Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools

by Diane Ravitch

  Federal data show that the proportion of people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four who are not presently enrolled in high school and who have earned either a high school diploma or an alternative credential, including a GED, is 90 percent. This rate includes people who may have earned their high school degrees in another country, but it does not include those who are in the military (almost all of whom have high school degrees) and those who are incarcerated (who are less likely than their peers to have high school diplomas).4 Unlike the four-year graduation rate, which has increased slowly, the completion rate for this age group has trended steadily upward for the past thirty years.

  Looked at this way, the narrative is transformed from a story of stagnation and crisis to a story of incremental progress.

  Most of these additional diplomas were earned by the age of eighteen or nineteen. Among that age group, 89 percent had a high school diploma. In other words, within one year after the traditional four-year program, the graduation rate went from 75 percent (or 78 percent) to 89 percent.

  Among young people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four who were Asian/Pacific Islanders, the completion rate was 96 percent. Among white youths, it was 94 percent. Among black youths, it was 87 percent. Among American Indians/Alaska Natives, it was 82 percent. Among Hispanics, it was 77 percent.5 (See graph 34.)

  The lowest graduation rate (63 percent) was found among Hispanic youths aged eighteen to twenty-four who were born outside the continental United States. Many of the Hispanic youths in this age group are recent immigrants who never attended American high schools.

  As with the graduation rate, there are different ways of calculating the dropout rate. One is called the “event dropout rate.” It measures the percentage of youths from age fifteen through twenty-four who dropped out of grades 10–12 in a twelve-month period, from October to October. The other is called the “status rate,” which includes all dropouts between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four who lack a high school diploma, regardless of when or where they left school (some in this group may be immigrants who never attended school in the United States). The status rate is always higher than the event rate because the status rate includes all dropouts.

  Let’s look at the event dropout rate. Federal data say this about the event dropout rate: “On average, 3.4 percent of students who were enrolled in public or private high schools in October 2008 left school before October 2009 without completing a high school program … Since 1972, event dropout rates have trended downward, from 6.1 percent in 1972 to 3.4 percent in 2009.”6 Another federal report in 2013 broke down the dropout rate by race and ethnic group as follows: for whites, it was 2.3 percent; for blacks, 5.5 percent; for Hispanics, 5.0 percent; for Asians, 1.9 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 6.7 percent.7 (See graph 35.)

  So far, no dropout crisis. Let’s look at the status rate, which casts a wider net than the event rate. In October 2009, three million people between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four were not in high school and did not have high school diplomas (this number does not include incarcerated youths). They accounted for 8 percent of all those in this age group. Some undoubtedly were recent immigrants who never attended high school in the United States. To be sure, it is terrible that three million young men and women do not have high school diplomas, because their life chances and their future income will be reduced for lack of the diploma.

  But it is important to know whether the situation with dropouts is getting worse. After all, the definition of a “crisis” is that matters are getting worse than they were and are reaching a critical point.

  Here is what the federal data show: “Among all individuals in this age group, status dropout rates trended downward between 1972 and 2009, from 15 percent to 8 percent.” Asian/Pacific Islanders have the lowest dropout rate at 3 percent. Among whites, the dropout rate was 5 percent. The black dropout rate was 9 percent. The Hispanic dropout rate was 18 percent.8 (See graphs 36 and 37.)

  And look at the trend over time in the status dropout rate.

  Among whites, the dropout rate in 1972 was 12 percent. That is the proportion of whites between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four who were not enrolled in school and did not have high school diplomas. By 2009, the dropout rate for whites was down to 5 percent.

  Among blacks, the dropout rate in 1972 was 21 percent in this age group. By 2009, the dropout rate for blacks was down to 9 percent. That is impressive progress.

  Among Hispanics, the dropout rate in 1972 was 34 percent. By 2009, it was down to 18 percent. That is impressive progress, too.

  We can’t keep crying wolf when we are making progress. The progress has been slow and steady. But it is progress. We are moving in the right direction.

  It would be best if no one dropped out. It would be best if everyone earned a high school diploma, but the crucial fact to note is that the data contradict the narrative of crisis. The dropout rate is trending downward. We are moving forward. We are making progress. The dropout rate has actually been cut by about 40 percent overall between 1972 and 2009 and reduced even more for blacks and Hispanics, the groups that are most at risk for dropping out.

  Another criticism leveled at the schools is that the high school graduation rate is not rising as fast as it is in other countries. The United States used to have the highest high school graduation rate in the world, but other nations have overtaken us and are now producing more high school graduates than we are. This is true. As we have seen, the four-year high school graduation rate has been relatively flat for many years, hovering at about 75 percent and only recently rising to 78 percent. At the same time, other nations were increasing their high school graduation rates. Nations such as the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Canada, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and Finland have boosted their high school completion rates, while we have not.9 (See graph 38.)

