What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Research Report
July 2007
CONSORTIUM ON
CHICAGO SCHOOL RESEARCH
AT THE UNIVERSIT Y OF CHICAGO
ccsr
What Matters for Staying On-Track and
Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools
A Close Look at Course Grades, Failures, and Attendance in the Freshman Year
Elaine M. Allensworth
John Q. EastonAcknowledgements
The authors gratefully thank their research colleagues at the Consortium on
Chicago School Research for advice and helpful suggestions from early to final
stages of this work. We would particularly like to thank Steve Ponisciak for his
thorough technical reading of the report. Penny Sebring, Melissa Roderick,
and Holly Hart reviewed earlier drafts. Staff at the Chicago Public Schools and
Consortium Steering Committee members helped develop the major themes in
this study. We particularly thank Steering Committee members Arie van der Ploeg
and Josie Yanguas for their comments on our work. Two external reviewers,
Valerie Lee, University of Michigan, and Tom Hoffer, NORC at the University of
Chicago, carefully examined the statistical analyses and provided extensive
feedback. Finally, we very gratefully acknowledge the Chicago Public Schools
for providing us the data that allowed us to do this work.
This work was supported by grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York,
the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation.
What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools2 Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: A Close Look at Course Grades, Failures, and Absences in the Freshman Year..................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: What Matters for Grades and Failure in the Freshman Year: Student Backgrounds and Behaviors. ...................................................... 15 Chapter 3: What Matters for Grades, Failure, and Attendance: School Practices. .................................................................................. 25 Chapter 4: Interpretive Summary.......................................................... 37 References.......................................................................................... 45 Appendix A: Individual School Data...................................................... 48 Appendix B: Description of Survey Measures............................................ 53 Appendix C: Correlations Involving Survey Measures. ............................... 56 Appendix D: Summaries of Models......................................................... 59 consortium on chicago school research at the university of chicago
What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools
2
Introduction
I mproving graduation rates and reducing dropout rates are high-priority
items on the national agenda for high school reform. There is increasing
recognition that a high school diploma is a minimum requirement for success
in the workplace and that too few students obtain this minimum standard.1
Yet, it is a problem that can sometimes feel overwhelming to try to manage.
In part, this is because of the magnitude of the problem: nationally, nearly
one-third of students do not graduate from high school.2 Almost half the
Chicago Public Schools (CPS) students fail to graduate from high school,
and in some CPS high schools more students drop out than graduate.3 These
numbers underscore the urgency of addressing this issue immediately.
The dropout problem is also difficult to manage because its causes are
many and complex. Research on dropping out has shown that the decision
to persist in or leave school is affected by multiple contextual factors—
family, school, neighborhood, peers—interacting in a cumulative way over
the life course of a student.4 This suggests a daunting task for dealing with
the problem of dropout—if so many factors are involved in the decision
to drop out of school, including experiences outside of school and in early
grades, how can any high school effort substantially address the problem?
What is often lost in discussions about dropping out is the one factor
that is most directly related to graduation—students’ performance in their
courses. In Chicago, we have shown that inadequate credit accumulation
in the freshman year, which usually results from course failures, is highly
predictive of failing to graduate four years later. Research in New York City
has shown very similar connections between inadequate credit accumula-
tion and eventual dropping out, and national data confirms this; almost
all students who drop out leave school far behind in course credits.5 As we
consortium on chicago school research at the university of chicago 1document here in more detail, success in high school performance in the freshman year sets the stage for
coursework is directly tied to eventual graduation. eventual graduation. This report builds on a report
Knowing that graduation is directly tied with course we released June 2005 that described and defined
grades suggests two potential strategies for address- the “freshman on-track indicator.” In that report, we
ing dropout problems. At the very least, we can use showed the relationship between being on-track at the
freshman course performance to identify students at end of the freshman year and graduating from high
high risk of dropping out to target with support and school four and five years later. On-track students had
intervention. At the most, if schools and teachers can at least ten semester credits (five full-year course credits)
influence the quality of students’ performance in their and no more than one semester F in a core course by
coursework, then they have a direct lever to affect the end of their first year in high school. Students who
graduation rates—a lever that should simultaneously were on-track at the end of their freshman year were
improve student achievement. nearly four times more likely to graduate from high
In this report, we look closely at students’ perfor- school than their classmates who were not on-track.6
mance in their coursework during their freshman The original on-track report provided initial evi-
year, how it is related to eventual graduation, and dence that we could use freshman-year course perfor-
how personal and school factors contribute to success mance to precisely identify future dropouts. While it
or failure in freshman-year courses. We show that was a key validation of the on-track indicator, it left a
data on course performance can be used to identify number of unanswered questions: Why is the indica-
future dropouts and graduates with precision, and tor predictive? Why are students off-track? And what
we compare performance indicators to discern how might high schools themselves contribute to students’
they might be used for nuanced targeting of students course performance? Furthermore, that report only
at-risk of dropping out. We examine the factors that examined whether students were making minimal
contribute to course performance in the freshman year, progress in their freshman year, which meant whether
showing that success in coursework is affected more by they were earning sufficient credits to be on-track for
what students do while they are in high school than promotion to the tenth grade. But we want students to
by their preparation for high school and backgrounds. graduate from high school ready for college and work,
Finally, we provide evidence that teachers and schools which means we should aim for students doing A and
matter for how students perform in their courses, and B quality work.7 In this report, we pull apart a variety
that efforts to reduce dropout rates are consistent with of indicators of freshman course performance—includ-
initiatives to address low achievement. ing students’ failures, absences, and overall grades—to
We focus on the freshman year because our prior learn what matters for a successful freshman year.
work, and work by others, has shown that course
Introduction Endnotes
1 E.g., Orfield (2004); Barton (2005); National Association of 7 As documented in the CCSR report, From high school to the future:
Secondary School Principles (2005). A first look at CPS graduates’ college enrollment, college preparation, and
2 Swanson (2004). graduation from four-year colleges, students with a GPA lower than a
3 Allensworth (2005). 2.0 are unlikely to enroll in college, and those with a GPA lower than
4 Rumberger (2004); Alexander, Entwisle, and Kabbani (2001). 3.0 are unlikely to obtain a four-year degree. Grades are also very
5 Cahill, Hamilton, and Lynch (2006); National Center for predictive of future earnings (Miller, 1998).
Education Statistics (2007).
