Ideas for Increasing the On-Time Graduation Rate at San Fernando High School

Making the Grade:

Ideas for Increasing the On-Time Graduation Rate at San Fernando High School

Jointly Composed

by

Students Enrolled in Honors 9 and Honors 12 English Courses

at

San Fernando High School

March 1, 2013

For the past five years or so, America’s economy has suffered a serious decline. During this time of high unemployment and prolonged joblessness, even those who have a high school degree have found it difficult to find steady work. For those who lack this minimum educational requirement, securing employment is much more of a challenge. Ironically, at a time when the percentage of American youth who graduate high school should be increasing, it is actually moving in the opposite direction, especially in California. Many ideas have been put forward to reverse the downward trend, but at least two of them – paying youths to go to school and fining the parents of those who don’t – would likely only compound the problem. Two approaches with a much greater chance of succeeding, at least with respect to the students in danger of dropping out of San Fernando High School, would be to partner with local radio and television station owners in the broadcast of public service announcements and to facilitate meetings between successful high school seniors and their middle school counterparts.

An Epidemic of Early Exits

According to the most recent information available, approximately 1.3 million American teenagers drop out of school each year. This is the equivalent of approximately 7,200 per day (Wingert). The seriousness of this problem can also be measured in terms of the percentage of high school students who graduate on time. At last count, it was only 68.8% -- a number considerably lower than the rates of many other economically developed countries. Denmark, Japan, Germany,and Finland, for example,have graduation percentages of 96%, 93%, 92%, and 91%, respectively (OECD). Many Americans would likely be surprised to learn that the United States, known around the world as a superpower, ranks only 18th among economically developed nations in terms of its high-school-graduation rate (NEA).

Compared to other states, California occupies an even lower ranking relative to other states than the US does among its peers. With approximately one in four students leaving school before graduation, it holds the unenviable distinction of being 41st in the percentage of secondary students it graduates on time (Blume). This number reflects a decrease over the last ten years and contrasts withthe performance of 36 states that succeeded in improving their on-time graduation rates (Education Week). Two in particular, New York and Tennessee, actually had double-digit gains over the last decade (ibid).

As bad as California is as a whole, the situation is even worse in Los Angeles, where nearly one out of three teens gives up on school (Blume). Especially unsatisfactory is the performance of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), which graduates between 40 (Wingert) and 56 percent (LAUSD School Report Card) of its students on time – depending, respectively, on whether independent or district sources are used in calculating on-time graduation rates. The second-largest school district in the United States, LAUSD is also the second worst in the nation in terms of this critically important measure (Education Week). Each year, roughly 40,000 of its students make the decision to abandon their educations (ibid). Compared to the New York City school district, which is twice its size, LAUSD graduates 14% fewer students (ibid).

Of particular concern to our class is the fact that San Fernando High School’s on-time graduation rate is only slightly higher than that of LAUSD, the district it belongs to. For the 2011-12 school year, only 55% of its students completed their high school education on time (LAUSD School Report Card). This means that out of 825 seniors who might have graduated, only 455 did, and that 370 are left to make their way in the world without the piece of paper required of job applicants by the majority of employers and of would-be students by post-secondary educational institutions.

Another way to look at the problem is to consider how the percentage of on-time graduations has fared over time. Whereas the National Center for Educational Statistics claims that there has been a 3% increase in this rate between 1997 and 2007 (NCES), outside experts contend that the actual dropout rates have gotten much worse over the past 40 years than what are officially reported (Heckman).

Those who study this problem often discuss it in terms of demographics. When it comes to ethnicity, researchers have found that there is a huge difference between the on-time graduation rates of whites and minorities, with Asians being a notable exception. Indeed, the gap between some ethnic groups is as much as 40 to 50 percentage points(Alliance for Education). Asians are the most successful of all ethnic groups, graduating 89.6% of their high school students on time (NEA). Not too far behind are non-Hispanic whites, whose rate in 2010 was 81% (ibid). Much less successful are Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans, whose rates are 56%, 54%, and 51%, respectively (Education Week).That Hispanics are doing so poorly is obviously of special concern to us inasmuch as this is the racial category that describes 97% of the students at SFHS.While not as wide, the difference between genders is also significant. For example, whereas only 48% of African American males graduate on time, 59% of their female counterparts do. Similarly, 49% of Latino males finish school in four years compared to 58% of Latina females who do (NEA).