  Of course, with all international comparisons like this, it is never certain that all these nations are describing the same institutions or the same level of academic demand. That is also true even in a nation like ours where the rigor of a high school diploma varies considerably from place to place.

  Furthermore, the data may be interpreted in various ways, because so many variables are involved. And the data may be presented in a negative or a positive light. When the U.S. Department of Education described the international data (drawing on the same sources as the previously cited report from OECD), it showed impressive growth for the twenty-seven OECD nations but a flat line for the United States. In the OECD as a whole, the proportion of the population from age twenty-five to sixty-four with a high school degree rose from 65 percent to 72 percent between 2001 and 2008, while it remained steady in the United States, going from 88 percent to 89 percent.

  Most OECD nations saw large growth in the high school graduation rate among the youngest group (ages twenty-five to thirty-four), as compared with those who were fifty-five to sixty-four. “The United States was the only country in 2008 where the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who had completed high school did not exceed the percentage of 55- to 64-year-olds who had completed high school.” At both ends of the age spectrum, the high school graduation rate in the United States was 88–89 percent.10 Our growth is flat because our rate is so high.

  The United States had a higher graduation rate in 2009 than the average for the OECD nations, whether looking at the population from twenty-five to sixty-four or looking only at the youngest group, from twenty-five to thirty-four. The other nations are gaining while we remain stuck at 89 percent.

  Can we raise our high school graduation rate above the 90 percent range? There are two ways to do that. One is to make sure that every student gets the necessary preparation and support in the early grades so that he or she is well prepared for high school. The other is to lower standards to meet an artificial target, which is pointless.

  This is a dilemma. If we focus solely on producing a higher graduation rate—as man
y U.S. school districts are doing now—then the value of the high school diploma might be weakened by lowering standards and awarding diplomas to poorly prepared students. Many districts are reaching to meet the goal by putting low-performing students into “credit recovery” courses, where they earn lost credits in a few days of low-level studies. Or the students make up credits by taking an online course, where they can easily pass undemanding tests, tests where they may be allowed to guess the answer until they get it right or where they are able to get the right answer by searching for it online. Just getting the graduation rate up is not a sufficient goal. More time and energy must be spent preparing students in the early grades so that they are academically ready to meet the expectations of a high school diploma. Perhaps our current graduation rate numbers are inflated; the more we concentrate on raising the graduation rate instead of raising the quality of education, the more likely it is that we will have high school graduates who are not well prepared for work or postsecondary education or being a good citizen.

  One recent proposal to end “the dropout crisis” noted that the current emphasis on “college for all” was discouraging students who were at risk of dropping out. The author, Russell W. Rumberger, leads the California Dropout Research Project. What discouraged students need most, Rumberger argued, is not a college-preparatory curriculum (since they are not college bound) but an education that promotes their motivation, perseverance, and self-esteem. They need an education that develops their academic and vocational interests. Most job openings for the foreseeable future don’t require any postsecondary education, he noted, and these students could qualify for many jobs. But these students need a high school diploma just to get in the door. They need support and encouragement to stay in school, and they need high school courses that will prepare them to enter the job market. If we are serious about reducing the dropout rate, Rumberger suggested, we would desegregate schools because concentrated racial segregation and poverty contribute to dropping out. He pointed out that “two-thirds of all high schools in the United States in 2002 with more than 90 percent minority enrollments had fewer than six in 10 students remain in school from 9th to 12th grade.” If we really want to make a difference, we would take action to strengthen families and communities by reducing poverty and racial segregation.11

  Black and Hispanic youths who attend high-poverty, racially isolated schools have serious problems. Large numbers are not completing high school. Our efforts should focus on reducing the causes of their disengagement from school, part of which has to do with being unprepared for high school work and part of which results from the circumstances in which they live.

  The constant talk about “crisis” can be debilitating since it is based on distortions. It can make people feel that all their efforts are in vain. It can make them cast aside the necessary but difficult courses of action and grab at any proposal that offers a quick fix, no matter how illusory. That way lies wasted time and resources. It is better to know the facts and to have a realistic understanding of the problem than to be driven by a sense of panic.

  People tend to work harder if they know that their hard work is productive. If we recognize the good work that so many principals, teachers, parents, youth counselors, school psychologists, and social workers have done over the years, they—and we—wouldn’t feel hopeless about conquering problems. Could we do better? Certainly. We should not despair. We have made progress and can make even more progress if we persist and have a realistic grasp of the problems.

  CHAPTER 9

  The Facts About College Graduation Rates

  CLAIM Our economy will suffer unless we have the highest college graduation rate in the world.

  REALITY There is no evidence for this claim.