6 Research in Philadelphia has also shown that course performance
in the eighth and ninth grades can be used to identify dropouts
years before they leave school (see work by Robert Balfanz, Ruth
Curran Neild, and Lisa Herzog). For example, using detailed records
on students, Neild and Balfanz (2005) used attendance and failure
in the eighth and ninth grades to identify dropouts in Philadelphia.
As in Chicago, they found that test scores were not as predictive of
graduation as students’ performance in their coursework.
2 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools2
Chapter 1
A Close Look at Course Grades, Failures,
and Absences in the Freshman Year
A s a measure of minimally adequate performance, the on-track indicator
groups together marginally successful students and very successful
ones. Knowing that the on- and off-track groups both contain students with
widely differing course performances, we decided to explore what aspects of
being off-track made students less likely to graduate, and if more nuanced
indicators of course performance—such as number of course failures, GPA,
or absences—might be better predictors of eventual graduation. We begin
this chapter by examining these other indicators of course performance as
predictors of graduation. We then use the other indicators to look more closely
at what it means to be off-track.
A Number of Freshman-Year Indicators Can Be Used to Predict
High School Graduation
The on-track indicator is highly predictive of graduation, but it is a blunt
indicator; and the requisite data to construct the indicator are not available
until the end of a student’s first year in high school. Schools and districts
often ask if there are other indicators that could be used to forecast graduation.
In fact, there are several related measures of how well students do during
their freshman year that are equally predictive and more readily available,
including freshman-year GPA, the number of semester course failures, and
freshman-year absences.
consortium on chicago school research at the university of chicago 3Freshman Course Performance Among CPS Students
This report analyzes several different, but related, is aligned with the CPS promotion policy for moving
indicators of freshman-year performance. Each is from freshman to sophomore year, which only requires
defined below, along with summary figures that five full credits. In the 2004–05 freshman class, 59
show the performance of first-time ninth-graders in percent of first-time high school students were on-track
the 2004–05 school year (24,894 students). We in- while 41 percent were off-track (excluding students
clude only students who remained in school through who dropped out before the end of their first year in
spring of their freshman year. high school).
The 2005 report on the on-track indicator showed
that freshman-year course performance has improved Number of Semester Course Failures: In this report, we
over the last decade in CPS; on-track rates improved measure failures across all courses by semester. This
from 50 percent with the 1994–95 freshman class differs from the on-track indicator, which only incor-
to 60 percent with the 2003–04 class (excluding porates failures in core subjects (reading, math, science,
first-year dropouts), while freshman-course pass rates and social science); this report examines overall course
improved from 76 to 81 percent over the same performance, not just performance in core courses. A
period.A However, as detailed below, one cannot typical student takes 7 courses each semester; thus, a
escape the conclusion that, in general, freshmen in typical student could fail as many as 14 courses in a
CPS still do very poorly; more than half of fresh- year. Figure 1 graphs the number of semester courses
men fail a course, the average GPA is below a C, and failed by first-time freshmen in the 2004–05 school
absence rates are very high—40 percent of freshmen year, excluding students who dropped out before the
miss more than four weeks of school (including class end of their first year in high school. The modal cat-
cutting). The statistics would sound even worse if we egory of failures is 0; however, more than half the CPS
included freshmen dropouts in the calculations. For freshmen (53 percent) fail at least one course.
many students, freshman year is like a bottleneck—
their performance is so poor that they are unable to Figure 1
Figureof1.Course
Number NumberFailures
of CourseAmong
FailuresFreshmen
Among Freshmen in 2004-05
in 2004-05
recover. These negative experiences in freshman year
put students at high risk of not graduating, which
later prevents them from participating in the main- 50%
47%
stream economy and larger society. We cannot hope 45%
to substantially improve graduation rates unless we
40%
substantially improve students’ course performance
in their freshman year. 35%
Percentage of Students
30%
On-Track: A student is considered on-track if he or
25%
she has accumulated five full credits (ten semester
credits) and has no more than one semester F in a 20%
core subject (English, math, science, or social sci- 15%
12% 12%
ence) by the end of the first year in high school.
10% 8%
This is an indicator of the minimal expected level 6%
5% 4% 4% 4%
of performance. Students in CPS need 24 credits to 3%
graduate from high school, so a student with only 5 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
credits at the end of freshman year will need to pass
courses at a faster rate in later years. The definition Number of Semester Course Failures
4 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High SchoolsGrade Point Average (GPA): CPS students receive a Course Absences: Absences are counted on a course-
weighted GPA on their report card, which gives extra by-course basis and then aggregated into total
points for grades in honors and Advanced Placement number of days absent. If a student misses one out
(AP) courses. In this report, we analyze unweighted of seven courses in a day, it counts as one-seventh
GPAs (which use values of 4 points for an A, 3 for a B, of a day of absence for that student. Figure 3 shows
2 for a C, 1 for a D, and 0 for an F) for all credit-bear- absence rates for students entering CPS high schools
ing classes. We analyze unweighted GPAs rather than in the 2004–05 school year, excluding students
weighted GPAs because all students do not have equal who dropped out before the end of their first year
access to honors, International Baccalaureate (IB), and in high school. One-quarter of students missed less
AP courses. Figure 2 shows the distribution of GPAs than one week of school per semester. Forty percent
among first-time freshmen in 2004–05, for students of students missed more than two weeks of school
who remained in school through spring term. A 2.0 per semester, which is a month or more of class time
GPA (C average) is typical for CPS freshmen. Very per year. There are 90 days in each semester, so
few students—only 3 percent—have A averages their these students missed more than 10 percent of the
freshman year, while more than 40 percent of freshmen annual instructional time. Students can be counted
finish the year with a GPA lower than 2.0 (a D+ aver- as truant with 20 unexcused full-day absences.
age or lower). About a quarter of students have a B or
higher average at the end of their freshman year.
