave, and by school year 2007-08 a majority plan to use this 

definition. Thirty-two states used a definition based primarily on the number 

of dropouts over a 4-year period and graduates. The remaining states used 

other definitions. Because the cohort definition is more precise, most states 

not using it planned to do so when their data systems can track students 

over time, a capability many states do not have. Education has assisted 

states primarily on a case-by-case basis, but it has not provided guidance to 

all states on ways to account for selected students, such as for students with 

disabilities, thus creating less consistency among states in how graduation 

rates are calculated. 

States’ Planned Definitions by School Year 2007-08 

Cohort definition Departure classification definition Other definition

Source: GAO review of state accountability plans, NCES Report (NCES 2005-105), and Education's decision letters.

The primary factor affecting the accuracy of graduation rates was student 

mobility. Students who come and go make it difficult to keep accurate 

records. Another factor was whether states verified student data, with fewer 

than half of the states conducting audits of data used to calculate graduation 

rates. Data inaccuracies can substantially raise or lower a school’s 

graduation rate. Education has taken steps to help states address data 

accuracy issues. However, Education officials said that they could not assess 

state systems until they had been in place for a while. Data accuracy is 

critical, particularly since Education is using state data to calculate 

graduation rate estimates to provide consistency across states. 

Many interventions are used to raise graduation rates, but few are rigorously 

evaluated. GAO identified five that had been rigorously evaluated and 

showed potential for improving graduation rates, such as Project GRAD. In 

visits to six states, GAO visited three schools that were using such 

interventions. Other schools GAO visited were using interventions 

considered by experts and officials to show promise and focused on issues 

such as self esteem and literacy at various grades. Education has not acted 

on GAO’s 2002 recommendation that it evaluate intervention research, a 

recommendation the agency agreed with, and has done little to disseminate 

such research.

About a third of students entering 

high school do not graduate and 

face limited job prospects. The No 

Child Left Behind Act requires 

states to use graduation rates to 

measure how well students are 

educated. To assess the accuracy 

of states’ rates and to review 

programs that may increase rates, 

GAO was asked to examine (1) the 

graduation rate definitions states 

use and how the Department of 

Education (Education) helped 

states meet legal requirements, (2) 

the factors that affect the accuracy 

of states’ rates and Education’s role 

in ensuring accurate data, and (3) 

interventions with the potential to 

increase graduation rates and how 

Education enhanced and 

disseminated knowledge of 

intervention research. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends Education 

provide information to all states on 

ways to account for different types 

of students in graduation rate 

calculations, assess the reliability 

of state data used to calculate 

interim rates, and establish a 

timetable to implement the 

recommendation in GAO’s 2002 

report to evaluate research and 

also to disseminate such research. 

Education agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations on accounting 

for different types of students and 

the need for research. On GAO’s 

other recommendation, Education 

noted steps it was taking to assess 

data reliability though it is unclear 

that such steps address data to be 

used for interim rates. 
Page i GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6 

Many States Moving toward Using A Definition That Follows 

Students over Time; Education’s Guidance Regarding NCLBA 

Requirements Is Limited 11 

Several Factors Affected the Accuracy of Graduation Rates, and 

Data Quality Remains a Key Challenge 24 

Few Interventions Have Been Rigorously Evaluated, and Education 

Has Done Little to Evaluate and Disseminate Existing Research 31 

Conclusions 45 

Recommendations for Executive Action 47 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 49 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 53 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58 

Related GAO Products 59 

Bibliography 60 

Tables 

Table 1: Number of States That Allow Schools to Maintain Previous 

Year’s Rate or Show Progress toward Graduation Rate 

Targets to Make AYP, as of July 2005 22 

Table 2: Number of Interventions Visited by School Level and Type 32 

Table 3: Key Features of the Check and Connect Model 34 

Table 4: States Selected for Site Visits and Phone Interviews by 

Purpose 50 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figures 

Figure 1: Student Mobility and Graduation Outcome for a 

Hypothetical High School Class 13 

Figure 2: Cohort Formula Definition 14 

Figure 3: Departure Classification Definition 15 

Figure 4: Definitions by State, as of April 2005, and Planned to Use 

by State, School Year 2007-08 18 

Figure 5: State Graduation Rate Targets, as of July 2005 20 

Figure 6: Estimated School Graduation Rates under Varying 

Assumptions of Errors in Counting Dropouts 28 

Figure 7: Project GRAD Structural Model 35 

Figure 8: Aviation High School Presentation by the Blue Angels 41 

Abbreviations 

AYP Adequate Yearly Progress 

GED General Education Development 

ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages 

HOSTS Help One Student to Succeed 

IASA Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 

NCES National Center for Education Statistics 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

Project GRAD Project Graduation Really Achieves Dreams 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

September 20, 2005 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe 

United States Senate 

About one third of students who enter high school do not graduate and 

face limited job opportunities. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(NCLBA) was passed in part to increase the likelihood that all of the 48 

million students in our nation’s public school systems will graduate and 

requires states to use high school graduation rates, along with test scores, 

to assess how much progress high schools are making in educating their 

students. Graduation rates—used in conjunction with test scores—provide 

a more complete picture of school performance than test scores alone, 

because a school’s test proficiency rate will be higher if low-performing 

students drop out and do not have their scores included with their peers. 

Graduation rates are used as part of the determination about whether 

schools meet federal requirements for school progress. If schools do not 

meet such requirements, their students may be eligible to transfer to 

another school or receive tutoring. Currently, the Department of 

Education (Education), National Governors Association, and several 

national education organizations and foundations are working on high 

school reform initiatives to address issues, such as school structure and 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

curriculum, which may help low-performing students and increase the 

likelihood of graduation. In addition, our 2002 report on high school 

dropouts identified the need for better information on the success of 

interventions designed to increase the likelihood of students staying in 

school until they graduate.1

NCLBA defines graduation rates as the percentage of students who 

graduate from high school with a regular diploma in the standard number 

of years. Education’s regulations do not permit states to count an 

alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the state’s academic 

standards, such as a certificate of attendance or a General Educational 

Development certificate (GED). Each state has flexibility, however, in 

determining how its graduation rate will be specifically calculated as long 

as the rate is, as the law requires, “valid and reliable.” 

In response to congressional requests, we are providing information on: 

(1) the definitions states have developed for graduation rates and how 

Education supports states in meeting the law’s requirements for defining 

and measuring graduation rates; (2) the factors, such as student mobility, 

that affect the accuracy of the data used to calculate graduation rates for 

all students and those in designated groups, and what Education does to 

ensure accuracy of rates reported by states; and (3) what is known about 

the success of interventions with the potential to increase graduation rates 

and how Education has enhanced and disseminated knowledge about 

these practices. 

To address these objectives, we used a variety of methodological 

approaches. We analyzed the plans states were required to submit to 

Education to identify the graduation rate definitions states used and 

graduation rate goals set by states, reviewed updates to plans through July 

2005, and letters from Education to states regarding its decisions about 

state plans and updates. We also surveyed officials in 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico2

 to obtain information about the extent to 

which states verify school and district data used to calculate high school 

graduation rates and use unique student identifiers. We selected and 

 1

GAO, School Dropouts: Education Could Play A Stronger Role in Identifying and 

Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. GAO-02-240 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 

2002). 

2

Hereinafter, the term states will refer collectively to the 50 states plus the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. 
Page 3 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

contacted 20 states for further analysis. States were selected to capture 

variation in high school graduation rate definitions, geographic location, 

and types of interventions with the potential to increase graduation rates. 

We conducted a case study in 1 state to calculate graduation rates; site 

visits in 3 states to review data accuracy; site visits in 6 states to observe 

interventions and interview staff at 16 schools; and phone interviews in all 

20 states to obtain information on definitions used, implementation status, 

and guidance provided. To identify which interventions have the potential 

to increase graduation rates, we reviewed the research on interventions 

and interviewed Education officials and dropout prevention experts. We 

also reviewed available evaluations of the types of interventions we 

observed to assess their findings and methodological approaches. To 

determine how Education assists states, we reviewed Education 

regulations, guidance, and other documents and interviewed Education 

and state agency officials. We also interviewed Education and state 

officials to determine the degree to which Education has enhanced and 

disseminated knowledge about interventions. To determine the extent to 

which reported dropout rates may be understated, we interviewed experts 

in this area and reviewed research on the topic. Finally, we interviewed 

officials from the National Governors Association, national education 

organizations, and other experts in the area of high school graduation 

rates and reviewed related research to obtain an understanding of the 

issues surrounding these rates and high school reform efforts to address 

them. For a more detailed explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. 

We conducted our work between September 2004 and July 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

A majority of states used or planned to use a graduation rate definition, 

referred to as the “cohort” definition, which follows a group of students 

over time from when they entered high school until they left. Education 

has assisted states; however, it has not provided guidance on ways to 

account for certain students. The cohort definition, used by 12 states as of 

spring 2005, compares the number of 12th grade graduates with the 

number of students enrolled as 9th graders 4 years earlier, while also 

taking into account the number of students who left the school, such as 

those who transferred in and out. Thirty-two states used a definition of 

high school graduation rate based primarily on the number of dropouts 

over a 4-year period and graduates, referred to as the “departure 

classification definition.” The remaining eight states used a variety of other 

definitions. Many states using the departure or other definitions are 

planning to move to the cohort definition by school year 2007-08 or when 

their data systems can accommodate its use. This definition may help 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

schools provide more precise graduation rates; however, it requires data 

systems that can track students or groups of students over time. Most 

states used these definitions to set graduation rate targets (for example, 80 

percent a year). Although states generally set numerical targets, many 

considered a school as meeting state graduation rate requirements if the 

school showed progress toward these targets. The progress states allowed 

generally ranged from any progress up to 1 percent, with two states 

allowing schools to maintain the graduation rate of the previous year. 

Education has supported states’ efforts to develop definitions that are 

intended to produce more precise results, developed some guidance, and 

provided support such as on-site peer reviews, conferences, and 

information on its Web site. Education also commissioned a task force 

that published a report identifying the advantages and disadvantages of 

different definitions. States also encountered challenges in resolving 

common issues, such as how to account for students with disabilities who 

graduate with a regular diploma in more than the standard number of 

years based on their Individualized Education Plans. Education has not 

provided guidance to all states on how to account for students in such 

programs; instead, Education’s approach has been to provide such 

information to states on a case-by-case basis. As a result, some states were 

not aware of the modifications available to count such students in their 

graduation calculation, and there is less consistency among states, even 

those using similar definitions, in how their rates are calculated. 

Difficulty tracking mobile student populations was the primary factor 

affecting the accuracy of graduation rates; while Education has taken 

some steps to help states address this challenge, concerns about data 

accuracy still exist. According to state, school district, and school officials 

and experts we interviewed, the more that a school’s students come and 

go, the more challenging it is for a school to maintain accurate records on 

whether students leave school by transferring or dropping out. Other 

factors—such as the degree to which states verify school and district 

data—also affect the accuracy of graduation rates. For example, fewer 

than half of the states reported conducting audits that verify these data. 

Data inaccuracies, such as miscounting the number of dropouts, can 

significantly raise or lower a school’s reported graduation rate. Because 

most states were in the process of adopting a different graduation rate 

definition, Education officials told us that they could not examine the 

reliability of the data used to calculate such rates until after the new 

definitions had been in place for multiple years. Such time would allow 

them to determine if the rates produced consistent results. Also, 

Education enhanced its state monitoring by adding a review component to 

examine data states used for graduation rates, among other aspects of 
Page 5 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

states’ participation in the Title I program. Furthermore, in response to 

recommendations from GAO and Education’s Inspector General, the 

agency contracted with a firm to develop a guide by the end of 2005 to 

help states improve data collection processes. In July 2005, Education 

announced that it planned to calculate and report interim graduation rate 

estimates for each state to provide a nationwide perspective. However, in 

our review we found that data problems exist, and it is unclear whether 

the department’s monitoring efforts are sufficient for states to provide 

accurate data for Education’s estimates. 