  Since World War II, the United States has steadily expanded access to higher education on the assumption that an educated populace would benefit individuals, society, and the economy. Widespread higher education, it was generally believed, would elevate the knowledge and wisdom of the populace and spur technological innovation. Investing in education was, most policy makers believed, a good bet for the nation.

  These days, our policy makers tend to see investment in higher education strictly as preparation for the workforce, for career readiness and global competition. If another nation has more college graduates, they fear, then it might beat us in the global competition for markets and technological innovation. But we should not lose sight of other ways of thinking about higher education. Going to a college or university is about more than acquiring job skills. It is a time to study different subjects and fields in depth; to explore one’s interests and to give full range to one’s curiosity about ideas; to study under the tutelage of scholars who have devoted their lives to their field. It is a time to develop one’s intellectual and cultural life. It is a time in which to gain the political, historical, and economic understanding that was not contained in high school textbooks, to explore issues that were once thought settled, to acquire and exercise the critical perspective that prepares people to become actively involved in civic life and democratic politics.

  In recent decades, the utilitarian argument for higher education has nearly supplanted understanding of the role of higher education in developing intellectual, cultural, political, and aesthetic judgments. Yet even those who go to college to study business may find time in their schedule to read literature and history, to learn about philosophy, music, and art. They may, for the first time in their lives, have the opportunity to think critically about society. These are the fruits of higher education, as distinct from vocational education. It may be a vain hope, but we should continue to urge our policy makers not to lose sight of the intangible values of higher education as they promote higher college graduation rates.

  The great expansion of higher education began when veterans of World War II returned home. As a reward for their service, Congress passed the GI Bill of Rights. Among its many benefits were subsidies for tuition, books, and fees of those who wanted more education. More than two million veterans took advantage of the offer and enrolled in institutions of higher education. Unfortunately, the GI Bill occurred in the context of racial segregation, and most African American veterans were unable to gain admission to most institutions of higher education; instead, they used their benefits for trade schools. While the GI Bill did nothing to end racial segregation, it largely severed the connection between income and higher education by providing access to many who otherwise would not have been able to afford it, and American higher education was transformed. Higher education was no longer seen as a privilege of the privileged. State universities expanded, and community colleges opened and grew to meet a variety of needs, not only academic, but technical and vocational as well.

  The college-going rate has increased at a phenomenal pace over the past century. In 1900, only 2 percent of those in the eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old group were enrolled in college. By 1930, it was 7 percent. By 1949, it was 15 percent. By 1969, the college-going rate among that age group was 35 percent. The increased availability of public higher education made college more affordable and accessible to large numbers of students. To bolster enrollments, many states made a point of underwriting the cost of public higher education.1

  At present, higher education is the pathway to every profession and to technical careers that require at least two years of postsecondary study. College graduates on average earn more money than high school graduates, and high school graduates earn more money than high school dropouts. College graduates have a lower unemployment rate than those with less education. Thus, it is reasonable to encourage more individuals to acquire more education to improve their knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, many states have increasingly shifted the cost of higher education to students, raising tuition and making higher education an expensive investment. Many students leave college burdened by debt and spend years paying off their student loans. As public subsidies are replaced by student loans, college and university educati
on becomes too expensive and out of reach for many students. Many decide to take their degrees online, hoping that they can get a degree faster and at less cost. For those who want a four-year degree, this is not a good decision. For-profit online universities have extremely low graduation rates.2

  Reformers complain that students in the United States are falling behind those in other nations because the college completion rate in this country is flat, while it is rising elsewhere. The college completion rate for older Americans (fifty-five to sixty-four) is the same as for younger Americans (twenty-five to thirty-four). Reformers cite an OECD chart showing that the United States ranked sixteenth in the world in its graduation rate, as compared with other OECD nations. The implication is that our nation is losing the international race to create brainpower and educated talent and is therefore careening into economic decline. President Obama is convinced that the United States must increase the number of college graduates and has pledged that by the year 2020 “America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”

  Should we aspire to have the highest college graduation rate in the world? What will happen if we don’t?

  These are issues that need to be deconstructed.

  The OECD chart shows fifteen nations with a higher postsecondary graduation rate than ours. Nations are ranked by the percent of their population aged twenty-five to thirty-four that completed either an associate’s degree or a higher degree by 2009. The completion rate for the United States is 41 percent. The nation with the highest completion rate is South Korea, where 63 percent of the age group has earned a postsecondary degree. About 55 percent of the cohort has received degrees in Canada, Japan, and the Russian Federation. The rates are in the mid-to-high 40s in Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Luxembourg, the U.K., Australia, and Denmark. Such nations as France, Israel, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Finland have rates within a point or two of the United States.3 (See graphs 38 and 39.)