Figure
Figure 2.2 Distribution of Freshman GPAs in 2004-05 Figure Figure
3 3. Absences Among Freshmen in 2004-05
Distribution of Freshmen GPAs in 2004-05 Absences Among Freshmen in 2004-05
18% 40%
16%
16% 15% 35%
35%
15%
14%
14%
30%
12%
Percentage of Students
Percentage of Students
12% 25%
25%
10% 9% 9%
20%
8%
16%
6% 15%
6%
10% 8%
4% 3%
5%
2% 5% 3% 4%
2% 2%
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+
Unweighted GPA Absences in Days per Semester
Rounded to the nearest 0.5 Partial days counted as fraction of total day
Sidebar Endnotes
A Allensworth and Easton (2005).
Chapter 1 5Table 1 shows how well each of the four indicators high absence rates, missing one month or more of
of freshman-year course performance predicts whether classes each semester (see Figure 3). These students
students will graduate from high school within four have largely disengaged from school—they remain
years. Whether a student is on-track, GPA, and the enrolled, but have marginal attendance—and they have
number of semester course failures all correctly identify less than a 10 percent chance of graduating (see Figure
graduates and nongraduates 80 percent of the time. 5). However, it is not just extremely low attendance
GPA is the most accurate for identifying nongradu- that is problematic. Even moderate levels of absences are
ates. Freshman-year absences are slightly less predic- a cause for concern. Just one to two weeks of absence
tive than the other three indicators because they do per semester, which are typical for CPS freshmen, are
not distinguish students who are attending school but associated with a substantially reduced probability of
performing poorly in their classes from those who are graduating. In the 2000–01 cohort, only 63 percent
attending and performing well. Although the four of students who missed about one week (five to nine
indicators of course performance may seem somewhat days) graduated in four years, compared to 87 percent
interchangeable, they each provide somewhat different of those who missed less than one week. This is of
information, as described below. great concern, considering that only one-quarter of
CPS freshmen miss less than one week of school per
Table 1
semester. Attendance is clearly a vital part of graduating
Predictive Ability of Indicators of Freshman-Year Performance from high school, but beyond this we show evidence
Freshman Overall Specificity Sensitivity later in this report that attendance is the most essential
Performance Correct Predicting Predicting requirement for avoiding course failure.
Indicator Prediction Nongraduates Graduates
Information on absences is available early in the
GPA 80% 73% 85% school year and might be the most practical indicator
On-Track vs. Off-Track 80% 72% 85% for identifying students for early interventions. More
Semester Course Failures 80% 66% 89% than half the nongraduates can be identified by the
Fall-semester failures 76% 55% 91% end of the first semester using either absence or failure
Absences 77% 59% 90% rates. By the end of the first term, course grades and
Fall-semester absences 74% 53% 89%
failure rates are slightly better predictors of graduation
than attendance because they directly indicate whether
In the earlier report, we showed that students on- students are making progress in their courses. These
track at the end of their freshman year are about four rates also provide more specific information to target
times more likely to graduate than off-track students programs for struggling students than the on-track
(see Figure 4). The on-track indicator has advantages indicator. GPA, in particular, provides information
over the other indicators in terms of ease of reporting about who is likely to struggle in later years and is the
and being easily understood by a broad public. Because best indicator for predicting nongraduates.2 As shown
it is a categorical variable with only two values—either in Figure 6, students with a 2.5 GPA (C+ average)
on- or off-track—it is easy to report trends over time. in their freshman year have a very high likelihood of
However, the on-track indicator does not provide infor- graduating within four years—86 percent did so in the
mation that is precise enough to allow specific students 2000–01 freshman cohort. As grades fall between 2.0
to be targeted for specific interventions. In addition, (C average) and 0.5 (D- average), graduation rates fall
the indicator does not provide timely information to dramatically. Just under three-fourths of students with
schools: it cannot be calculated until the summer after a 2.0 (C average) graduated by 2004 in the 2000–01
students’ first year of high school. cohort, compared to about one-quarter of students
Several researchers have found that high absence with a 1.0 (D average). Virtually no student with an
rates are strong predictors of dropping out.1 In CPS, average lower than a D in the freshman year earned a
about 15 percent of first-time freshmen have extremely CPS diploma; this is a cause for concern, given that 15
6 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High SchoolsFigure 4 Figure 5
Four-Year
Figure 4.Graduation Rates byRates
Four-Year Graduation Freshman On-Track
by Freshman Status
On-Track Status Four-Year Graduation
Figure 5. Four-Year Rates by Freshman
Graduation AbsenceAbsence
Rates by Freshman Rates Rates
100% 100%
90% 90% 87%
82%
Percentage that Graduated in Four Years
80%
80%
Percentage that Graduated in Four Years
70%
70%
63%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40% 41%
40%
30%
22% 30%
20%
21%
20%
10%
9%
10%
0 5%
Off-Track On-Track 2% 1% 0%
0
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+
Graduation rates are based on students entering high school in
September 2001, followed until September 2005. Days Absent per Semester
Course cutting counted as partial days
Graduation rates are based on students entering high school in
Figure 6 Figure 7 September 2001, followed until September 2005.
Figure
Four-Year 6. Four-Year
Graduation Graduation
Rates Rates by
by Freshman Freshman GPA
GPA Four-Year Graduation Rates by Freshman Course Failures
Figure 7. Four-Year Graduation Rates by Freshman Course Failures
100% 97% 98% 100%
93%
90% 86% 90%
85%
80% 80%
Percentage that Graduated in Four Years
Percentage that Graduated in Four Years
72%
70%
70% 70%
60% 60%
53% 55%
50% 50%
42%
40% 40%
33%
30% 28% 30%
25%
20% 20%
13%
11%
10% 6% 10% 7%
1% 2%
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
Freshman GPA Semester Course Failures
Rounded to the nearest 0.5 Graduation rates are based on students entering high school in September
2001, followed until September 2005.