Few of the interventions that states and school districts have implemented 

to increase high school graduation rates have been rigorously evaluated, 

and Education has done little to evaluate and disseminate existing 

knowledge about effective interventions. We identified five interventions 

that had been rigorously evaluated and showed potential for improving 

graduation rates. In our visits to six states we visited three schools that 

were using such interventions. For example, Check and Connect, an 

intensive mentoring program, showed increased levels of educational 

attainment for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. 

Another program, Project GRAD, a comprehensive kindergarten-to-12 

reform program, demonstrated some promise in improving test scores and 

graduation rates. In addition to the programs we visited, recently 

completed rigorous evaluations of two other programs, the Talent 

Development High School Model and First Things First, suggest that these 

interventions may also increase graduation rates. Most other programs we 

visited fell into one of three categories—restructuring schools, providing 

supplemental services, such as tutoring, and creating alternative learning 

environments—similar to findings in our 2002 report on high school 

dropouts. While these had not been rigorously evaluated, research and 

program officials noted some promising results that may lead to improving 

student outcomes including high school graduation. With the NCLBA 

requirement that interventions be research-based, there is a need in the 

education community for additional scientifically based research. 

However, Education’s efforts to evaluate and disseminate existing 

knowledge on interventions have been minimal. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Education develop 

approaches to provide information on how to account for different types 

of students to all states rather than providing this information on a stateby-state basis and assess the reliability of data submitted by states that 

Education plans to use to develop interim graduation rates. We are also 

recommending that the Secretary establish a timetable to carry out the 

recommendation in our 2002 report regarding evaluating research on 
Page 6 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

dropout interventions, including those that focus on increasing graduation 

rates, and that the Secretary disseminate research on programs shown to 

be effective in increasing graduation rates. In comments on a draft of this 

report, Education concurred with our recommendations about accounting 

for different types of students and the need for evaluating and 

disseminating research on dropout interventions. On our recommendation 

to assess the reliability of data submitted by states, Education noted that it 

was taking steps to assess data reliability; however, it is not clear that 

these steps apply to data that Education plans to use to calculate interim 

rates.

Despite the increasing importance of a high school education, only an 

estimated two thirds of students graduate from high schools nationwide. 

Students in certain subgroups, such as the economically disadvantaged 

and certain racial and ethnic groups, have historically graduated from high 

school at substantially lower rates than their peers. Students who do not 

graduate from high school are at a serious disadvantage compared to their 

peers who do. They are much less likely to obtain good jobs or attend 

college. The NCLBA includes several requirements for states to improve 

school and student performance, including measuring high school 

graduation rates. 

NCLBA expanded the requirements of the Improving America’s Schools 

Act of 1994 (IASA) for states, school districts, and schools to demonstrate 

that their students are making adequate progress toward their state’s 

academic goals. IASA required testing in each of three grade spans to 

determine whether a school made adequate yearly progress (AYP). NCLBA 

requires, by the 2005-06 school year, that annual tests in math and reading 

be administered to students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school; 

by 2007-08, students must also be tested in science. In order to make AYP, 

schools are to show that increasing numbers of students reach the 

proficient level on state tests and that every student is proficient by 2014. 

NCLBA also designated specific groups of students for particular focus. 

These four groups are students who (1) are economically disadvantaged, 

(2) represent major racial and ethnic groups, (3) have disabilities, and (4) 

are limited in English proficiency.3

 For a school to make AYP, its student 

 3

Students with disabilities refers to students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Improvement Act of 2004, the primary law that addresses the unique educational 

needs of children with disabilities. 

Background 

NCLBA Requirements 
Page 7 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

body as a whole and each of the student groups must, at a minimum, meet 

the state targets for testing proficiency. 

Under NCLBA, schools must also use at least one other academic 

indicator, in addition to annual tests, to measure AYP. High schools must 

use graduation rate as one of their other academic indicators. The law 

defines graduation rate as the percentage of students who graduate from 

secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years. 

Education officials told us that standard number of years is determined by 

a state and is generally based on the structure of the school. For example, 

a high school with grades 9 through 12 would have 4 as its standard 

number of years while a school with grades 10 through 12 would have 3 as 

its standard number of years. 

NCLBA regulations specifically require a high school, in order to make 

AYP, to meet or exceed its other academic indicators, including what the 

state has set as the graduation rate for public high schools. NCLBA does 

not specify a minimum graduation rate that states must set. States have 

used a variety of methods to measure AYP on their graduation rate 

indicator. For example, states have set graduation rate targets or goals or 

have allowed schools to show progress toward a target or goal as a way 

for schools to meet the graduation rate indicator requirement. The law 

does not require states to increase their graduation rate over time. 

The law requires states to demonstrate that their definitions produce 

graduation rates that are valid and reliable. A valid rate would be one that 

measures what it intends to measure. A reliable rate is one which, with 

repeated data collections and calculations, produces the same result each 

time such collections and calculations are performed. A key aspect of the 

reliability of graduation rates is the quality of the data used to calculate 

them. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Education’s 

chief statistical agency, has funded a document that describes the 

following dimensions for ensuring that data are of high quality: 

• Accuracy. The information must be correct and complete. Data entry 

procedures must be reliable to ensure that a report will have the same 

information regardless of who fills it out. 

• Security. The confidentiality of student and staff records must be ensured 

and data must be safe. 

• Utility. The data must provide the right information to answer the 

question asked. 
Page 8 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

• Timeliness. Deadlines are discussed, and data are entered in a timely 

manner.4

This document suggests that school staff members are responsible for 

entering data accurately and completely and maintaining data security. It 

provides ideas for assisting staff to accomplish these tasks, such as 

sharing best practices with a peer and implementing school-district 

policies on data security, such as changing passwords frequently. 

If schools receiving funding under Title I, Part A of the act do not make 

AYP—including meeting the state’s requirements for graduation rates—for 

2 consecutive years or more, they are “identified for improvement.” They 

must take certain actions such as offering parents an opportunity to 

transfer students to a school that had made AYP (school choice). If these 

schools continue not to make AYP, they must take additional actions, such 

as providing supplemental services to students—including transportation, 

tutoring, and training.5

 States and school districts are required to provide 

funding for such actions up to a maximum specified in law. However, 

according to Education officials, most high schools do not receive Title I 

funding, and therefore, if these schools do not make AYP, they are not 

required to take improvement actions, such as offering school choice or 

supplemental services. However, NCLBA requires each school district 

receiving Title I funds to prepare a report card that must contain 

graduation rates for high school students and is available to the public. 

Education has responsibility for general oversight of Title I of NCLBA. As 

part of its oversight effort, Education has implemented the Student 

Achievement and School Accountability Program for monitoring each 

states’ administration of Title I programs. This monitoring effort was 

designed to provide regular and systematic reviews and evaluations of 

how states provide assistance in terms of funding, resources, and guidance 

to school districts to ensure that they administer and implement programs 

in accordance with the law. Monitoring is conducted on a 3-year cycle and 

 4

U.S. Department of Education. National Forum on Education Statistics, Forum Guide to 

Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource, NFES 2005-801 

(Washington, D.C.: 2004). 

5

Schools designated as in need of improvement under the IASA had their designation carry 

over after NCLBA took effect. Also, schools receiving students through the school choice 

option must not be identified for improvement. 

Education’s 

Responsibilities 
Page 9 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

addresses high school graduation rates among other requirements. Teams 

of federal officials visit state offices, interview state officials, and review 

documentation on how states comply with federal law and regulations. 

NCLBA also requires the Secretary of Education to report to the Congress 

annually regarding state progress in implementing various requirements, 

including the number of schools identified for improvement. Education 

has required states to report their graduation rates for the state as a whole 

and for designated student groups. 

All states submitted plans to Education as required under NCLBA, which 

were to include their definitions of graduation rates. By June 2003, 

Education reviewed and approved all state plans, including their 

definitions of graduation rates and their statements regarding how such 

rates were valid and reliable. Education provided many states with 

approval to use a definition of their choosing until they are able to develop 

ones that better meet the law’s requirements for defining and measuring 

graduation rates. Education has also reviewed and approved many 

amendments to plans submitted by states, including those that make 

changes to the state’s definition of its graduation rate. 

Additionally, NCES commissioned a task force to review issues about 

definitions, data, and implementation. In its report, the Task Force 

discussed the data challenges faced by states in calculating their 

graduation rates.6

 Regarding data used to measure student performance 

generally, GAO and Education’s Inspector General have commented on 

the importance of data accuracy.7

To attempt to improve graduation rates in high schools or keep students 

from dropping out of school, Education, state governments, school 

districts, schools, and foundations have funded or implemented various 

interventions to address the educational needs of students. Such 

 6

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National 

Institute of Statistical Sciences / Education Statistics Services Institute Task Force on 

Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Indicators, NCES 2005-105 (Washington, D.C.: 

2004). 

7

GAO, Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States’ Scoring of Assessments, GAO-02-393, 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2002) and Title I Program: Stronger Accountability Needed for 

Performance of Disadvantaged Students, GAO/HEHS-00-89, (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 

2000). U. S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Department of 

Education Management Challenges (November 2004). 

Dropout Prevention 
Page 10 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

interventions are based on the idea that many factors influence a student’s 

decision to drop out of school, such as low grades, socio-economic 

challenges, and disciplinary problems. These factors may be evident as 

early as elementary school, and therefore some interventions are designed 

for these students. 

During the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, Education supported 

dropout prevention programs across the country. In an attempt to 

determine which programs effectively reduced the drop out rate, 

Education conducted several evaluations of these programs. The largest of 

these was the evaluation of the second phase (1991 to 1996) of the School 

Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. This evaluation looked at 

more than 20 dropout prevention programs including school within a 

school, alternative middle and high schools, restructuring initiatives, 

tutoring programs, and GED programs. While two of these programs 

showed promise in reducing dropout rates—alternative high schools and 

middle schools—the major finding was that most programs did not reduce 

dropping out.8

In our 2002 report, we identified three intervention approaches to prevent 

students from dropping out of school:9

• Restructuring schools. This approach modifies a school or all schools in 

a district through such initiatives as curriculum reform or dividing schools 

into smaller, more individualized learning communities. 

• Providing supplemental services. This approach provides additional 

services such as tutoring or mentoring in language and math; interventions 

attempt to raise student academic achievement and self esteem.10

 8

Dynarski, Mark and Philip Gleason, How Can We Help? What We Have Learned from 

Evaluations of Federal Dropout Prevention Programs? A Research Report from the School 

Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program Evaluation (Princeton, New Jersey: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998). 

9

The following two approaches we identified—restructuring and supplemental services—

do not refer to the specific restructuring and supplemental services provisions in the 

NCLBA. Instead, these approaches include those that are more diverse and include a 

variety of different intervention practices that states and districts are attempting. 

10These included literacy programs, which, although not specifically discussed in our 2002 

report, are also examples of how these approaches can be implemented. 
Page 11 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

• Creating alternative learning environments. These interventions 

target at-risk students and attempt to create personalized learning 

environments, such as career academies that focus the entire school 

around a specific career theme. 

However, our 2002 report found that additional research was needed to 

document which interventions were particularly successful for certain 

groups of students. Education agreed that additional rigorous evidence is 

needed and that it would consider commissioning a systematic review of 

the literature. 