With further regard to demographics, a student’s socioeconomic status seems important as well. As a matter of fact, a student raised in the wealthiest 25% of American households is seven times as likely to graduate from high school on time as one who comes from the poorest 25% (Alliance for Education). This is another significant statistic for us given that 87% of SFHS students qualify for Title One benefits. Where a student is raised seems to matter too. According to recent statistics, only 58% of teens in cities graduate on time compared to 75% of those in the suburbs (NEA). Although it is located in the San Fernando Valley, SFHS likely has more in common with urban schools than suburban ones. An especially troubling fact is that fully half of all high school dropouts in the nation attend one of only 2000 schools (ibid). Perhaps appropriately, these institutions are popularly known as “dropout factories” (ibid).

All of these numbers take on real significance when one considers the impact that dropping out of high school has on the individuals who choose to do so. One huge effect is a higher rate of unemployment. Whereas a dropout currently faces a 14.9% chance of not having a job, someone who finishes high school has a much lower chance of being out of work: 10.3% (BLS). If this person graduated from college, the likelihood of their being without work is only 5.4%, or one-third that of a dropout (ibid). Even with a little bit of college, a person faces only a 9.2% chance of not being employed (ibid).

The difficulty of finding a job is a situation poignantly described by one of the many SFHS dropouts we interviewed for this project. “Jesus” is in his late twenties and has yet to move out of his parents’ home. As he explains,

It’s been tough since I dropped out. Twelve years later, and I’m still livin’ at home. I’ve had a few jobs that I thought were gonna last, but none of them did. I lost the last one more than a year ago, and nobody’ll even talk to me about a job these days. First thing they ask for is a high school diploma. I got two kids, and they should be living with me and their moms in our own place – instead of with her family. Pretty soon, they’ll be old enough to know what’s up, and they’ll ask me why we gotta be living apart. That’s gonna hurt, for sure. A man’s supposed to provide for his family, and I can’t even give mine a place to live. How they gonna have respect for me when they figure that out? Hopefully, they’ll at least see what happens when you don’t finish school like me.

Even when they are able to find a job, high school dropouts earn considerably less than those who earn a high school diploma. On average, the former will earn $444 per week while the latter will take home roughly two hundred dollars more in that amount of time (BLS). Assuming that this difference persists throughout the dropout’s working years, he or she will earn about $260,000.00 less than the high school graduate (Alliance for Education). As one would expect, the difference in earning potential is much greater still between dropouts and those who earn a bachelor’s degree, the latter taking home an average of $1058 per week. This difference is not at all insignificant when one considers that over a 40-year period, it would equal $1,275,000.00.

These disparities are obviously important when it comes to purchasing such essentials as a house and a car. According to californiarealitycheck.com, a web site sponsored by the California Department of Education, one would need to earn approximately $80,000.00 per year to maintain an average lifestyle in Los Angeles. This may explain why nearly 40% of the homeless population consists of high school dropouts (Da Costa Nunez), whose average gross annual wages total only $23,000.00. Compounding this problem is the fact that dropouts are half as likely to find work that provides them with health care benefits (NCES). This is significant given that health care costs the average American household approximately $15,000 a year (ibid), which is equal to two-thirds of the average dropout’s annual income. Perhaps because they are unable to afford health care, high school dropouts are “more likely to suffer from illness or disability and to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, cancer, infection, injury, and diabetes” than those with at least a high school diploma (NEA).

Such circumstances may help explain why dropouts constitute such a disproportionate percentage of our nation’s prison population. Currently, approximately 78% of all inmates either failed to graduate from high school or earned an alternative diploma such as the GED (Heckman). Not only do the incarcerated pay a great price in terms of the loss of their freedom, but society bears a huge expense in administering federal, state, and municipal penal systems. According to one calculation, if the high school completion rate were increased by only 1% among those aged 20 to 60, the United States would save $1.4 billion annually in such costs (NEA). One can truly get a sense of how much society spends on the criminal justice system when one considers that California spends $50,000.00 to house and feed a prisoner for a year but only $8,000.00 annually to educate a K-12 student (Gollan).