Graduation rates are based on students entering high school in September
2001, followed until September 2005.
Graduation rates are based on students entering high school in
September 2001, followed until September 2005 for Figures 4-7.
Chapter 1 7percent of CPS students finished their freshman year their freshman year also struggled with problems
with lower than a D average (see Figure 2). outside of school sometime during their four years of
On the other hand, students with good grades in high school. Remember from Figure 2 that almost a
their first year are very likely to be successful in their quarter of CPS freshmen have B or higher averages in
remaining years of high school. In the 2000–01 enter- a district that is about 90 percent low income—thus,
ing class, almost all students with a B average or higher most students with B or higher averages are low-income
at the end of their freshman year graduated within four students. Still, 95 percent of the students with B or
years. Furthermore, almost 80 percent of these students higher averages graduated within four years.4 Success
graduated with a final GPA of 3.0 or higher. We know in the freshman year may make it easier for students
from research that the decision to drop out is affected to continue, despite personal and family problems that
by myriad factors in students’ lives, many of which exist might develop during the course of high school.
outside of the school.3 It is probable that first-year stu- Clearly, GPAs are related to course failures because
dents who earned high grades experienced fewer outside failures are part of the calculation of students’ GPAs.
stressors than other students, and fewer personal and Course failures are more directly tied to graduation,
home problems undoubtedly made graduating from however, because students need to accumulate a specific
high school easier for them. However, it is also likely number of course credits to receive a diploma, and
that many of the students who received good grades they must pass their classes to obtain credits. This is
Students’ Freshman-Year Course Performance Is Much More Important for Graduation Than
Their Background Characteristics and Prior Achievement
Students’ likelihood of graduation is affected by contrast, students’ freshman-year GPA and number
their educational experiences prior to high school, of Fs explain 39 percent of the variation in gradua-
and is related to their economic and demographic tion rates.C Once we know how students performed
backgrounds.A Research on graduation has shown in their classes in their freshman year, additional
particularly strong relationships of graduation information about their backgrounds does little to
with students’ test scores and age on entry into improve our prediction of whether they will gradu-
high school—which is a proxy for grade retention. ate. D As we showed in Table 1, ninth-grade Fs or
Graduation is also related to students’ gender, race, GPA each can be used to predict about 80 percent of
and economic status. However, all of these factors to- graduates; if we include information about students’
gether explain only about 12 percent of the variation background characteristics and prior achievement,
in graduation rates in the cohort of students entering we only improve the prediction by about half a
CPS high schools in the 2000–01 school year.B In percentage point.E
Sidebar Endnotes D Background characteristics explain only an additional 1 percent
more variation in graduation rates than do freshmen Fs and GPA
A E.g., Rumberger (2004); and Alexander, Entwisle, and Kabbani
alone.
(2001).
E These statistics on variance explained in dropout are similar,
B This is the reduction in log-likelihood (pseudo-R2) that is
albeit slightly smaller, to those reported by Alexander, Entwisle, and
achieved by predicting graduation with students’ eighth-grade
Kabbani (2001) in their comprehensive study of factors across the
test scores, age, race, gender, poverty, and economic status with
life-course that contribute to graduation/dropout. They reported
a logistic regression model.
that ninth-grade performance, behaviors, and attitudes (GPA, grade
C The variance explained increases from 12 to 40 percent if
retention, parent attitudes, pupil behaviors, and pupil attitudes)
indicators of freshman course performance are included in the
together explained 44.1 percent of the variation in dropout rates;
models described in the previous footnote.
when they added in background factors, the variation explained
increased by just under 6 percent (to 49.8 percent).
8 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schoolsreflected in the consistent relationship between the In general, off-track students are struggling in all
number of courses a student fails and whether that of their courses. Figure 8 shows the distribution of
student eventually graduates, as shown in Figure 7. GPAs in passed courses by the number of semester
Each additional course failure makes it more difficult course failures. Even on-track students have relatively
to graduate.5 Once students have failed six semester low GPAs. Among students with no failures, the typical
courses (i.e., three full-year courses), they are so un- GPA is about 2.5 (C+). Only half (48 percent) has a
likely to graduate that additional failures only modestly GPA of a B or higher; 23 percent are C or D+. Among
decrease the probability of graduating; these students students with only one semester F, who are also on-
have failed half their courses or more.6 track by our definition, over 90 percent have a GPA
Because each indicator has different advantages, an lower than 3.0 (B average) in the courses that they pass.
effective monitoring system could be created to take More than three-fourths of students who fail just one
advantage of each indicator at different points in the full-year course have grades averaging 2.0 or lower (C
school year. For example, because absence rates are or lower) in the classes they pass. Almost all off-track
known early in the school year, schools could address students who fail two or more semester courses have
poor course attendance within the first quarter. After GPAs of 2.0 or lower in the classes they pass. It is most
students’ first-quarter grades are known, students with typical for off-track students to have a GPA of 1.5 (D+
failure warnings should receive immediate supports. average) in the courses they pass.
When semester grades are posted, those students Few students experience isolated problems and
with failures will need a strategy for making up miss- perform well in other coursework. Failure in even one
ing credits. At the end of the school year, students’ semester course is generally a sign of trouble in other
grades could be used to identify students at high risk courses. This suggests that problems or successes in
of future failure and to identify students performing one class may generalize to other classes. For example,
below their potential (e.g., students with high test scores
a student who skips one class may fail to show up to
but low grades). On-track rates for the cohort could
subsequent classes that day. Likewise, success in one
be determined in the summer after the school year as
class may lead a student to put forth more effort in other
a simple indicator to evaluate school programs and
classes. Of course, performance in all courses will be
policies, and to identify particular groups of students
affected by factors such as students’ background and
with nonpromotion rates that are especially high.
preparation, and by the overall instructional climate
of the school.