A majority of states used or planned to use a graduation rate definition 

based on the group of students entering high school who graduate on time, 

referred to as the cohort definition. Education has assisted states, 

approved their graduation rate definitions, and given some states more 

time to develop planned definitions intended to produce more precise 

results. However, states faced challenges in resolving common data issues 

and in providing information on how to modify definitions to better 

account for certain students, such as for those with disabilities. 

According to state plans, 12 states used a definition that followed a group 

of students over time from when they entered high school until they left—

referred to as the cohort definition. An additional 18 states using other 

definitions planned to adopt the cohort definition no later than the 2007-08 

school year.11 The cohort definition compares the number of 12th grade 

graduates with a standard diploma, with the number of students enrolled 

as 9th graders 4 years earlier, while also taking into account those who left 

the cohort, such as those who transferred in and out.12 A study 

 11In July 2005 governors of 47 states signed a compact agreeing to adopt the National 

Governors Association’s recommended cohort-based graduation rate formula in order to 

develop a comparable graduation rate definition. However, our analysis was based on the 

state plans rather than on this agreement. 

12States may either track individual students from a 9th grade cohort or approximate a 

cohort, such as by estimating the number of students who enter the 9th grade and who 

transfer in and out. 

Many States Moving 

toward Using A 

Definition That 

Follows Students over 

Time; Education’s 

Guidance Regarding 

NCLBA Requirements 

Is Limited 

A Majority of States Used 

or Planned to Use a 

Definition That Follows 

Students over Time 
Page 12 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

commissioned by NCES found that a cohort definition designed to track 

individual students over time—from when they enter high school until 

they leave—could result in a more precise high school graduation rate 

than one calculated with other definitions.13 The data in figure 1 show a 

hypothetical high school class from the time students enrolled in 9th grade 

until they graduated with a standard diploma, including those who 

dropped out, transferred, received alternative degrees, continued in 

school, or took 5 years to graduate. 

 13U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National 

Institute of Statistical Sciences / Education Statistics Services Institute Task Force on 

Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Indicators, NCES 2005-105 (Washington, D.C.: 

2004). 
Page 13 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 1: Student Mobility and Graduation Outcome for a Hypothetical High School 

Class 

If the school was in a state that used the cohort definition and considered 

4 years to be on-time graduation, its graduation rate would be 60 percent. 

The 60 percent figure comes from using the number of students who 

started (100), the net number of transfers over the 4 years, and the number 

who graduate in 4 years (60).14 Figure 2 shows the formula of the cohort 

definition. The year students in the cohort graduate is denoted by “y,” 

 14For the purposes of simplifying this example, we set the number of net transfers over the 

4-year period at zero. We recognize that cohorts likely would have some number of net 

transfers. 

20 drop out 5 repeated 9th grade

30 transfer in

20 transfer in

10 transfer

out

10 transfer in

20 transfer 

out

5 receive an 

alternative 

certificate 9th grade

10th grade

11th grade

12th grade

10 students

Source: GAO example.

30 transfer out

10 drop out

100

9th grade

10th grade

11th grade

12th grade

60 graduate in 4 years { 5 graduate in 5 years }

 65 graduate
Page 14 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

while “T” signifies the net number of students who transfer in and out in 

any given year. The cohort definitions actually used by states may vary 

somewhat from the basic definition. For example, Kansas used dropout 

and transfer data in its definition. Additionally, some states track 

individual students, while others track groups of students based on the 

entering 9th grade cohort. 

Figure 2: Cohort Formula Definition 

According to state plans, 32 states used a definition of high school 

graduation rate, referred to as the departure classification definition, 

based primarily on the number of dropouts over a 4-year period and 

graduates. Essentially, this definition looks back from a 12th grade class at 

those who (1) graduated (regardless of when they started high school), 

(2) dropped out in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades (including those who 

enrolled in GED programs) and (3) did not graduate, but received some 

form of alternative completion certificate.15 So, using this definition, the 

data from the high school shown in figure 1 would result in a graduation 

rate of 65 percent. The 65 percent figure comes from using the number of 

 15Ten of these states consider students receiving alternative certificates separately from 

dropouts, while the remaining 22 states count them as dropouts in their definitions. NCES 

calculates a high school graduation rate using only diploma recipients as graduates and 

excluding other high school completers, such as those who earned a certificate of 

attendance and GED certificates. It also calculates a “high school completer rate” using 

diploma recipients and other high school completers, except GED recipients, as 

completers. 

G = high school graduates: Students from an entering freshman class who receive a standard diploma for completion of a public 

secondary education program within 4 years of starting ninth grade.

E = Entering cohort: Number of students who started high school (i.e., ninth grade) in year y-3. Cohort membership (m) is defined 

as individuals who were enrolled for the first time in a particular grade (9) at a given point in time (y-3) within a public school 

system (e.g., school, district).

T = Net transfers into cohort: Net number of students who joined the cohort after taking into account students who transferred 

into the cohort and those who transferred out.

HSGR = high school graduation rate

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (modified by GAO).

Eym + Tym,12 + Ty–1m,11 + Ty–2m,10 + Ty–2m,9

Gym HSGRym = 100 + 0 – 10 + 10 + 0

60 = = 60 percent
Page 15 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

students who graduated (65), the number who received an alternative 

certificate (5), and the number who dropped out (30), as shown in Figure 

3. Unlike the cohort definition, this definition does not take into 

consideration the number of students entering high school 4 years earlier. 

As noted earlier, some of these states (13) planned to adopt the cohort 

definition by school year 2007-08. 

Figure 3: Departure Classification Definition 

The departure classification definition includes students who drop out. 

Each of the “D” designations refers to the number of dropouts during one 

year. For example “D y-2g10” stands for the number of students who 

dropped out in the 10th grade. 

Prior to NCLBA, many states had been using a similar version of this 

formula, which NCES developed in collaboration with several states. 

However, earlier definitions used by states may have also included as 

graduates those who receive GED certificates. Under NCLBA, Education 

required states to modify the formula so that GED recipients were not 

counted as graduates. 

Different data systems accommodated the use of different definitions. The 

departure classification definition allowed many states to continue using 

existing data systems, according to Education officials. Such systems 

generally collect aggregate data, rather than data at the student level. The 

cohort definition generally requires states to implement a state-level 

student tracking system, often with a mechanism that can uniquely 

G = high school graduates: Students receiving a standard diploma for completion of a public secondary education program in 

year y. Excludes other program completion credentials offered in lieu of a standard diploma and equivalency credentials (e.g., 

GED).

A = alternative high school completers: Students completing a public secondary education program in year y without receiving 

a standard diploma. Includes certificate of attendance, special education diploma.

D = high school dropouts: Students in grade g who leave school during year y and have not graduated from high school or 

completed a state- or district-approved secondary educational program. Includes noncompleters and GED recipients and 

enrollees. 

HSGR = high school graduation rate

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (modified by GAO).

HSGRy = Gy + Ay + Dy,g12 + Dy-1,g11 + Dy-2,g10 + Dy-3,g9 

Gy

65 + 5 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 20

65 = = 65 percent
Page 16 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

identify each student. Such a system identifies students in the 9th grade 

and tracks them throughout high school, indicating whether they graduate, 

transfer or drop out. This system also allows for students who transfer 

into a school to be placed in the proper cohort. 

The more specific information required by the cohort definition may result 

in the calculation of more precise graduation rates than those produced by 

the departure classification definition. Since the cohort definition follows 

students entering high school, either by individual students or groups of 

students, it can better be used to include only on-time graduates. However, 

how it is implemented may affect the level of precision of the rate 

calculated. Tracking individual students may result in a more precise rate 

than tracking groups of students. 

In our analysis of one state’s school year 2002-03 data, we found that the 

variations in data collection and calculations between the two types of 

definitions, produced different graduation rates. Our analysis showed that 

the departure classification definition produced a graduation rate that was 

12 percent greater than when we used the cohort definition.16 Because the 

departure classification definition does not track the entering cohort, it 

does not account for students who were held back, and therefore 

differences may result. Our findings are consistent with observations made 

by other researchers that show differences in graduation rates based on 

the definition used.17 In addition, NCES plans to complete a study this year 

that examines high school graduation rate definitions and how rates differ 

depending on the definition used. 

According to state plans, the remaining eight states that did not use either 

a departure classification or cohort definition used a variety of other 

 16We followed the state’s version of the cohort definition, which used dropout rates and not 

transfers. The basic cohort definition (fig. 2) accounts for the original number of students 

in the cohort plus transfers, while the state’s version accounts for dropouts. 

17See for example, Greene, J. P. Public School Graduation rates in the United States (New 

York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 2002), http://www.manhattaninstitute.org/pdf/cr_31.pdf (downloaded June 21, 2005); and Swanson, Christopher B.

Keeping Count and Losing Count: Calculating Graduation Rates for All Students under 

NCLB Accountability (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2003), 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410843 (downloaded June 21, 2005). 
Page 17 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

definitions. Five of these states plan to adopt cohort definitions no later 

than 2007-08.18

Figure 4 shows the definitions each state used as April 2005 and planned 

to use by school year 2007-08. 

 18For example, one state’s graduation rate definition divides the number of graduates by the 

number of 12th graders at the beginning of the school year. This definition does not take 

into consideration the number of students who dropped out in earlier years, resulting in a 

higher graduation rate than would have been produced using a definition that considered 

such students. In contrast, 2 states used a dropout rate definition that divides the number 

of dropouts in grades 9 through 12 by the number of students enrolled in those grades for 

the current year. 
Page 18 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 4: Definitions by State, as of April 2005, and Planned to Use by State, School 

Year 2007-08 

Panel A: Definitions by State, April 2005 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz. Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak. Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va. Ky.

Source: GAO review of state accountability plans and NCES report (NCES 2005-105).

S.C.

Tenn.

Puerto Rico

Cohort definition (12)

Other definition (8)

Departure classification definition (32)
Page 19 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Panel B: Definitions by State, Planned for School Year 2007-08 

Most states set graduation rate targets, and many allowed schools to show 

progress toward these targets as a way for schools to make AYP. NCLBA 

requires that states set a graduation rate indicator. Most states have set 

such rates to help determine which schools make AYP. Additionally, many 

states allow schools to make AYP even if their graduation rates are not as 

high as the state’s required rate, so long as the school shows progress 

toward the required rate. States’ graduation rate targets ranged from 50 

percent in Nevada to 100 percent in South Carolina, with about half at 80 

percent or greater, as shown in figure 5. 

Most States Allowed 

Schools to Show Progress 

toward State Graduation 

Rate Targets in Order to 

Meet Graduation Rate 

Requirements 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz. Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak. Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va. Ky.

Cohort definition (30)

Other definition (3)

Departure classification definition (19)

Source: GAO review of state accountability plans, NCES report (NCES 2005-105), and Education's decision letters.

S.C.

Tenn.

Puerto Rico
Page 20 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 5: State Graduation Rate Targets, as of July 2005 

State

Graduation (in percent)

Source: State plans on Education’s Web site as of July 7, 2005, with exceptions (see notes).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mich.

R.I.

Ky.

Del.

Vt.

Kans.

Hawaii

Ariz.

Miss.

Tex.

Okla.

Conn.

Ore.

Ill.

Wash.

D.C.

Maine

Va.

Ga.

Alaska

Colo.

Nev

N.Y.

.
Page 21 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Notes: These state graduation rate targets were drawn from state plans on Education’s Web site 

(http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) as of July 7, 2005, for all states 

except Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. Education provided information on 

these states. 

This figure includes only those states that were using graduation rates at the time of our review. 

States that used other rates, such as dropout rates, were not included. These states are Arkansas, 

Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Florida is also not included in this chart because 

its requirement is that schools show a one percent annual increase in their graduation rates. 

Valid comparisons of graduation rate targets across states cannot be 

made, in part, because of differences in rates used. For example, Alabama 

and North Carolina both had targets of 90 percent graduation rates. 