When lower tax payments and greater dependence on Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare are added to these costs, the total effect on taxpayers is a burden of approximately $240,000.00 for each person who fails to earn a high school diploma (NCES). To take but one category of high school dropouts, teenage mothers, if each had at least graduated high school, the nation would save approximately $3.8 billion each year (NEA). Based on estimates provided by the National Education Association, if each and every person who drops out in a single year had graduated instead, the country would realize a savings of $46 billion in public health costs that wouldn’t have to be paid. This number reflects the fact that dropouts enroll in programs like Medicaid at far greater rates than those who earn a high school diploma. Whereas only eight percent of high school graduates (and only 1% of college graduates) enroll in Medicaid, 25 percent of dropouts do so (ibid). Clearly, our taxes would be significantly lower if students graduated and thus were able to better take care of themselves.

Another economic consequence of there being so many Americans lacking a basic education is our nation’s high unemployment rate. In spite of the fact that 13.9 million people are out of work in this country, the number of jobs available in the manufacturing sector has increased from 98,000 in 2008 to 230,000 in 2011 (Bradford). The problem, employers say, is that companies can’t find suitable candidates to fill those positions because of their lack of education and experience (ibid).

Americans should also be concerned about the effects of the dropout problem on the health of our political system. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” This statement reflects his well-known belief that an informed electorate is essential to the survival of a democracy and his strong advocacy of a public education system that is easily accessible to all. As he might well have predicted, today’s dropouts are much less likely to vote or to involve themselves in civic activities. In the presidential election year of 2004, for example, Americans with a college degree were three times as likely to vote as their fellow citizens who lacked a high school diploma (NEA).

A final sobering statistic about the dropout problem that should instill anyone who reads it with a real sense of urgency about doing something to address it is the fact that the children of those who fail to graduate from high school are more likely to drop out themselves. Unless we want this generation of dropouts to produce another and that one produce yet another, we have to do a better job of making sure that our students earn their high school diploma.

Why Carrots and Sticks Won’t Do the Trick

One idea for dealing with the dropout problem that has gained some attention of late relies on financial rewards and penalties. Chelsea High School in Boston is one institution that counts on the former to keep kids in school. It deposits $25 in an account that can’t be accessed until graduation for each quarter that a student has perfect attendance. A charter school in Illinois provides students with an even greater incentive: $50 each week for each student who doesn’t miss any classes. This school is advised by Michael Grady, St. Louis University professor of educational studies, who justifies the practice of paying kids on the grounds that “students can’t learn if they’re not in class” (Miller). Proponents also point to studies such as one conducted by the University of Southern California in the 1990s, which found that scores increase when kids are paid. When researchers there offered 8th graders $1 for every correct answer they got on a national math examination, they supposedly did 13% better (ibid). Education reformers have also taken note of the success of students attending the Providence St. Mel School in West Chicago who not only graduate on time but who go on to attend some of the nation’s most prestigious universities. Their successes – and the fact that they were financially compensated for them – were documented in a film entitled The Providence Effect.

Unfortunately for proponents of this idea, there are a number of serious problems with it.

As suggested by Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, paying kids to go to school might actually make the attendance problem worse, as children with communicable illnesses will feel pressured to attend class – and thus spread whatever ailment they have – when they should stay home until they feel better (Miller). Another occasion when it is unreasonable to expect children to attend school would be when they have experienced a death in the family or when there is an emergency involving one or more of its members. With further regard to a child’s family, it’s been noted that unscrupulous parents may take advantage of the financial-rewards approach to not only send their children to school when they should stay home – again, such as when they are ill – but that they might keep the money that their children obtained for themselves (ibid).

Another problem with this idea is that there is no guarantee that students will take their education seriously just because they’re in school. Indeed, it’s very possible – if not likely – that those who don’t want to be in class will engage in disruptive behavior that will make it difficult for those who do want to learn to do so. Schools that pay their students for merely showing up may thus compound the problem of students not being sufficiently educated.

Critics of what might be called the “cash-for-class” approach also contend that it undermines a central mission of the public education system, which is to instill children with morals and values that most members of society subscribe to. One such belief is that education is something that should be pursued throughout one’s life for its own sake and for the sake of our democratic society, which benefits from having a well-educated electorate. Paying kids to go to school would go against these important precepts in that it would discourage youth from pursuing other worthwhile objectives unless they receive an immediate financial reward,and because it will weaken their sense of obligation to contribute to the greater good. In essence, it amounts to a substitution of bribery for the recognition of intrinsic rewards that benefit both themselves and others. One can only wonder how many students will decide not to attend college because they’re not immediately compensated for doing so.