Course Failure Is a Sign that Students Are The strong connection between grades overall and
Generally Struggling in School failures in a few classes has implications for how we
Students can be off-track just by failing one yearlong think about high school reform strategies. Instead of
course (two semester courses). After writing the last being isolated, problems with course failure tend to in-
report, we wondered about the extent to which students dicate broader problems of academic performance. This
were thrown off-track by an aberrant course failure. We suggests that strategies that address particular courses
also wondered if course failure was as detrimental to (e.g., math remediation or tutoring) might be limited
graduation among students who were generally doing in their ability to affect broader outcomes, compared
well in their other courses as it was for students who to more comprehensive strategies (e.g., instructional
were struggling across all of their courses. To gain a coordination across classes or schoolwide attendance
better understanding of the variability in the course initiatives). This also suggests problems of course
performance of on- and off-track students, and what failures, dropping out, and low achievement should
that variability means for graduation, we examine on- be addressed by coordinated strategies. These issues
and off-track performance by students’ failures and are discussed further as we explore the school factors
their grades in the courses they passed. associated with freshman-year course performance.
Chapter 1 9Figure
Figure 8 8. Grades in Passed Courses by Number of Course Failures Overall Grades, as Well as Failures,
Grades in Passed Courses by Number of Course Failures
1%
Matter for Graduation
100% 3%
6% 8% 11% 7% 5% 5% 5% Course failures and overall GPA are strongly related.
18%
90%
17% 18% However, among students with the same number of
24%
80% 32% 30% Fs, higher grades in other courses increase the likelihood
26% 34%
70% 37% of graduation. Figure 9 shows graduation rates classi-
Percentage of Non-F GPA
25%
40% fied by the number of Fs and GPA in the courses that
60%
45% students passed. Each column represents students with
50%
52% the same number of freshman-year failures. Among
43% 47%
40%
29% 47%
44% students with the same number of failures, those who
30% 44% had higher grades in the courses they passed were much
42%
more likely to graduate. Even students with no failures
20%
31% in their first year of high school were at some risk of
19% 20%
10% 17% 17% 19%
11% not graduating if they had a C average or lower. It is
4% 2% 2% 7%
0 likely that poor grades in the freshman year foreshadow
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+
10,992 3,030 2,036 1,481 1,198 1,023 936 615 2,222 problems with course failure in later years. Students
who just barely pass their freshman classes are likely to
On-Track About 60% Off-Track
Off-Track struggle as they move into their sophomore year.
Number of Semester Course Failures Course grades predict the likelihood of graduating,
Number of Students
but course failures have a direct effect on gradua-
Non-F GPA
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 tion beyond their relationship with students’ overall
grades. Ultimately, students need course credits to
Figure 9
Figure 9. Graduation Rates by Number of Fs and GPA in Passed Courses
Graduation Rates by number of Fs and GPA in Passed Courses
4.5 How to Read this Chart:
The size of the bubbles indicates
A Average 4.0 97% the four-year graduation rate of
students entering high school
in the 2000-01 school year by
3.5
96% their freshman year course fail-
ures and grades in the classes
they passed. Students who
B Average 3.0
Non-F Unweighted GPA
93% 86% passed all of their courses in
their first year of high school are
2.5
in the first column. Their gradu-
86% 76% 68% 54% ation rates ranged from 62 per-
cent among students with a 1.5
C Average 2.0 74% 67% 56% 50% 39% 30% 21% 12% 5% GPA to 97 percent for students
with a 4.0. Among students who
failed two semester classes their
1.5 62% 56% 45% 36% 27% 20% 15% 10% 5% freshman year, graduation rates
ranged from 45 percent among
students who received a mix of
D Average 1.0 25% 19% 10% 10% 13% 4% Cs and Ds in the classes they
passed (averaging 1.5 points)
0.5 to 56 percent for students with
On-Track About 60% Off-Track Off-Track
all Cs in the classes they passed
(2.0 average), up to 68 percent
0.0 for students with a mix of Cs and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ Bs (2.5 average) in the courses
Number of Fs in Any Course they passed.
How to read this chart: The size of the bubbles indicates the four-year graduation rate of students entering high school in the
10 2000-01 school year by their freshman year course failures and grades in the classes they passed. Students who passed all
What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools
of their courses in their first year of high school are in the first column. Their gradation rates ranged from 62 percent among
students with a 1.5 GPA to 97 percent for students with a 4.0. Among students who failed two semester classes their
freshman year, graduation rates ranged from 45 percent among students who received a mix of C’s and D’s in the classes
they passed (averaging 1.5 points) to 56 percent for students with all C’s in the classes they passed (2.0 average), up tograduate; and failures have a direct effect on the Intervention Efforts Are Needed for More
probability of graduating. As shown in Figure 9, the Than Just the Lowest-Performing Students
probability of graduating declines quickly with each
Students with high rates of course failure are extremely
additional course failure.7 This can be seen more
unlikely to graduate. Those who fail four or more se-
clearly in Figure 10, which shows graduation rates mester courses (i.e., two courses in each semester), or
by freshman GPA for both on- and off-track stu- who hold lower than a D average, probably need very
dents. All students with very low freshman GPAs are intensive assistance in order to graduate; and schools
off-track (see far left of graph), and nearly all students may be disappointed with the effects of programs that
with high GPAs are on-track (see far right of graph). are not sufficiently comprehensive. On the other hand,
But in the middle range, GPAs from 1.0 to 2.5 (D to students with GPAs in the D+ or C- range, or just one
C+), students can be either on- or off-track depending failure in the first semester (two semester failures for
on how many Fs they have. For students in this middle the year), are about as likely to graduate as not to
range, about 60 percent of students, having failed more graduate. Because students in this GPA range con-
than one semester course has a strong impact on the stitute a large percentage of students and they have
likelihood of graduating. Among students with the a reasonable chance of graduating, efforts to support
same overall GPA, on-track students are about 9 per- these students could have a substantial payoff for school
centage points more likely to graduate than off-track graduation rates. However, because such students are
students with the same GPA. This occurs even though not the lowest performers, these students may not be
off-track students must have had higher grades in their seen as in great need of support.
passed courses than students with the same overall To gauge the degree to which graduation rates might
GPA who are on-track. be affected by a targeted effort to increase passing
Figure 10
Figure 10. Percentage of Students Who Graduated in Four Years by Freshman GPA and On-Track Status
Percentage of Students Who Graduated in Four Years by Freshman GPA and On-Track Status
100%
Almost all students with
GPAs below 1.0 are off-track,
90%
while almost all students with
GPAs above 2.5 are on-track.