However, Alabama arrived at its target by using a departure classification 

definition that accounted for dropouts, while North Carolina used a 

definition that did not account for dropouts. 

According to state plans, 36 states considered their schools as meeting 

their graduation rate requirements if the schools increased their 

graduation rates from the previous year, known as “showing progress.” In 

addition, two states allowed their schools to meet such requirements if 

S.C.

Tenn.

S.Dak.

Ohio

N.C.

N.Mex.

Iowa

Idaho

Ala.

N.Dak.

Utah

Mo.

Wisc.

Calif.

Nebr.

Wyo.

Md.

W.Va.

N.H.

Pa.

P.R.

Minn.

Mont.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Page 22 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

they maintained the previous year’s rates. A majority of states that allowed 

progress as a way for schools to demonstrate they met state graduation 

rate requirements had set no minimum rate of progress. We found 

instances in which very little progress, less than 1 percent, enabled a 

school to meet such requirements. Table 1 shows the number of states that 

allow schools to show progress toward the state goals as a means of 

meeting state graduation rate requirements, for all states as of the time we 

completed our review. 

Table 1: Number of States That Allow Schools to Maintain Previous Year’s Rate or Show Progress toward Graduation Rate 

Targets to Make AYP, as of July 2005 

 Progress must be of a specific amount 

Maintain previous 

year’s rate 

Any progress 

allowed 0.1 percent 1 percent Othera

Total

Number of statesb 2 28 3 4 1 38

Source: State plans on Education’s Web site as of July 7, 2005, with exceptions (see note). 

Note: This information was drawn from state plans found on Education’s Web site. 

(http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) as of July 7, 2005, for all states 

except Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Puerto Rico. Education provided information for 

these states.

a

Reduce the difference between the actual and target rate by 10 percent over a 2-year period. 

b

This table does not include 14 states—the 5 states that did not use a graduation rate (but instead 

used a different rate, such as a dropout rate), and the 9 states that did not allow schools to show 

progress toward the state graduation rate target to make AYP, but instead required the schools to 

meet the target. 

By showing progress toward state graduation rate targets, schools can still 

make AYP even though they do not meet target rates.19 For example, our 

analysis of one state’s data from the 2002-03 school year showed that 46 

out of 444 high schools made AYP by increasing their graduation rates 

toward the state graduation rate target of 66 percent rather than by 

meeting or exceeding this target. Specifically, these schools met or 

exceeded the state’s requirement for 1 percentage point progress in 

increasing the graduation rate, even though the schools were below the 66 

percent target. Another 232 schools made AYP for the year by meeting or 

exceeding the target of 66 percent. 

In addition, allowing schools to use progress as the NCLBA graduation 

rate indicator could result in schools making AYP annually, while not 

 19These schools would make AYP, assuming they also met the testing requirements. 
Page 23 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

meeting state graduation rate targets for decades, if at all. For example, a 

hypothetical school with a graduation rate of 56 percent can meet the state 

high school graduation indicator by increasing its graduation rate by 0.1 

percent each year. At this rate, the school would not make the state 

graduation rate target of 66 percent for 100 years. 

Education provided states with assistance with their graduation rate 

definitions; however, Education’s guidance did not specify modifications 

available to account for certain types of students. To help states with their 

definitions, Education developed some guidance and provided support 

such as on-site peer reviews, conferences, and information posted on its 

Web site. Education also commissioned a task force that published a 

report identifying the advantages and disadvantages of different 

definitions. In addition, Education officials told us they granted states time 

to develop definitions that met the law’s requirements better for defining 

and measuring graduation rates. 

Education has provided information on how to account for students in 

special programs and students with disabilities to states that have 

requested it. Education’s approach has been to provide such information 

on a case-by-case basis rather than to all states. Education officials stated 

that they preferred to work with each state’s specific circumstances. 

However, we found that issues raised, such as students enrolled in 5-year 

programs, were common to many states.20 States varied in how they 

included students enrolled in these programs in their graduation rate 

definitions. For example, one state counted students in 5 year programs 

who graduated as dropouts until it received approval to count them as 

graduates. Another state planned to count such students as graduates 

without requesting approval to do so. Officials in that state said that since 

it was unclear what the actual requirements for counting graduates were, 

they were doing what they believed was allowable under the law. Without 

guidance on how to account for students in special programs and students 

with disabilities, there is less consistency among states in how students in 

these programs are included in graduation rates. 

 20This issue is relevant because the number of states that had such a college component is 

growing. For example, 19 states had Early College High Schools as of September 2004 and 

25 were projected to as of 2005. These high schools are designed so that students can 

receive 2 years of college credit at the same time as they earn a high school diploma—up to 

5 years after starting 9th grade. 

Education’s Guidance Did 

Not Specify Modifications 

Available to Account for 

Certain Students 
Page 24 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Education also has not provided information to all states on how their 

definitions can be modified to better accommodate students with 

disabilities. State plans in 16 of the 52 states indicated that Education 

approved these states to allow students with disabilities more than the 

standard number of years to graduate based on the number of years in 

their Individualized Education Plans.21 In the 20 states we contacted, we 

found that they varied in whether they sought approval from Education on 

how to include students with disabilities in their graduation rate 

definitions. For example, six of the states we contacted had sought 

approval from Education to include students with disabilities who need 

more than the standard number of years to graduate in their graduation 

rate definitions. In contrast, officials in seven other states contacted told 

us they did not seek approval for the same issue. Officials in the remaining 

seven states provided no information on this topic or said it did not apply 

to them. 

State, school district, and school officials and experts we interviewed 

reported several factors that affect the accuracy of data used to calculate 

graduation rates, especially student mobility. While Education has taken 

steps to assist states and districts in improving the quality of their data, the 

Department has not reviewed the accuracy of all states’ data, because, at 

the time of our review, many states were in the process of implementing 

new definitions, data collection strategies, or both. 

Officials in six schools, three school districts, and three states we visited 

and several experts we interviewed cited challenges in tracking student 

mobility, the key factor in calculating accurate high school graduation 

rates. Some inaccuracies may lead to the reporting of lower graduation 

rates, such as recording all students with “unknown” status as dropouts or 

counting students who drop out, return to school, and then drop out again 

as a dropout each time, as may happen in schools in states that use the 

departure classification definition. Other inaccuracies may lead to the 

 21As of July 2005, Education stated that it had received requests from 5 additional states to 

consider those students with disabilities who receive a regular diploma as graduates, but 

take additional years. Education also received requests from 4 states for similar 

consideration for Limited English Proficient students. The remaining plans did not include 

or did not address this topic. 

Several Factors 

Affected the Accuracy 

of Graduation Rates, 

and Data Quality 

Remains a Key 

Challenge 

Several Factors, Especially 

Student Mobility, 

Compromise the Accuracy 

of Data Used to Calculate 

High School Graduation 

Rates 
Page 25 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

reporting of higher graduation rates, such as schools’ recording students 

who drop out as transfers. This may occur when school staff record such 

students as transfers before they receive documentation that the student 

actually enrolled in a different school.22 Since the number of dropouts 

counts against a school in calculating its graduation rate in many states, 

schools that record such students as transfers—because they were 

unaware that the students had actually dropped out—may be reporting 

inflated graduation rates.23

A second factor that affects data accuracy is how staff members 

understand and follow policies and procedures for recording students as 

transfers to other schools. For example, staff members in schools in two 

states reported that they electronically record a student as having 

transferred to another school on the day that student withdraws from their 

schools. However, the policy in these states is that a student is to be 

recorded as having transferred only upon receiving a request for records 

from the school to which the student transfers. In one of these schools, 

staff assigned to record student data reported contradictory practices and 

beliefs about state policy regarding when to record a student as a transfer. 

One staff member stated that the policy and her practice was to record the 

student as a transfer upon receiving the records request while another 

staff member said that no such policy existed and that she recorded the 

student as a transfer on the day of withdrawal. Therefore, how a student 

transferring out the school was counted depended on which staff member 

recorded the student’s data. 

The accuracy of data may be further compromised when schools have 

large numbers of students who transfer in a given year because the more 

students come and go, the more difficult it is for schools to accurately 

account for them. Some schools are in areas where families tend to move 

more frequently. For example, officials in one school we visited near an 

Army base reported that their school had an enrollment of about 1,200 

students and that 187 students had left the school by December of the 

 22For example, research has shown that this is particularly true for students with 

disabilities. See Wagner, Mary, Dropouts with Disabilities: What Do We Know? What Can 

We Do? (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 1991), a report based on the National 

Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. According to the author, a 

second phase of the study is under way, and data collected as of June 2005 have shown that 

this continues to be the case. 

23States were required to provide an assurance that students who drop out would not be 

counted as transfers. 
Page 26 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

academic year. The status of 19 of those 187 students was recorded as 

“unknown” because of difficulty in maintaining contact with these 

families. The policy in that state was for students whose status is 

“unknown” (because they could not be contacted) to be counted as 

dropouts, even if, in fact, the student had transferred to another school. 

Staff in another school reported the presence of several children from 

another country. Their experience has been that these particular students 

report plans to return to their country of origin, but they often do not 

know the status of these students once they leave the school. The school’s 

procedure is to record such students as having an “unknown” status, and 

these are eventually counted as dropouts, unless another school requests 

their records. Research has shown higher mobility rates among certain 

subgroups of students compared to all other students, including those who 

are African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and those classified as 

having limited English proficiency and as children from migrant families.24

Consequently, schools with higher concentrations of these subgroups 

would likely report less accurate graduation rates. 

Another factor affecting the accuracy of graduation rate data is the 

absence of state audits or verification checks. For example, in our survey 

of state officials, over half (27) reported that their states did not audit the 

data received from local officials that the state used to calculate high 

school graduation rates. The lack of such auditing or verification implies 

that states were likely to be unaware of the extent of certain errors in 

data—such as students’ indicating they were transferring to another 

school but not actually doing so—and consequently were unable to ensure 

that data they received from schools and districts were accurate. Officials 

in only one of the six schools we visited reported that their data on 

student transfers had been audited or verified by an outside party, leaving 

the accuracy of transfer data in the other schools uncertain. 

A fourth factor that contributes to challenges in assuring accurate data is 

the lack of a unique identifier for each student. In our survey, officials in 

22 states reported that their state did not have a unique identifier for each 

of their students. Concerns about using student identifiers include the cost 

 24Rumberger, Russell, and Scott Thomas, “The Distribution of Dropout and Turnover Rates 

among Urban and Suburban High Schools,” Sociology of Education, vol. 73, no. 1 (2000): 

39-67. Kerbow, David. “Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform.” 

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 1, no. 2 (1996): 147-169. GAO. 

Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their 

Education,. GAO/HEHS-94-45 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 1994). 
Page 27 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

of implementing data systems that support such identifiers and privacy 

issues. The lack of a unique identifier for students made it difficult to 

obtain accurate data. Officials in one state that did not use unique 

identifiers stated that they had to compute graduation rates based on 

aggregating student data and as a result, they could not track on-time 

graduates. Officials in another state estimated that they were only 90 

percent accurate in identifying students, because, without a unique 

identifier for each student, they had to use other information. Using this 

information, such as the student’s name or birth date, can lead to 

identifying more than one student with the same characteristics, resulting 

in inaccurate data used in calculating graduation rates. 

A fifth factor we found that may affect data accuracy is variation in 

security and accountability practices. For example, we found that while 

some schools restricted the ability to change student enrollment 

information (such as transfers) to one or two people in the building (e.g., a 

registrar), others allowed many staff members to do so. Further, while 

some schools’ data systems kept a record of each person who accessed a 

student’s record and the changes made, other systems did not maintain 

such information. Without sufficient security and record monitoring, there 

is a greater risk of inaccurate data being entered and used to calculate 

graduation rates. 

