High School Completion Rates: Investigating a Longitudinal Performance Measure for Texas Schools

Use of a longitudinal school compleall districts and campuses, not just This report provides an overview of tion rate as an indicator of school those in the Exemplary and Recogschool success indicators, along with district performance has been disnized categories, there was an interest an analysis of Texas data using a cussed since the advent of the Acafrom the field and public to explore an school completion methodology. The demic Excellence Indicator System alternative measure of high school advantages and disadvantages of the (AEIS) and the integrated accountabildropout. Critics of the annual dropout proposed school completion methodolity system. In August 1994 (see TEA, rate claim the indicator does not ogy, along with issues related to 1996a), the integrated accountability provide a “true” picture of what incorporating the indicator into the system, based on AEIS data and happens to a cohort of students Texas public education accountability published decision-making rules, was through high school since the indicasystem are also discussed. used for the first time to determine tor only captures a “snapshot” of the campus and district accreditation high school career (Calderon, 1996). Review of School Success/ status. Three types of indicators are Educators and research groups have Completion Indicators used in the accountability system: expressed their concerns for many (1) base indicators, (2) additional years regarding the accuracy of an There are several procedures used to indicators, and (3) report-only indicaannual indicator in capturing what is estimate school success, which tors. Base indicators are those compotruly happening through a student’s measure the proportion of students nents of AEIS that are used to deterschool career (Arrigona, 1991; who either drop out of school or mine district accreditation. Additional Cardenas, Robledo, & Supik, 1986; graduate. These procedures can be indicators are used to determine Ligon, Stewart, & Wilkinson, 1990). classified as annual indicators, estiacknowledgment ratings for districts Criticism of the current dropout rate mated longitudinal indicators, status and campuses. Report-only indicators methodology has also increased in the indicators, and longitudinal indicators. are performance measures that are not past three years since the rate became Each will be reviewed in turn. statutorily required for use in accredita base indicator used to rate districts ing districts, but are required for and campuses. However, changing An annual indicator measures what reporting in AEIS (TEA, 1996a). from an annual dropout rate to a happens in a school over a one-year longitudinal school completion rate as period of time. An example of an One of the base indicators used in a base indicator in the accountability annual indicator is the dropout rate accrediting districts is the Grade 7-12 system would require a change in used in the accountability system for annual dropout rate. For the August statute. Texas public schools and school 1994 rating, the annual dropout rates districts (TEA, 1996a). This dropout for all students and each student group In response to the recent criticisms of rate represents the proportion of 7th (African American, Hispanic, White, using the dropout rate as an indicator through 12th graders who are identiand economically disadvantaged) were in the accountability system, the fied as dropouts, using a series of used in rating campuses and districts commissioner of education initiated a carefully defined criteria, during a as Exemplary or Recognized only. In research study to investigate the given school year. August 1995, when the annual dropout possibility of replacing the dropout rate for Grades 7-12 was used to rate rate with a school completion rate.