80% Students with GPAs of 1.0
to 2.5 may be either on- or
off-track. The gray lines show
70% the difference in graduation
rates for students with the
same GPAs by on-track status.
Percent Graduated
60%
Students who are off-track
must have had higher grades
50% in the courses they passed
than on-track students with the
same GPA, yet they are about
40%
9 percentage points less likely
to graduate.
On-Track
30%
Off-Track
20%
10%
0%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Freshman GPA
Almost all students with GPAs below 1.0 are off-track, while almost all students with GPAs above 2.5 are on-track. Students Chapter 1 11
with GPAs of 1.0 to 2.5 may be either on-or off-track. The gray lines show the difference in graduation rates for students with
the same GPAs by on-track status. Students who are off-track must have had higher grades in the courses they passed than
on-track students with the same GPA, yet they are about 9 percentage points less likely to graduate.rates, Figure 11 simulates the maximum improvements Fs in their freshman year: 2,679 students who failed
in graduation rates that could be expected if schools to graduate had seven or more semester Fs in their
could find a way to get each student to pass two ad- freshman year, and an additional 1,347 students who
ditional semester courses (one full-year course) in their failed to graduate had five or six semester Fs. Thus, this
freshman year. This could be considered a summer may seem like a reasonable group to target for recov-
school recovery effect, since students can take a full- ery efforts or tutoring. However, improving pass rates
year course over the summer, or a potential effect of among these students by two semester courses would
increasing academic supports in the school year. To do little to affect overall graduation rates—their prob-
estimate the effect, we simply assign each student the ability of graduating is so small that they would still
graduation rate observed among students who had two be unlikely to graduate with an additional two course
fewer failures than that student. This is an overestima- credits. We might expect as many as 170 additional
tion of potential graduation rates, because we do not graduates among students with seven or more semes-
consider other factors that are associated with failure ter failures (a 1 percentage point increase in the total
that influence graduation. However, it allows us to graduation rate), and as many as 308 more graduates
gauge the relative effects of improvements in pass rates among students with five or six semester course failures
on different groups of students. (a 2 percentage point increase in the total graduation
The bottom of Figure 11 shows that about half the rate). Students with many course failures will need
students who entered CPS high schools in 2000–01 more support than tutoring or summer school to have a
and failed to graduate four years later received multiple reasonable chance of graduating—all of these students
Figure 11
Figure 11. Estimated Improvements in Systemwide Graduation Rates if
Estimated Improvements
Each Student PassedinTwo
Systemwide
Additional Graduation Rates if Each Student Passed Two Additional Semester Courses*
Semester Courses*
100%
90% Simulated Graduation Rate
Actual Graduation Rate
80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Percentage of Four-Year Graduation Rates
894 more graduates
70%
70% 70%
569 more graduates
60%
50% 55% 55%
40% 42% 42%
308 more graduates
30% 33% 33%
20%
10% 25% 13% 11% 170 more graduates
5%
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+
9,344 students 4,270 students 2,247 students 1,664 students 2,815 students
1,403 nongraduates 1,535 nongraduates 1,394 nongraduates 1,347 nongraduates 2,679 nongraduates
Number of Semester Course Failures
*Graduation rates for students failing fewer than two courses are estimated as if they used to gauge the relative effects of recovery or improvements in pass rates for
*Graduation rates for students failing fewer than two courses are estimated of recovery
failed no courses. This simulation suggests the maximum degree to which graduation
or improvements in pass rates for students with different rates of
students with different rates of failure. While students with multiple Fs comprise the
as if theyrates
failedcould
no courses. This simulation suggests the maximum
be expected to improve if each student failed two fewer courses, ordegree failure. Whileofstudents
majority with multiple
non-graduates, Fs comprise
small improvements therates
in pass majority of nongraduates,
or recovery among these
to which graduation
recovered two rates couldimmediately
courses be expectedaftertofailure.
improveIt is ifaneach student failed
overestimation because itsmallstudents
improvements
would havein apass
muchrates or effect
smaller recovery among these
on graduation students
rates than similar would
efforts
two fewerdoes
courses or recovered
not take into accounttwo courses
factors other immediately
than Fs that affect aftergraduation
failure. It(e.g.,
is angradeshaveamong
a much smaller
students whoeffect on graduation
have failed rates
only one or two thanThese
courses. similar efforts
figures among
are based on
in passed courses tend to be lower among students with more Fs). However, it can be students in the 2000-01 freshman cohort.
overestimation because it does not take into account factors other than Fs students who have failed only one or two courses. These figures are based
that affect graduation (e.g., grades in passed courses tend to be lower among on students in the 2000-01 freshman cohort.
students with more Fs). However, it can be used to gauge the relative effects
12 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High SchoolsHow We Obtained Information on Students and Schools
The analyses in this report are based on two cohorts information about average income and education
of students. The statistics that show freshman course levels. These indicators allow for much more dis-
performance without any reference to graduation crimination in socioeconomic background than the
rates or survey data are based on all freshmen who simple indicator of free/reduced lunch, for which
entered CPS high schools in fall 2004 who did not about 90 percent of CPS students are eligible.
attend charter schools (24,894 students). Statistics Measures of school climate come from surveys
that tie freshman course performance to graduation conducted by the Consortium on Chicago School
rates are based on all students who entered CPS high Research (CCSR) in spring 2005. Nearly 130,000
schools in fall 2000 who did not transfer out of CPS students, teachers, and principals across the system
before September 2004 and who did not attend a participated. Our surveys ask about learning climate,
charter school (20,803 students).A Statistics that teacher-student relationships, leadership, and
use survey data only include those students from the quality of the school’s instructional program. They
2004–05 cohort who participated in the spring 2005 also ask about the school’s professional environment,
surveys (14,045 students) described below. and the nature of the school’s relationships with
Data on students’ course absences and grades come parents and the community. From these surveys we
from semester-by-semester grade files provided by create measures about features of each school.B
the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Data on grades Students’ perceptions of climate are constructed
and absences are provided separately for each course from responses of ninth- and tenth-grade students.
taken by each student each semester. All CPS schools, Teachers’ perceptions are constructed from respons-
except charter schools, provide this information. es of teachers at all grade levels.