We analyzed data from one state to estimate the effect of errors of various 

sizes in reporting dropouts on school graduation rates and found that such 

errors could raise or lower a school’s graduation rate substantially. This 

state used a high school graduation definition that incorporated the 

number of graduates and dropouts in calculating its graduation rate. For 

example, its median high school in school year 2002-03, with 924 students, 

reported 41 dropouts and had a graduation rate of 75 percent.25 We reestimated its graduation rate after assuming that the school had more 

dropouts, up to twice as many more than reported.26 In this case, if the 

school had 82 dropouts, its graduation rate fell to 64 percent. We also reestimated its graduation rate after assuming that it had fewer dropouts, as 

few as half as many dropouts as reported. Thus, if it had 21 dropouts, its 

 25The median high school in this example is the school in the middle of all the state’s 

schools when they were rank-ordered according to their graduation rates. 

26Experts we interviewed said that the hypothetical error rates chosen were reasonable 

given the quality of dropout data typically maintained by schools and school districts. 

Data Inaccuracies May 

Affect Schools’ Meeting 

State Graduation Rate 

Goals 
Page 28 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

graduation rate rose to 88 percent. Figure 6 shows how the estimates of 

graduation rates were affected by assumed errors in counting dropouts for 

this school. 

Figure 6: Estimated School Graduation Rates under Varying Assumptions of Errors 

in Counting Dropouts 

Our analysis was performed for all high schools in the state. As expected, 

when we assumed the number of dropouts was higher than what schools 

reported, their estimated graduation rates decreased. 

Our analysis also found the extent to which schools miscount their 

dropouts affects their likelihood of reaching the state’s graduation rate 

target. We estimated that an additional 70 of 444 high schools in the state 

in school year 2002-03 would not have reached the state target if they were 

in fact reporting only half of their dropouts. On the other hand, an 

additional 77 high schools would have reached the state target if in fact 

their dropout counts were overreported at twice the actual level. 

According to the NCLBA, high schools that do not meet the state’s 

requirements for its graduation rate are designated as not making AYP. 

Such designations if made for 2 or more consecutive years would result in 

the district’s providing technical assistance to schools that receive Title I 

funding. Thus, schools that undercount their dropouts may be precluded 

from receiving the attention and assistance from the state they need to 
Page 29 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

improve students’ school retention and graduation while those with over 

counts may receive such services unnecessarily. 

Education has taken steps to help states address data collection issues. 

First, Education helped states prepare information to address how their 

graduation rate definitions were valid and reliable. Education gave 

instructions in its regulations and in a template given to each state to help 

states prepare the accountability plans they were to submit to Education 

for approval in 2003. Education also worked with states on an as-needed 

basis when state officials had questions about what information the 

Department needed to review. Education officials indicated that they 

reviewed information in each state’s plan when they conducted site visits 

to states as part of the state plan approval process. According to 

Education, most states were in some stage of transition in calculating their 

graduation rates: some were implementing plans to transition from their 

current definition to a cohort indicator; others were improving their data 

systems; and some were collecting information on designated student 

groups for the first time. For these states, Education reported that it was 

unable to meaningfully examine the reliability of data used to calculate the 

graduation rate because such definitions of such rates had not been in 

place for a sufficient number of years necessary to determine whether the 

rate would produce consistent results. 

Second, Education, as part of its state monitoring, introduced a data 

review component to examine data states used for graduation rates, 

among other aspects of their participation in the Title I program. As of 

August 2005, Education had monitored and reported on 29 states, and 

expected to monitor the remaining states by the end of fiscal year 2006 as 

part of its 3-year monitoring plan. This monitoring consisted of broad 

questions intended to collect information about how states corrected or 

addressed errors in student data received from districts and schools, 

including data used to calculate graduation rates. The monitoring was also 

designed to identify written procedures states used to confirm the 

accuracy of their data, the extent to which these procedures were 

communicated to districts, and how data validity issues related to schools 

and districts have been addressed. According to Education officials, their 

reviews of the nine states identified no significant problems with data 

systems these states used to calculate high school graduation rates. 

Third, in response to recommendations from GAO and Education’s 

Inspector General, Education contracted with a firm to develop a guide to 

help states improve data collection processes. According to Education 

Education Has Taken 

Some Steps to Help States 

with Data Issues, but Data 

Accuracy Remains a Key 

Challenge 
Page 30 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

officials, this guide is to consist of three parts. One part is designed for 

state officials and is to focus on the design and implementation of data 

systems. A second part, which focuses on data management issues such as 

methods for verifying the accuracy of data, is designed for district and 

school officials. A third part summarizes the first two parts and is to be 

suitable for oral presentation to state, district, and school officials. 

According to department officials, this guide will be issued by the end of 

2005.27

Although Education monitors states to determine if they have written 

procedures for ensuring data quality and have methods to address data 

quality issues, it does not evaluate other methods of ensuring data 

accuracy. For example, it does not assess whether states ensure that 

districts and schools have effective controls to accurately record student 

status, including transfers. Further, Education’s monitoring approach does 

not capture whether states ensure that schools have computer controls 

that allow only authorized staff to make changes to student data. 

Department officials said that the guide it is developing is planned to 

address these issues. 

However, departmental efforts have not resolved immediate data accuracy 

problems. In July 2005, Education announced that it planned to calculate 

and report interim graduation rate estimates for each state to provide a 

nationwide, comprehensive perspective. Education stated that the interim 

rate that it developed, based on data NCES collects from states, will 

provide more accurate on-time graduation rates. Some states’ graduation 

rates rely on the same data reported to NCES, while other states rely on 

different data. However, these states also provide data that are requested 

by NCES. The quality of the data states provide to NCES varies across 

states depending, in part, on the extensiveness and rigor of their internal 

controls and other data verification checks. Because Education plans to 

rely on state-reported data to calculate interim graduation rates, the 

accuracy of such data is critical.28

 27The National Forum on Education Statistics issued a similar guide, Forum Guide to 

Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource, NFES 2005-801 

(Washington D.C.: 2004). 

28Education will calculate the rate based on the number of high school graduates receiving 

a regular diploma in a given year divided by the average number of students enrolled in 8th 

grade 5 years earlier, 9th grade 4 years earlier, and 10th grade 3 years earlier. 
Page 31 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

While states and school districts have implemented numerous 

interventions designed to increase high school graduation rates, few of 

these programs have been rigorously evaluated, and Education has done 

little to evaluate and disseminate existing research. Several of the 

interventions that have been rigorously evaluated have shown potential to 

increase graduation rates. In addition to these interventions, schools are 

trying other approaches to enhance students’ chances of success, though 

the effectiveness of these approaches has not been demonstrated. 

About one third of students who enter high school do not graduate and are 

likely to earn less money, are more frequently unemployed, and are more 

likely to receive public assistance compared with those who graduate 

from high school. In response, some schools and districts have 

implemented programs to address the factors that influence a student’s 

decision not to complete high school. 

Research has shown that a student’s decision to leave school may be 

affected by experiences that begin as early as elementary school. For 

example, studies have shown that students who are not at least 

moderately skilled at reading by the end of 3rd grade are less likely to 

graduate from high school.29 Besides basic literacy skills, there are a 

variety of other academic and family-related factors that contribute to 

whether a student graduates. For example, poor grades and attendance, 

school disciplinary problems, and failure to advance to the next grade can 

all gradually lead to disengagement from school and result in a student not 

finishing high school. In addition to these academic factors, students from 

low-income backgrounds, students with low levels of self esteem, or 

students with a learning or behavioral disability drop out at a much higher 

rate than other students. 

Schools and districts have implemented a range of interventions to 

address these factors and they vary in scope from redesigning the 

structure of an entire school to an individual school’s mentoring program. 

While there is variability among interventions, most generally fall into one 

of the three following categories that we identified in our 2002 report30: 

(1) school wide restructuring efforts; (2) alternative forms of education for 

 29See, for example, Snow, Catherine E, Susan M. Burns, and Peg Griffin, Eds. Preventing 

Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 

1998). 

30GAO-02-240. 

Few Interventions 

Have Been Rigorously 

Evaluated, and 

Education Has Done 

Little to Evaluate and 

Disseminate Existing 

Research 
Page 32 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

students who do not do well in a regular classroom; and (3) supplemental 

services, such as mentoring or tutoring services, for at-risk students. While 

most of the schools we visited used interventions from only one of the 

three categories identified above, some schools combined aspects of these 

categories. (See table 2 for a complete list). 

Table 2: Number of Interventions Visited by School Level and Type 

School 

restructuring 

efforts

Alternative 

learning 

environment 

Supplemental 

services

Number of schools visited 

1 Elementary schools 1

1 Elementary/middle school 1

2 Middle schools 1 1

1 Middle/high school 1

9 High schoolsa 4 7 1

2 Elementary/middle/high 

schoolsa

 1 1 2

Source: GAO analysis of interventions visited. 

a

One of these schools/programs used more than one approach. 

Several of the programs at schools we visited have conducted evaluations 

of how they affect high school completion, while others are reporting 

positive results on other outcomes such as attendance or academic 

performance. We identified and reviewed five intervention evaluations that 

used a rigorous research design and have shown potential to increase 

graduation rates. We visited schools that had implemented three of these 

programs.31 In addition, we visited other schools that were trying other 

interventions that experts and Education officials noted were promising 

for improving high school graduation rates. While the effectiveness of 

these approaches to increase graduation rates had not been demonstrated, 

research does point towards the possibility that these interventions may 

help increase high school completion. 

The three schools we visited whose programs displayed positive results all 

used a rigorous research design. However, evaluations of the effectiveness 

 31Two of these evaluations, the Talent Development Model and First Things First, were 

released after we had completed our fieldwork. 

Few Interventions Have 

Been Rigorously 

Evaluated, Though Some 

Showed Potential to 

Increase Graduation Rates 
Page 33 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

of these interventions are not as strong as they need to be for results to be 

conclusive. For example, design limitations or data collection concerns 

were evident during our review of these evaluations. It is worth keeping in 

mind that research of this nature is limited in the education field due to a 

variety of factors, and these studies represent some of the most promising 

research on graduation rate interventions available. 

In our visits to 16 school programs in 6 states, we observed 3 interventions 

where research has indicated potential for improving high school 

graduation rates. These interventions addressed a variety of student risk 

factors and provided services to students in elementary through high 

school. 

One school we visited in Minneapolis, Minnesota, had implemented the 

Check and Connect program which provides mentoring services in an 

alternative-learning environment. The program began in 1990 with a model 

developed for urban middle school students with learning and behavioral 

challenges. It has since been expanded to serve additional at-risk 

populations as well. This intervention is designed around a mentor who 

acts as both an advocate and service coordinator for students who have 

been referred into the program due to excessive absences combined with 

poor academic performance and behavioral problems. Program officials 

noted that the mentors offer around-the-clock services including 

monitoring school performance, regularly checking student data 

(attendance, grades, and suspensions), and identifying and addressing out 

of school issues. The mentor also regularly communicates with the 

student’s parents or relatives to ensure that the whole family is engaged in 

the student’s education. 

The mentoring is built into a program model that relies on several interrelated features including relationship building, individualized and timely 

intervention, and long-term commitment. A complete listing of program 

features can be seen in table 3. 

Promising Approaches: Check 

and Connect, Project GRAD, 

Help One Student to Succeed 

(HOSTS), Talent Development, 

and First Things First 
Page 34 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Table 3: Key Features of the Check and Connect Model 

Source: Check and Connect Web site, http://ici.umn.edu/checkandconnect/. 