For this reason, charter school students cannot be Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to dis-
included in any of the analyses in this report. cern individual students’ specific experiences on
Data on students’ background characteristics a class-by-class basis. For each measure, students
and school demographics come from student admin- either reported on just one of their courses (English
istrative records and test score files provided by or math) or on the school as a whole. We can ag-
CPS. Gender, race, and age are part of the adminis- gregate the data from all students to create measures
trative record files. Mobility, which is calculated from of climate across the school, and classroom climate
longitudinal administrative records on individual across English and math classes in the school, but we
students, is measured as the number of times a stu- cannot distinguish different patterns of experience
dent changed schools in the three years prior to high within the school among different students. Still,
school. Eighth-grade achievement is measured with these measures of the average climate in schools
students’ scores in the reading and math sections of provide some evidence about what matters for course
the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). performance, although we would expect to find
Students’ socioeconomic status is measured stronger relationships if we could map out different
through two variables, which were constructed from experiences within schools.
the 2000 U.S. census data, regarding the economic
Sidebar Endnotes
conditions in students’ residential block groups. The
A Students who left for involuntary reasons (incarceration,
first, concentration of poverty, is constructed from institutionalization, death) are excluded from analyses, along
information on the male unemployment rate and with those who transferred out of CPS.
B For more information on our surveys and on the
the percentage of families living below the poverty psychometric properties of our measures, visit the CCSR
line. The second, social status, is constructed from Web site at ccsr.uchicago.edu.
Chapter 1 13need to pass at least four additional semester courses of failing them, we might expect as many as 894 ad-
to be on-track, and many need much more. Modest ditional graduates. If students who failed just three to
efforts to support these students will not be sufficient four semester classes (up to two full-year classes) were
to have a sizable impact on graduation rates. to pass an additional two semester classes (one full-year
On the other hand, summer school and tutoring class), we might expect an additional 569 more gradu-
that is targeted at students with small numbers of ates. Together, this is a 7 percentage point increase in
course failures could potentially have a sizable effect the overall graduation rate. It is also likely easier to
on graduation rates. If students who failed just one or improve pass rates among students with few Fs than
two semester classes were to pass those classes instead among students with multiple failures.
Chapter 1 Endnotes
1 E.g., Balfanz and Neild (2006); Alexander, Entwisle, and Horsey (1997). disrupt students’ schedules when they need to repeat a failed class.
2 In fact, 86 percent of nongraduates can be identified with freshman Often students progress to classes that build on knowledge that
GPA by sacrificing specificity to 68 percent. should have been learned previously, thus a failure can indicate that
3 Rumberger (2004a); and Alexander, Entwisle, and Kabbani (2001). a student is unlikely to succeed in a future class. For example, most
4 Ninety-five percent of these students graduated within four years, CPS students who fail algebra in their freshman year take geometry
and only 3 percent dropped out. The remaining 2 percent remained in their sophomore year before passing algebra.
for a fifth year of high school. 6 Most students take seven courses in their first year of high school.
5 Besides preventing credit accumulation, failure may also impede 7 Each additional course failure decreases the probability of graduat-
graduation through indirect mechanisms. For example, failure may ing by about the same amount as a decrease of half of a grade point
demoralize students and lower their expectations. Failure may also across all classes.
14 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High Schools2
Chapter 21
What Matters for Grades and Failure in
the Freshman Year: Student Backgrounds
and Behaviors
W hy do some students make a successful transition to high school
while others fail? Is freshman course performance mostly a result
of students’ backgrounds and preparation in elementary school? Is perfor-
mance influenced by where students go to school or by factors that are in
the control of teachers and school professionals? In this chapter, we begin
to address these questions by examining the student factors associated with
course absences, failures, and grades. In a subsequent chapter, we bring in
the characteristics of schools.
Attendance Is Crucial for Passing Classes; Prior Academic
Preparation Is Also Important for High Grades
There are two obvious and interrelated reasons why students may not do well
in their courses—either they are not prepared for the academic work required
by their high school courses or they are not coming to class and expending
sufficient effort to do the requisite work. If the first is the main reason for
course failures, it indicates that we need greater focus on preparing students
in elementary schools for the academic demands of high school. If the second
is the larger contributor to failure, then the problem results from students’ be-
havior in high school and may be influenced by high school conditions. Some
behavioral issues also may be addressed with more attention to attendance in
elementary schools and better development of extra-academic skills, such as
consortium on chicago school research at the university of chicago 15abilities to communicate well, work with others, de- This relationship is not surprising; for some of these stu-
velop leadership, improve group behaviors, and resolve dents, low achievement in elementary school probably
conflicts. But behavioral issues suggest a need for criti- resulted from high absence rates in elementary school.
cally examining high school culture and organization Also, there is likely a reciprocal relationship between
to identify ways that will encourage student partici- achievement and absences, so that students who do not
pation and engagement. For simplicity, we begin by feel successful in their classes have less motivation to
comparing academic preparation as measured by test come to school. Still, given their low achievement, these
scores with student effort as measured by attendance. are the students who most need to come to school, and
In subsequent analyses, we also include students’ they tend to attend the least often.
reports of studying behavior as a measure of effort. But it is not just students who enter high school
Before comparing their relationships with course with low achievement who are frequently absent.
failure, it is important to note that elementary test Attendance is a problem even among many high-
scores and high school attendance rates are strongly achieving students. About half of the highest-achieving
related to each other. Students with high achievement students—those entering high school with test scores
in elementary school are less likely to have high rates of in the top quartile nationally—missed more than one
course absence than those entering with low achieve- week of classes per semester, and almost three-fourths
ment, as shown in Figure 12. While almost half the of students scoring in the third quartile (i.e., above
students with the highest elementary achievement miss national norms) missed more than one week per se-
less than one week of high school classes per semester, mester. Just one week of absence per semester indicates
only 11 percent of students entering with low achieve- problems with students’ grades.
ment miss less than one week. More than a quarter Most people consider eighth-grade test scores to be
of students with very low achievement in elementary good predictors of students’ likelihood to do well in
school miss one month or more of classes per semester. high school courses, and they are. However, course at-
tendance is eight times more predictive of course failure
Figure 12 in the freshman year than eighth-grade test scores;
Absences byFigure 12. Absences
Incoming by Incoming Acheivement
Achievement freshman absences can be used to predict 63 percent of
the variation in course failures among freshmen in the
1%
100% 2004–05 entering class, while together math and read-
3% 10%
90% 9% 19% ing eighth-grade ITBS scores predict only 8 percent
6% 27%
of the variation in course failures. As shown in Figure
80%
17% 10% 13, students who entered high school with very low
70% 37% 12% eighth-grade achievement (with test scores that placed
Percentage of Students
60% 19% them in the bottom national quartile) who missed
20% less than one week of classes per semester had fewer Fs,
50%
40% on average, than students entering high school with
40% very high achievement (test scores in the top national
36%
30% quartile) who missed one additional week of classes (0.7
30%
49% semester course failures, compared to 0.9). Likewise,
20%
27% students with the lowest eighth-grade test scores who
10% 16%
11% missed just one week of classes averaged fewer Fs than
0 students with the highest test scores who missed two
Highest Third Second Lowest
weeks (1.3, compared to 2.1). As shown in Figure
Eighth-Grade National Quartile on the ITBS
13, students’ failure rates increase dramatically with
Semester Absences in Days
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20+
more course absences (across the horizontal axis),
but rise only modestly as eighth-grade achievement
16 What Matters for Staying On-Track and Graduating in Chicago Public High SchoolsFigure 13
Average Number of Fs by Absences
Figure 13. Averageand Eighth-Grade
Number Test Scores
of Fs by Absences and Eighth-Grade Test Scores
Highest 0.3 0.9 2.1
Eighth-Grade National Quartile on the ITBS
Third 0.5 1.0 2.2 4.0 5.7 7.3
Second 0.5 1.3 2.5 4.5 5.9 7.8 10.1 10.0 10.1
Lowest 0.7 1.3 2.8 4.5 6.3 7.1 9.7 9.7
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+
Absences in Days per Semester
This figure only includes students still enrolled in school at the end of their freshman year. Only cells with at least 5 percent of students are included.
How to read this chart: The size of the circles indicates the extent of course failures. Students in the top row of the figure
How to read this chart: The sizehigh
entered of the circles
school indicates
with the the extent
highest level of course
of achievement, with test scores in the top national quartile. Very few of these
course failures in a year. High-achieving students who missed one week of
failures. Students in the students
top row missed more than three weeks of school per semester, so there are no circles in columns that represent more than
of the figure entered high school with
three weeks of course absences. However, students with high test
the classes per missed
scores who semester averaged
two weeks one semester
of classes in a semester failure. Note that failure rates
highest level of achievement, with
averaged testtwoscores
about semesterin the
coursetopfailures
national quartile.
in a year. increase
High-achieving dramatically
students who missedwith greater
one week absence
of classes (moving to the right along the
per semester
Very few of these students missed
averaged more than
one semester three
failure. Noteweeks of school
that failure per dramatically
rates increase horizontalwith
axis). Forabsence
greater example, failure
(moving rates
to the arealong
right lower
theamong students entering
semester, so there are nohorizontal
circles in columns
axis). that represent
For example, failure ratesmore thanamong
are lower threestudents
highentering
schoolhigh school with the lowest test scores (in the
with the lowest test scores (in the bottom quartile) who missed
bottom quartile) who missed less than a week of school than among students with the highest test scores (in the top quartile)
weeks of course absences. However, students with high test scores who
who missed one week of school. less than a week of school than among students with the highest test scores
missed two weeks of classes in a semester averaged about two semester (in the top quartile) who missed one week of school.
decreases (across the vertical axis). Among students to poor performance, and poor performance leads
with very high absence rates, incoming achievement is students to avoid class. Research on dropping out has
not at all predictive of failures. Just one week of absence characterized the process as a gradual disengagement,
is associated with a much greater likelihood of failure, where students miss more and more school, making it
regardless of incoming achievement. increasingly difficult to return.1 Absences and failures
There are likely a number of reasons that absences may also be related for spurious reasons; for example, a
and failures are so strongly related. Obviously, attend- poorly organized class may provide little motivation for
ing class is a requirement for obtaining course credit student attendance and may also provide little support
and necessary for learning course material. In addition for learning. We are not saying that the relationship is
teachers’ grading practices may incorporate absences completely causal, with absences determining course
or be affected by them. For example, teachers may failures. But it does make sense that grades suffer if
reward good attendance through more lenient grading, students are not in class to learn. The overwhelming
while being especially strict in the grading of students strength of this relationship does suggest that failures
who seem to be making less of an effort and are miss- are largely determined by course absence.
ing class. In addition, students who are performing Among students with low absence rates, incoming
poorly may least want to attend class. In many cases, achievement also predicts course failure. Students who
there may be a downward spiral; missing class leads entered high school with eighth-grade achievement
Chapter 2 17You can also read