The school we visited in Minneapolis had 220 students in the program 

during the 2004-05 school year. Program officials noted that students in the 

program were divided among four mentors and had two separate 

classrooms they could use to meet with their mentor or to study between 

classes. The program had no set schedule for the student—it was the 

responsibility of the mentor to make sure they followed up with the 

students, parents, teachers, courts or counselors on a regular basis. A 

student in the program noted that Check and Connect helps because it 

“provides someone who cares how you do and keeps after you about 

coming to school and doing well academically.” 

A school official remarked that both attendance and retention rates had 

improved significantly since the program was implemented. An evaluation 

of program impacts on students with emotional and behavioral disabilities 

showed that students participating in Check and Connect were more likely 

than students not participating to have either completed high school, 

including GED certification, or be enrolled in an educational program.32

While graduation rates are not available yet for the first Check and 

Connect cohort at the school we visited, a teacher at the school 

 32Sinclair, M.F., S. L. Christenson and M. L. Thurlow, “Promoting School Completion of 

Urban Secondary Youth with Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities.” Exceptional Children

(in press). 

Feature Definition 

Relationship building Mutual trust and open communication, nurtured through a long-term commitment that is focused 

on student’s educational success. 

Routine monitoring of alterable 

indicators 

Systemically checking warning signs of withdrawal (attendance, academic performance, 

behavior) that are readily available to school personnel and that can be altered through 

intervention. 

Individualized and timely 

intervention 

Support that is tailored to individual student needs, based on level of engagement with school, 

associated influences of home and school, and the leveraging of local resources. 

Long-term commitment Committing to students and families for at least 2 years, including the ability to follow highly 

mobile youth from school to school and program to program. 

Persistence plus Refers to a persistent source of academic motivation, a continuity of familiarity with the youth 

and family, and a consistency in the message that “education is important for your future.” 

Problem solving Designed to promote the acquisition of skills to resolve conflict constructively and to look for 

solutions rather than a source of blame. 

Affiliation with school and learning Facilitating student’s access to and active participation in school-related activities and events. 
Page 35 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

commented that the staff knows that the program is working “because the 

students are coming to class everyday.” School officials noted that the 

program is funded through a renewable grant from a private foundation. 

Another program we visited, Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves 

Dreams), seeks to ensure a quality public education for students in 

economically disadvantaged communities through school restructuring, 

curriculum reform, and social services. The goal of the program is to 

increase high school graduation rates in Project GRAD schools to at least 

80 percent, with 50 percent of those students entering and completing 

college. 

Originally established in 1989 as a scholarship program, it has since 

developed into a replicable and comprehensive k-12 school reform model. 

The reform design relies on two components—a structural model and an 

instructional model. Structural components include an independent local 

organization to provide implementation oversight, and community 

involvement such as mentoring, tutoring, and financial support. Figure 7 

shows Project GRAD’s structural components. 

Figure 7: Project GRAD Structural Model 

Employing existing 

assets:

Provide training and 

support to existing 

teachers and staff.

The feeder system:

Elementary and middle schools 

“feed” into a single high school.

Local project GRAD 

organization:

Independent nonprofit 

organization to oversee 

the set up of Project 

GRAD to ensure 

program quality and 

consistency.

Community 

involvement:

Organizations and 

individuals can get 

involved through 

mentoring, tutoring, 

and financial 

contributions.

Project GRAD USA:

National organization 

that provides technical 

assistance, quality 

assurance, and some 

funding to local sites.

Mission:

To ensure a quality education for 

all children in economically 

disadvantaged communities so 

that high school graduation rates 

increase and graduates are 

prepared to enter and be 

successful in college.

Source: GAO graphic rendition of Project GRAD structure, http://www.projectgrad.org.
Page 36 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Local Project GRAD sites—such as one located in Atlanta—also used the 

instructional component of the model, which emphasizes specific reading 

and math programs for students in kindergarten through 8th grade. 

Program officials commented that this component also incorporates 

campus based social services (which focus on dropout prevention as well 

as family case management), classroom management techniques, and 

college scholarships to all high school students who qualify. 

In 2004, the local Atlanta site served 29 schools and approximately 17,000 

students in the inner city. Officials at one of Atlanta’s schools noted that 

the program provided additional outreach staff to advocate on behalf of 

students and address other issues that may interfere with a student’s 

ability to attend school and learn. Students at the school, commenting on 

the program’s effect on their lives, noted that the program should be 

expanded to all of the schools in the district because of the opportunities 

it offers students. Project GRAD-Atlanta officials noted that the 

effectiveness of the program has been demonstrated through higher test 

scores and increased college attendance since implementing Project 

GRAD in these schools. Additionally, the results of an independent 

evaluation of Project GRAD also suggest an increase in students’ test 

scores and graduation rates.33 However, aspects of the study’s design may 

limit the strength of study findings. 

The Project GRAD—Atlanta model relies on a mix of public funding and 

private local fundraising. As of school year 2003-04, Project GRAD had 

also been replicated in feeder systems in Akron, Ohio; Brownsville, Tex.; 

Cincinnati, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Houston, Tex.; Kenai Peninsula, Alaska; 

Knoxville, Tenn.; Lorain, Ohio; Los Angeles, Calif.; Newark, N.J. and 

Roosevelt, N.Y. 

We also visited a school that had implemented the language arts 

component of the HOSTS program, an intervention focused on literacy, an 

area that research has linked to students’ graduating. This program is a 

structured tutoring program in reading and language arts that targets low 

performing elementary students whose reading skills are below grade 

level. School officials at the elementary school we visited noted that they 

had been using the program for 7 years to increase at-risk student’s 

reading scores as well as raise their self esteem. The 90 students in the 

 33Opuni, K.A., Project GRAD Newark: 2003-2004 Program Evaluation Report (Houston, 

Texas: Center for Research on School Reform, February 2005). 
Page 37 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

program worked individually with a tutor 4 days a week for 30 minutes 

each day. School officials considered the program a success because of 

the number of students who successfully transitioned into grade level 

reading in the regular classroom. The program, which has been replicated 

in schools or districts in 12 states, was cited in the report language of the 

NCLBA as a scientifically based intervention that has assisted schools in 

improving student achievement. A recent study of the program in nine 

Michigan elementary schools suggests reading improvement for students 

at schools participating in HOSTS programs.34 While this study displayed 

some promising results for elementary literacy, students were not tracked 

over time to determine its effect on high school graduation rates. 

Two recently completed rigorous program evaluations also displayed 

promising results for increasing graduations rates. These two programs, 

the Talent Development Model and First Things First, are both 

comprehensive school reform initiatives with numerous components. 

The Talent Development program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is 

designed to improve large urban high schools that face serious problems 

with attendance, discipline, achievement scores, and graduation rates. The 

program has been implemented in twenty districts nationwide and 

consists of several different components including a separate career 

academy for all 9th graders, career academies for students in 10th through 

12th grades, block scheduling (4 courses a semester, each 80-90 minutes 

long) and an after hours program for students with attendance or 

behavioral problems. An evaluation of the first five schools in Philadelphia 

to implement the Talent Development program suggest that it may have 

contributed to increasing the graduation rate for two high schools 

compared with other high schools in the district that did not implement 

the program.35

The First Things First program was first launched in Kansas City, Kansas, 

and has since been tested in 12 middle schools and high schools in four 

additional districts. The program has three central components: small 

 34Burns, Matthew K., Barbara V. Senesac, and Todd Symington, “The Effectiveness of the 

HOSTS Program in Improving the Reading Achievement of Children At-risk for Reading 

Failure.” Reading Research and Instruction, vol. 43, no. 2 (2004): 87-104. 

35Kemple, James J., Corinne M. Herlihy, and Thomas J Smith. Making Progress Towards 

Graduation: Evidence from the Talent Development High School Model (New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 2005). 
Page 38 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

learning communities of up to 350 students, a family advocate system that 

pairs students with a staff member who monitors their progress, and 

instructional improvement that aims to make lessons more rigorous and 

better aligned with state and local standards. A recent evaluation in 

Kansas City schools suggests that students in the four high schools with 

First Things First had increased reading and math scores, improved 

attendance, lowered dropout rates, and increased graduation rates 

compared with schools that did not participate in the program.36 For 

middle schools in Kansas City, the study found increased reading and 

math scores and somewhat improved attendance compared with other 

scores. However, the research did not show significance differences in the 

First Things First schools when compared with other schools in two other 

school districts. 

In addition to the 3 school programs we visited whose rigorous 

evaluations displayed potential for increasing graduation rates, we also 

visited 13 other school programs which experts, Education officials, and 

evaluations noted were promising. While the effectiveness of these 

approaches has not been demonstrated, research points toward the 

possibility that these interventions may help increase high school 

completion. These other school programs generally focused on one 

specific approach which generally fell into one of three categories—school 

restructuring, alternative learning environment, and supplemental 

services. Selected programs that illustrate these approaches are discussed 

below. 

Schools and districts used schoolwide restructuring to change a school or 

all schools in the district to provide a more personalized education and 

increase graduation rates. Schoolwide restructuring efforts are generally 

implemented in schools or districts that have a history of high dropout 

rates. 

One restructuring approach is to create many small schools from larger 

low performing schools. For example, the New Century High Schools 

Consortium for New York City is a New York Public School’s small 

schools initiative that is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 

 36Quint, Janet, Howard S. Bloom, Alison Rebeck Black, LaFleur Stephens, and Theresa M. 

Akey, The Challenge of Scaling Up Educational Reform: Findings and Lessons from First 

Things First (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, July 2005). 

Approaches Selected 

Schools Are Trying to 

Enhance Students Chances 

for Success 

School-Restructuring Efforts: 

Making Schools Smaller 
Page 39 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Open Society Institute. 

School officials commented that the project began in the Bronx with the 

conversion of six low performing high schools that served between 1,500 

and 3,000 students each. This intervention began in 2001 and, as of 

September 2004, New York City had created 77 small schools. 

One of those schools, Morris High School, has been a part of this program 

since the small schools program begun in 2001. School officials noted that 

the school has been divided into several small schools including the Bronx 

International High School and the Bronx Leadership Academy, which 

serve 300 and 252 students respectively. While housed in the same 

building, each school has a different curriculum and student population. 

For example, the Bronx International High School provides an intensive 

English language program for recent immigrants while the Bronx 

Leadership Academy offers a science-based curriculum for college bound 

students. The core concepts for both these programs are the small school 

size, team approach to teaching, and school-based learning that also has 

relevance within their community. A student at the school noted that the 

small groups they work in allow students to help and support each other, 

something that did not happen in junior high school. School officials 

commented that teacher investment in the school is expected and is often 

displayed by working overtime, serving as counselors to students, and 

participating in school governance. Additionally, the project-based 

curriculum is developed by teacher teams who work collaboratively to 

plan activities for incoming students. 

School officials did not indicate a plan for a formal outcome-based 

evaluation of the schools; however, they did consider the intervention a 

success based on positive improvement in a number of areas including 

higher percentages of students meeting state standards, higher attendance 

rates, and higher passing grades. The New York City Department of 

Education reported similar results for small schools throughout the 

district including more students advancing from 9th to 10th grade and 

higher attendance rates. While these results provide a snapshot of some 

possible benefits of New York’s school reform initiative, it is still too early 

to look at student outcomes. The Gates Foundation has commissioned an 

8-year evaluation of the small schools program. 
Page 40 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

States and school districts are also using alternative learning environments 

for students at risk of school failure. These interventions are designed to 

foster a supportive school environment through small enrollments, one-onone interaction, flexible schedules, and structures, and a curriculum that 

appeals to students’ interests.37 Often, enrollment is limited and the 

programs are tailored to individual students’ needs to ensure that they 

graduate. 

One type of alternative learning environment, the career academy, is 

focused on keeping students in school by providing an interesting 

curriculum focused on a specific career theme. For example, Aviation 

High School in Washington State is an aviation-themed public high school 

housed at a local community college. School officials noted that the school 

addresses a range of student risk factors, including those related to 

academics (learning and literacy), social issues (attendance and behavior), 

and family (counseling and strategies for living with drug addicted family 

members). With a 2004 enrollment of only 103 students, Aviation High 

School offers small class sizes, aviation themed curriculum, and mentoring 

opportunities. (See figure 8 for an example of a school event focused on 

aviation). 

 37Lehr, Camilla A. and Cheryl M Lange, “Alternative Schools Serving Students with and 

without Disabilities: What Are the Current Issues and Challenges,” Preventing School 

Failure, vol. 47, no. 2 (2003): 59-65.

Alternative-Learning 

Environment: Providing 

Individualized Education 
Page 41 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Figure 8: Aviation High School Presentation by the Blue Angels 

Additionally, school officials report that each teacher at the high school 

serves as a student advisor who assists students with academic, social, 

and emotional development. Students noted that while transportation to 

the school was challenging due to its distance from their home, they still 

selected the program because of the aviation curriculum, the personalized 

attention they received, and the highly motivated students at the school. 

Aviation High School officials indicated that it is too soon to tell the 

impact of the program, but they noted that the school will be included in a 

national evaluation to be conducted by the Gates foundation. Research on 

career academies has demonstrated positive gains for employment and 

earnings for graduates, but also found that high school completion rates of 

career and non career academy students were not significantly different.38

 38Kemple, James J., and Judith Scott-Clayton, Career Academies: Impact on Students’ 

Initial Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment (New York: Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001). 

Source: Aviation High School, Seattle, Washington.
Page 42 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Alternative learning environments may also allow students to tailor their 

learning experience to individual needs that are not being met in 

traditional schools. For example, we visited an alternative high school in 

Atlanta, Georgia, that uses a computer-based instructional program 

designed for students to learn the state-certified curriculum at their own 

pace. Students rotate through classrooms, each of which contains a 

different computer module for the particular subject being taught. 

Students received assistance from teachers as needed. According to 

officials, the school is made up of a team of 6 teachers and 75 at-risk 11th 

and 12th grade students (for the 2004-05 school year). The school’s 

enrollment is composed of students who were referred to the school either 

through other schools, court tribunals, or parents. School officials noted 

that the program also includes a motivational component. For example, 

each school morning begins with an assembly where students discuss the 

obstacles they have had to overcome and the people who have helped 

make a difference in the world. After the assembly, students get up and 

shake hands with each other and then move to their first hour class. 

School personnel stated that this allows students to begin each day with 

confidence and prepares them to learn. School officials noted that the 

school’s graduation rate, which they stated was consistently over 90 

percent, indicated that the program was effective. 

Research on alternative programs in general has shown some promising 

outcomes. For example, an evaluation of 8 middle school dropout 

prevention programs showed some positive impacts on dropout rates, 

grade promotion, grades, and test scores for students in alternative 

programs.39 The same study also looked at five alternative high school 

programs and found limited evidence that these programs reduced 

dropout rates, but did note that alternative programs oriented toward GED 

certificates experience were more effective than those oriented toward 

high school diplomas.40

Several schools we visited used targeted supplemental services to provide 

at-risk students with extra help. These services aim to improve students’ 

academic performance, acclimate them to a new culture, or increase their 

self-esteem. Supplemental service programs are offered at all grade levels, 

 39Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, and Robert Wood, Impacts of Dropout 

Prevention Programs, Final Report (Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., 1998). 

40Ibid. 

Supplemental Services: 

Targeting Literacy and SelfEsteem 
Page 43 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

with research showing the importance of building academic and social 

skills at an early age. 

Supplemental services can focus on the needs of a specific group of 

students, such as immigrant students or students with limited English 

proficiency. One such intervention we visited in Georgia was designed to 

provide educational and cultural services to immigrant students with low 

level English skills and limited formal schooling. These interventions, 

often referred to as “newcomer” models, provide intensive language 

development courses and may also offer a cultural orientation component. 

Newcomer programs can take place within a school or at a separate site 

and vary in the amount of time a student is enrolled. The benefits of the 

newcomer program is supported by research on English language learners 

that notes one major factor that decreases risk of dropping out of school is 

level of understanding and mastery of the English language.41

At the program we visited, international students who were new to the 

district were registered, tested, and placed depending on their skill level. 

Students with no English language skills were placed in an intensive 3 - to 

6-week English program that helped ease the transition into school. 

Students who were 14 years or older and had fewer than 7 years of formal 

schooling in their native country were placed in the English for Speakers 

of Other Languages (ESOL) lab program. School officials noted that the 

lab served 132 students in school year 2004-05 and is designed to help 

students achieve grade level proficiency within 3 years. The ESOL lab 

focused on listening, speaking, reading, and writing English in addition to 

other core high school courses such as math, science, and social studies. 

Additionally, several district schools have added Saturday school tutorials 

for parents and students. Students can study language arts while their 

parents attend citizenship classes, orientation, and career awareness 

sessions. School officials noted that they believe the number of ESOL 

students graduating has increased, based on state-reported rates as well as 

the numbers of students who pass the ESOL tests and exit the program. 

Other supplemental services incorporate cultural elements as a means of 

addressing student self-esteem. For example, a k-8 school located on the 

Arapahoe Indian reservation in Wyoming offers all students services that 

 41See for example, Gingras, Rosano, and Rudy Careaga, Limited English Proficient 

Students at Risk: Issues and Prevention Strategies (Silver Spring, Md.: National 

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1989). 
Page 44 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

include after-school academic programs, drug awareness events, and a 2-

week summer cultural camp focusing on Native American traditions. 

School personnel emphasized that the path to high school graduation 

begins with helping students address their self-esteem issues. School 

officials mentioned that students already have a mindset that they are not 

going to graduate from high school and do not have a future on or off the 

reservation. The cultural element of the school’s programs is a significant 

component of building up the student’s self-esteem and instilling a pride 

about their Native American identity. Students commented that they 

participated in the program because of the Native American cultural 

activities offered, including clogging, dancing, and drumming. Program 

officials noted that since implementing interventions designed specifically 

to address the issues of Native Americans, they have noticed general 

improvement in student attitudes and performance. While studies suggest 

that self-esteem affects dropout rates,42 a study over time of the 

intervention programs used by the Arapahoe school would be needed to 

determine its effectiveness. 

Graduation rates have become increasingly important since the passage of 

NCLBA, but Education has done little to evaluate and disseminate 

knowledge about interventions that could help increase such rates. The 

increased interest in high school reform by the National Governors 

Association, combined with concerns about low graduation rates, have set 

the stage for designing strategies that encourage more students to 

graduate. While many types of interventions are available for school 

districts, most have not been rigorously evaluated, and there is little 

information on which are successful and for what student subgroups. Most 

officials from the 20 states we included in our study told us that such 

information would be useful. For example, one school official noted that 

little information exists on what interventions increase graduation rates 

among Native American students and that such information would be 

helpful in designing interventions. 

Education has made some efforts to address the problem of high school 

completion by sponsoring research and disseminating information through 

conferences and on its Web site. For example, Education officials noted 

 42See for example, Shannon, Sue G., and Pete Bylsma, Helping Students Finish School: 

Why Students Drop Out and How to Help Them Graduate (Olympia, Wash.: Office of 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2003). 

Education Has Done Little 

to Evaluate and 

Disseminate Knowledge 

about Interventions 
Page 45 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

that Education’s Office of Special Education Programs has supported 

research papers on dropout interventions for youth with disabilities. These 

studies are currently being completed and will be available in late 2005. In 

terms of dissemination, Education’s 2nd Annual High School Leadership 

Summit held in December 2004 included sessions on dropout prevention 

and recovery as well as strategies for creating higher-performing schools. 

Additionally, Education’s Office of Vocation and Adult Education has 

dedicated a part of its Web site to the High School Initiative. The pages on 

the Web site contain information on high school reform models, 

adolescent literacy initiatives as well as information on research based 

practices that may help high schools. 

While Education has made some efforts to help states and districts 

address the dropout problem, the agency has not acted on its commitment 

to implement the recommendation, contained in our 2002 report on 

interventions, that Education evaluate results from research. Agency 

officials have commented several times that they plan to evaluate the 

research on dropout prevention efforts and then disseminate the results 

through the agency’s What Works clearinghouse. However, the Web space 

for this effort still contains placeholder information.43 Agency officials 

indicated that reviews of other topics, such as elementary reading and 

math, have come before the reviews necessary for the dropout section of 

the Web site. 

The nation’s public school systems are responsible for educating 48 

million students, the majority of our future workforce. Providing them 

with the skills needed to succeed is vital to the nation’s economic strength 

and ability to compete in a global economy. NCLBA was passed to ensure 

that all students have access to a high-quality education and to increase 

the likelihood that these students will graduate. In particular, the act seeks 

to make significant changes in public education by asking federal, state, 

and local education officials to reconsider how they assess the academic 

achievement of the nation’s students. NCLBA specifies that states must set 

high school graduation rate indicators as an additional benchmark, along 

 43The What Works Clearinghouse, funded by Education, has a Web site that will summarize 

evidence on the effectiveness of different programs, products, practices, and policies 

intended to improve student outcomes. The site is planned to include interventions in 

middle school, junior high school, or high school designed to increase high school 

completion including such techniques as the use of incentives, counseling, or monitoring as 

the prevention/intervention of choice. 

Conclusions 
Page 46 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

with test results, for measuring schools’ progress. However, increasing and 

accurately calculating graduation rates have been formidable challenges 

for many states and districts. Many states have used flexibility to define 

their indicators as both numerical goals as well as progress toward those 

goals, where progress has generally ranged from no increase to a 1 percent 

increase from the previous year. Therefore, some states have set 

expectations that their schools may not graduate many more students than 

previously. 

Education has addressed these challenges by developing some guidance 

and providing support such as on-site peer reviews, conferences, and 

information on its Web site. However, because Education’s approach has 

been to provide guidance on how to deal with specific student 

circumstances on a case-by-case basis, not all states have received such 

guidance. Without guidance, state officials may not appropriately include 

students in these specific circumstances in their graduation rate 

definitions, resulting in graduation rates that may be inaccurate. Such 

inconsistent calculations raise questions about the quality of graduation 

rates reported by states. 

A key challenge for states is to ensure that student data used for 

calculating state graduation rates, as well as data provided to NCES, are 

accurate and that state systems have the internal controls and data 

verification checks to promote data reliability. As some states transition to 

new graduation rate definitions, it is important that they ensure that such 

controls are part of new student data systems. Student data accuracy is 

particularly important because Education plans to use those state data 

reported to NCES to develop interim graduation rate estimates, which are 

intended to promote consistency across states and provide a nationwide 

perspective. 

Finally, little is known about the success of interventions that are designed 

to increase high school graduation rates. While some programs have 

shown potential to increase such rates, few have been rigorously 

evaluated. Some interventions have conducted limited evaluations of a 

variety of different outcomes (attendance, test scores, job attainment), but 

more comprehensive evaluations are necessary to understand programs’ 

effects on graduation rates. As a result, schools and districts may not be 

using the most effective approaches to help their students stay in school 

and graduate. Education could play an important role in evaluating 

existing research, which was a recommendation we made in our 2002 

dropout report. Although Education agreed with this recommendation, the 

agency has not established a clear plan or timetable for carrying it out. 
Page 47 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Additionally, Education should disseminate the results of research, since 

such information will be critical as high school reform moves forward. 

To assist states in improving their definitions of high school graduation 

rates and enhancing the consistency of these rates, we recommend that 

the Secretary of Education make information available to all states on 

modifications available to account for students in special programs and 

students with disabilities in their graduation rate calculations. This 

information could include fuller explanations or examples of available 

flexibilities. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education, before developing interim 

graduation rate estimates, assess the reliability of data submitted by states 

used for this purpose. This assessment could include specific criteria that 

demonstrate that states’ data systems can produce accurate data. 

We recommend that the Secretary establish a timetable for carrying out 

the recommendation in our 2002 report that Education evaluate research 

on dropout interventions, including those interventions that focus on 

increasing graduation rates. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary 

disseminate research on programs shown to be effective in increasing 

graduation rates. 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 

In its letter, Education concurred with two of our three recommendations: 

(1) about making information available to all states on modifications 

available to account for students in special programs and students with 

disabilities in their graduation rate calculations and (2) about evaluating 

research on dropout interventions and disseminating such research on 

those programs shown to be effective in increasing graduation rates. 

Regarding our recommendation that that the department assess the 

reliability of data submitted by states that it plans to use to develop 

interim graduation rate estimates, Education noted that it has taken a 

number of steps to conduct such reliability assessments. However, it is 

not clear whether these efforts include those data that Education will be 

using to develop interim graduation rate estimates. Although data 

submitted to Education are publicly available and have been reported by 

states for years, their reliability has not been determined. We believe that 

Education should take additional steps to ensure the reliability of these 

data before they are used in calculating such estimates. Education 

officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated into the 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 48 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

report where appropriate. Education's written comments are reproduced 

in appendix II. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 

relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will 

also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report 

will be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Other contacts and major contributors are listed in appendix III. 

Marnie S. Shaul, Director 

Education, Workforce, and 

 Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 49 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

To address the objectives of this study, we used a variety of 

methodological approaches. We analyzed the plans states were required to 

submit to Education to identify the graduation rate definitions states used 

and graduation rate indicators set by states, reviewed updates to plans 

submitted through July 2005 and reviewed letters from Education to states 

regarding its decisions about state plans and updates. 

As part of another GAO review, we surveyed officials in 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information about two 

issues—the extent to which (1) states verify school and district data used 

to calculate high school graduation rates and (2) have unique student 

identifiers. The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic 

questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent e-mail 

notifications to all 52 state Performance Based Data Management Initiative 

coordinators (50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) 

beginning on November 15, 2004. We closed the survey on January 13, 

2005, after the 50th respondent had replied. Washington state and the 

District of Columbia did not complete the survey in time to be included in 

our analysis. 

We selected 20 states for further analysis. States were selected to capture 

variation in high school graduation rate definitions, geographic location, 

and types of interventions with the potential to increase graduation rates. 

We conducted 

• a case study in 1 state (Washington state) to calculate graduation rates; 

• site visits in 3 states (Georgia, North Carolina, and Washington) to review 

data accuracy; 

• site visits in 6 states (Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Washington, 

and Wyoming) to observe interventions and interview program staff; and 

• semi structured telephone interviews in all 20 states to obtain information 

on definitions used, implementation status, and guidance provided by 

Education. 

See table 4 for a list of states selected for site visits and phone interviews 

based on the research objective we studied. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 50 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Table 4: States Selected for Site Visits and Phone Interviews by Purpose 

To address the first research 

question regarding data 

definitions and calculations 

To address the first research 

question regarding rationale for 

selecting definitions 

To address the second 

research question regarding 

data accuracy 

To address the third 

research question regarding 

interventions 

WashingtonaCalifornia 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgiaa

Illinois 

Indiana 

Kansas 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

New Hampshire 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolinaa

Pennsylvania 

Washingtona

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Georgiaa

North Carolinaa

Washingtona

Georgiaa

Illinoisa

Minnesotaa

New Yorka

Washingtona

Wyominga

No. of states: 1 20 3 6 

Source: GAO Analysis. 

a

States where GAO team conducted site visits. 

In our case study we used student data from Washington state for the 

2002-03 school year, the most recent school year for which data were 

available at the time of our review. Using these data, we conducted an 

analysis comparing the results of calculating the high school graduation 

rate using two different graduation rate definitions—the cohort definition 

and the departure classification definition. Washington state used a 

modified cohort formula that was based on tracking student dropouts 

rather than on tracking student transfers.1

 It also required all students with 

“unknown” status to be reported as dropouts. We also used these data to 

analyze the effects of allowing schools to make progress toward the 

graduation rate target as a means of making AYP and using an estimated 

miscount of the number of dropouts on the graduation rate. We 

interviewed experts to determine reasonable rates at which dropouts may 

be in error. We analyzed data using a set of 444 out of 547 of the state’s 

 1

Generally, cohort definitions are based on tracking student transfers. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 51 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

high schools. The 103 high schools that were not included in our analysis 

were those with graduation rates of 10 percent or less. These were 

generally alternative high schools, such as those designed to serve 

students who had committed serious crimes. We also interviewed a state 

official who confirmed our understanding of the omitted schools and 

agreed with the reasonableness of the criterion. 

Although our analyses were based on a 4-year period, we used the 1 year 

of student data and estimated information for the 3 prior years. We did not 

obtain student data from prior years because state officials told us that 

data accuracy had improved significantly in the 2002-03 school year. We 

assessed the reliability of the Washington state data by (1) performing 

electronic testing of required data elements for missing data and for 

obvious errors, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the 

system that produced them, and (3) interviewing Washington state 

officials knowledgeable about the data. However, we did not check the 

data to source information. We determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To identify interventions with the potential to increase graduation rates, 

we used a “snowballing” approach. Using this approach, we reviewed the 

literature on interventions and interviewed Education officials and 

dropout prevention experts and reviewed Web sites, such as the National 

Dropout Prevention Centers Web site 

(http://www.dropoutprevention.org/), to identify those that have the 

potential to increase high school graduation rates. Based on the research 

we reviewed and on recommendations from experts, we selected several 

interventions at various locations around the country. For those 

interventions we selected to visit we reviewed available evaluations, 

including the findings related to outcomes, such as increased graduation 

rates and improved literacy. We also assessed the methodological 

approaches of these evaluations. Based on our review, we identified 3 

interventions that had been rigorously evaluated and have shown potential 

to increase graduation rate and visited 3 schools that had implemented 

these programs. (Rigorous evaluations of 2 other interventions which 

showed promising results were released subsequent to our field work. We 

reviewed the results of these evaluations and reported their findings.) We 

also visited schools that had implemented 13 other interventions that 

experts and research showed promise in affecting factors that may 

improve grad rates. However, rigorous evaluations on these programs had 

not been done at the time of our review. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 52 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

To determine how Education assists states, we reviewed Education 

regulations, guidance, and other documents and interviewed Education 

and state agency officials. We also interviewed these officials to determine 

the degree to which Education’s actions have enhanced and disseminated 

knowledge about interventions. Finally, we interviewed officials from the 

National Governors Association, national education organizations, and 

other experts in the area of high school graduation rates and reviewed 

related research to obtain an understanding of the issues surrounding 

these rates and high school reform efforts to address them. We conducted 

our work between September 2004 and July 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 53 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 54 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 55 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 56 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 57 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 58 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Marnie S. Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov 

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director), Julianne Hartman Cutts (Analyst-inCharge), and Jason Palmer (Senior Analyst) managed all aspects of the 

assignment. Dan Klabunde made significant contributions to this report, in 

all aspects of the work. In addition, Sheranda Smith-Campbell, Nagla’a ElHodiri, and Greg Kato provided analytic assistance. Jean McSween, Karen 

O’Conor, and Beverly Ross provided technical support. Jim Rebbe and 

Sheila McCoy provided legal support, and Corinna Nicolaou assisted in the 

message and report development. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 59 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process 

for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on 

Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909. 

Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004. 

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination 

Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher 

Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004. 

Student Mentoring Programs: Education’s Monitoring and Information 

Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581. Washington, D. C.: June 25, 

2004. 

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information 

Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington, 

D.C.: May 8, 2003. 

Title I: Education Needs to Monitor States’ Scoring of Assessments. 

GAO-02-393. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2002. 

School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying 

and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. GAO-02-240. 

Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. 

Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming 

Their Education. GAO/HEHS-94-45. Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1994. 

Related GAO Products 
Bibliography 

Page 60 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Burns, Matthew K., Barbara V. Senesac, and Todd Symington. “The 

Effectiveness of the HOSTS Program in Improving the Reading 

Achievement of Children At-Risk for Reading Failure.” Reading Research 

and Instruction, vol. 43, no. 2 (2004): 87-103 

Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, and Robert Wood. 

Impacts of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report. Princeton, New 

Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998. 

Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, and Robert Wood. 

Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report. Princeton, 

New Jersey: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1998. 

Dynarski, Mark and Philip Gleason. How Can We Help? What We Have 

Learned From Evaluations of Federal Dropout Prevention Programs? A 

Research Report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance 

Program Evaluation. Princeton, New Jersey: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., 1998. 

Gingras, Rosano, and Rudy Careaga. Limited English Proficient Students 

at Risk: Issues and Prevention Strategies. Silver Spring, Maryland: 

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1989. 

Greene, J. P. and Marcus A. Winters. Public School Graduation Rates in 

the United States (New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 

2002), http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_31.pdf (accessed June 

21, 2005). 

Kemple, James J. Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes 

and Educational Attainment. New York: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation, December 2001. 

Kemple, James J., Corinne M. Herlihy, and Thomas J. Smith. Making 

Progress towards Graduation: Evidence from the Talent Development 

High School Model. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation, May 2005. 

Kerbow, David. “Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School 

Reform.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. vol. 1, no. 2 

(1996): 149-171. 

Bibliography 
Bibliography 

Page 61 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Lehr, Camilla A. and Cheryl M. Lange. “Alternative Schools Serving 

Students with and without Disabilities: What Are the Current Issues and 

Challenges.” Preventing School Failure, vol. 47, no. 2 (2003): 59-65. 

Opuni, K. A. Project GRAD Newark: 2003-2004 Program Evaluation 

Report, Houston, Texas: Center for Research on School Reform, February 

2005. 

Quint, Janet, Howard S. Bloom, Alison Rebeck Black, LaFleur Stephens 

LaFleur, and Theresa M. Akey. The Challenge of Scaling Up Educational 

Reform: Findings and Lessons from First Things First, New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, July 2005. 

Rumberger, Russell, and Scott Thomas. “The Distribution of Dropout and 

Turnover Rates among Urban and Suburban High Schools.” Sociology of 

Education, vol. 73, no. 1 (2000): 39-69. 

Sinclair, M. F., S. L. Christenson, and M. L. Thurlow. “Promoting School 

Completion of Urban Secondary Youth with Emotional or Behavioral 

Disabilities.” Exceptional Children, (in press). 

Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, Eds. Preventing 

Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National 

Academy Press, 1998. 

Swanson, Christopher B. Keeping Count and Losing Count: Calculating 

Graduation Rates for All Students under NCLB Accountability. 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2003, 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410843 (downloaded June 21, 2005). 

Shannon, Sue G., and Pete Bylsma. Helping Students Finish School: Why 

Students Drop Out, and How to Help Them Graduate. Olympia, 

Washington: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2003. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

National Forum on Education Statistics. Forum Guide to Building a 

Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource. NFES 2005-801. 

Washington, D.C.: 2004. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

National Institute of Statistical Sciences / Education Statistics Services 

Institute Task Force on Graduation, Completion, and Dropout 

Indicators. NCES 2005-105. Washington, D.C.: 2004. 
Bibliography 

Page 62 GAO-05-879 No Child Left Behind Act 

Wagner, Mary. Dropouts with Disabilities: What Do We Know? What Can 

We Do? A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of 

Special Education Students. Menlo Park, California: SRI International, 

1991. 

(130386) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER