high standards and high graduation rates: moving forward on a dual agenda in massachusetts

Recommendations and Action Steps forEducation Policymakers

APRIL 2007

High Standards andHigh Graduation Rates:Moving Forward on a Dual Agendain Massachusetts

About this Report

Based on its leadership in standards-basedreform and its early release of cohort gradua-tion rates, Massachusetts was selected to par-ticipate inMoving Forward: High Standardsand High Graduation Rates, a joint project ofAchieve, Inc., and Jobs for the Future andfunded by Carnegie Corporation of NewYork. The project centers on a policy analysisof what the state is doing and can do to sup-port a dual agenda of high standards and highgraduation rates.

A joint senior team from Achieve and Jobs forthe Future conducted the policy analysis.between June 2006 and March 2007. Theteam interviewed close to 40 key leaders andstakeholders in the Massachusetts Depart-ment of Education, the legislature, and theGovernor’s Office, among others. Interviewsof key district leaders of Boston PublicSchools also informed the analysis. In addi-tion, members of the team attended six of thestate Board of Education monthly meetings.Finally, the team reviewed numerous docu-ments including state laws and regulations,Board of Education memoranda and othermaterials, and published reports.

From Achieve, the project team includedMichael Cohen, president; Jennifer Vranek,senior associate; and Alissa Peltzman, policyanalyst. The JFF team included Adria Stein-berg, associate vice president; Cheryl Almeidaand Terry Grobe, program directors; andCassius Johnson, project manager.

About the Partners

Created by the nation’s governors and business leaders, Achieve,Inc., is a bi-partisan, non-profit organization that helps states raiseacademic standards, improve assessments and strengthen accounta-bility to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, workand citizenship. Achieve has helped more than half the states bench-mark their academic standards, tests and accountability systemsagainst the best examples in the United States and around the world.Achieve also serves as a significant national voice for quality in stan-dards-based education reform and regularly convenes governors,CEOs and other influential leaders at National Education Summitsto sustain support for higher standards and achievement for all ofAmerica’s school children. As a result of the 2005 Summit, 29 statesjoined with Achieve to form the American Diploma Project Net-work—a coalition of states committed to aligning high school stan-dards, assessments, graduation requirements and accountability sys-tems with the demands of college and the workplace.

For more information about Achieve, see www.achieve.org.

Jobs for the Future seeks to accelerate the educational and economicadvancement of youth and adults struggling in today’s economy.Since its founding in 1983, JFF has partnered with local, state, andnational organizations to influence major state and national policieson education, welfare, job training, and unemployment. At the stateand federal levels, JFF promotes the adoption of policies aimed atdoubling the number of low-income and minority youth who attaina high school diploma and go on to earn postsecondary credentials.This includes policies to promote the expansion of effective path-ways and quality schools characterized by high achievement andhigh support, including dual enrollment options, early college highschools, and high support pathways for struggling students. Jobs forthe Future’s cutting-edge policy work, research, and field projects,and public forums have informed and helped shape numerous pro-grams and policies that improve education and enhance economicopportunity for those who need it most.

For more information about Jobs for the Future, see www.jff.org.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Part II. Recommendations and Action Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Recommendation One:Increase the Number of Students Taking and Succeeding in the MassCore andEarning the Certificate of Mastery and the Certificate of Occupational Proficiency. . . . . . . . . . . 8

Recommendation Two:Recognize and Reward High Schools that Hold onto Struggling Students andGraduate All Students College-Ready. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Recommendation Three:Place a Priority on and Dedicate Resources to State Intervention inPersistently Low-Performing Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Recommendation Four:Open New Schools Designed to Improve College-Ready Graduation Ratesfor Low-Income and Struggling Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Part III. A Unique Moment for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

High Standards and High Graduation Rates:Moving Forward on a Dual Agenda in Massachusetts

In the United States today, all young people needmuch more than a high school diploma in order tofind jobs that will support themselves and their fami-lies. They need to graduate ready to succeed in post-secondary education and with career-ready skills. Theconsequences for those who are not prepared for col-lege and careers are grim, including higher rates ofunemployment, substantially lower earnings, andeven a lower likelihood of good health. The implica-tions are as clear for the Commonwealth of Massa-chusetts as they are for individuals and their families.Each leak along the education pipeline results in sig-nificant losses in tax revenue and significant govern-ment costs for health care and other social benefits forthe Commonwealth.

In Massachusetts, where the economy requireseducated workers to fuel its biotechnology, healthcare, communications, and defense industries, youngpeople must complete some kind of postsecondarycredential in order to enter and advance in any ofthese sectors. More than 60 percent of the 300,000new jobs that will be created by 2010 will require atleast an Associate’s degree. In a mobile economy, thesejobs are filled by the most qualified graduates. Youngpeople of the Commonwealth need to be competitivewithin an increasingly global labor force.

Massachusetts has already established itself as oneof the leading states in standards-based educationreform. The state has done more than a decade’s workto create high-quality academic standards and assess-ments, raise academic performance to minimum stan-dards, and close achievement gaps among low-incomeand higher-income students, as well as amongAfrican-American and Hispanic and white students.Current high school reform efforts are focused onmoving more students to the proficiency level on stateassessments, closing achievement gaps at this level,and encouraging all high school students to completea more intensive and challenging course of study.

But to create an education pipeline capable of movingall students through to an advanced level of skills andcredentials and connecting young adults to the well-paying jobs being created in Massachusetts, two chal-lenges deserve the special and immediate attention ofstate leaders:

• Substantially increasing the percentage of the state’slow-income, African-American, and Hispanic youngpeople who graduate from high school in four years;and

• Substantially increasing the percentage of highschool graduates who are fully prepared to succeedin work and postsecondary education.

High Standards and High Graduation Rates 1


What we need to move us forward today—on education and a host of other issues—is a spirit ofactive collaboration, between government, business, labor, universities, the medical and researchcommunity, nonprofits, neighborhood groups. We need a new spirit of civic responsibility, lessabout party politics and more about problem solving, more about the best of our traditions andheritage of innovation and faith that built Massachusetts in the first place, less about the statusquo and yesterday, and more about innovation and tomorrow.

Massachusetts Governor Deval PatrickKeynote Address to the Massachusetts Graduation Summit

March 5, 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These twin goals constitute an urgent “dual agenda”of high standards and high graduation rates for allstudents.

In 2007, the Commonwealth began calculating four-year cohort graduation rates and establishing the first-ever minimum graduation rate that every high schoolmust meet. The four-year cohort graduation rate datafor the class of 2006 (which entered high school in2002) held some good news for the Commonwealth:The state is graduating 80 percent of its students infour years of high school—almost 10 percentagepoints higher than the estimated national average.However, the data also reveal that the 20 percent ofstudents who do not complete a high school diplomaon time are concentrated disproportionately in low-income communities across the state, where highschool graduation rates average 62 percent and somedistricts report rates of 50 percent or lower.

College remediation rates also pose troubling con-cerns. According to the Massachusetts Board ofHigher Education, 37 percent of incoming graduatesfrom the state’s public high schools in 2004 wererequired to take a remedial course in reading, writing,or math at public state higher education institutions.In the state’s community colleges, over 60 percent ofthose entering from the state’s high schools are placedin at least one remedial course.

Recommendations for Action

With about one out of every three low-income stu-dents failing to graduate on time, and with nearly 40percent of the state’s entering college students needingto take remedial coursework in college, Massachu-setts must act aggressively to close graduation andachievement gaps.

Fortunately, more is known today than ever beforeabout the dimensions of the dropout problem—and,most importantly, about how to help more studentssucceed. Research-based advances in policy and prac-tice are pointing the way to early warning indicatorsthat accurately predict who is highly likely to dropout, leading to the implementation of effective pro-grams to help keep them in school and on track tocollege and careers. However, although most high

school-aged youth, including those who have droppedout of high school, realize the economic imperative ofand aspire to a college education, many face a dearthof effective educational programs to help them realizetheir dreams.

Now is the time for Massachusetts to set its sights onthe twin goals of high graduation rates and work andcollege readiness for all students. The state is poisedto make substantial progress on both. This reportmakes four recommendations as to how the Com-monwealth can build on current progress to reachthese goals. The action steps underpinning the recom-mendations call on different stakeholder groups to actquickly to move the Commonwealth closer to achiev-ing high college- and career-ready graduation rates. Insome cases, action steps suggest how the state Boardof Education and/or the Department of Educationcould build on work already in progress. In others,the steps call for action on the part of the legislatureand/or the Governor. Business, higher education, andsocial services partners also have a vital role to play.

While different stakeholders may have the responsibil-ity and ability to move various pieces of the dualagenda, it will take a coherent and coordinated effortamong all stakeholders and the public to ensure thatall the Commonwealth’s students, and especially thosefrom underrepresented groups, graduate ready forcollege and careers.

Recommendation One: Increase the Number ofStudents Succeeding in MassCore and Earning theCertificate of Mastery and the Certificate ofOccupational Proficiency.

Completion of a high school program of study of highacademic intensity and quality has a significantimpact on success after high school, especially forlow-income students and students of color. In recogni-tion of the power of this research, the MassachusettsDepartment of Education has developed a voluntaryprogram of study, the “MassCore,” that all studentsshould complete to graduate prepared for college andcareers. By meeting additional requirements, studentscan also earn a Certificate of Mastery (COM), and thestate is in the process of developing a Certificate ofOccupational Proficiency (COP). A key challengeMassachusetts now faces is how to foster the large-scale adoption of the MassCore in districts across thestate and the completion of the recommended pro-

2 Achieve, Inc. and Jobs for the Future

gram of study by students. A related and equallyimportant issue is how to ensure that all students,regardless of where they attend school, have equalaccess to the MassCore, the COM, and the COP.

Proposed Action Steps:

• Communicate widely to students, educators, and thepublic about the MassCore and the Certificate ofMastery and Certificate of Occupational Profi-ciency.

• Create incentives for students and districts to pursuethe MassCore, the COM, and the COP by: phasingin aligned higher education admissions require-ments; providing scholarships for low-income stu-dents who complete the MassCore; and waivingplacement tests for students who earn the COMand/or the COP.

• Promote and ensure consistent depth and challengeof the MassCore, the COM, and the COP withoutstifling innovation at the local level.

Recommendation Two: Recognize and Reward HighSchools that Hold onto Struggling Students andGraduate All Students College-Ready

For nearly ten years, the state’s accountability systemhas focused schools and districts on MCAS scores,and particularly on movement toward proficiency(score of 240) on the test. The state has recently takenthe additional critical step of taking the four-yearcohort graduation rate into account, and it is now inposition to reliably identify students who are highlylikely to drop out. Yet additional recognitions andincentives are needed so that schools and districtshold onto struggling students, get them back on trackto a diploma, and increase student readiness for col-lege and careers through participation in the Mass-Core. And early warning systems can help districtsand schools to identify students at risk of not graduat-ing and to intervene early and effectively.


• Adopt an expanded set of indicators to createincentives for schools and districts to keepstruggling students in school and progressingtoward a college-ready graduation.

• Develop “early warning systems” to help districtsidentify and support the students who, without anintervention, are unlikely to graduate from highschool.

Recommendation Three: Place a Priority on andDedicate Resources to State Intervention inPersistently Low-Performing Schools

The state needs substantial new investments in andnew approaches for schools that are failing to getlarge numbers of students to achieve minimum stan-dards for performance and graduation. A relativelysmall subset of the high schools in the state accountfor much of the current “graduation gap” that sepa-rates low-income, African-American, and Hispanicstudents from their more affluent and white peers.Schools with histories of underperformance often can-not significantly improve achievement without funda-mental changes in management and capacity, includ-ing sufficient autonomy at the school level, as well asresources and support to improve teaching capacity.The Massachusetts Board of Education recentlyrevised state regulations and developed new strategiesto intervene in and turn around low-performingschools. To realize these policy innovations on theground will require both additional action andresources.


• Provide adequate resources and funding to supportthe Board of Education’s efforts to turnaroundunderperforming schools and districts.

• Compress the timeline for intervention and beprepared to require alternative management andgovernance for low-performing schools that fail tomake progress.

• Use new cohort graduation rate data combinedwith MCAS competency determination to place apriority on the lowest-performing high schools forimmediate action.


Recommendation Four: Open New SchoolsDesigned to Improve College-Ready GraduationRates for Low-Income and Struggling Students

If graduation rates and career- and college-readinessrates are to significantly improve, particularly in com-munities where the problems are most serious, dis-tricts across the Commonwealth need a more robustsupply of high-quality options for low-income andstruggling students. Many students find high school tobe an alienating and discouraging experience. As agrowing body of research and practice indicate,schools that are effective—particularly for low-income, African-American, and Hispanic young peo-ple—combine personal attention and a positive peerculture with evidence-based practices to help studentscatch up, accelerate their learning, and connect topostsecondary institutions and career possibilities. Forthe large group of young people who enter highschool academically ill-prepared, there are not enoughoptions—in either the mainstream or alternative edu-cation systems—that will accelerate and support theirefforts to earn a college-ready high school diplomaand achieve success in postsecondary education andcareers.


• Create new incentives to open charter secondaryschools designed to improve outcomes forstruggling students.

• Allow for the use of an adjusted cohort graduationrate for “second chance” high schools designed foroverage, under-credited students and returningdropouts.

• Open early college high schools and use other formsof dual enrollment as a strategy to increase collegereadiness and postsecondary success forunderrepresented youth.

• Create a public/private School Innovation Fund tosupport new school models built on instructionaland organizational practices with a track record ofimproved outcomes for struggling and out-of-school youth.

• Increase funding for the Massachusetts ExpandedLearning Time Initiative, with a portion allocatedfor high schools.

A Unique Moment for Action

The successful implementation of these recommenda-tions demands a strong and active partnership amongsecondary and higher education, the Governor’soffice, the legislature, the business community, youth-serving organizations, parents, and youth. Massachu-setts has new leadership in the Governor’s office, onthe state Board of Education, and on the state Boardof Higher Education. The Commonwealth will soonhave a new commissioner of education and possiblya new chancellor of higher education. The leadershiphas the opportunity to put weight behind an agendafocused on significantly raising high school gradua-tion rates and work- and college readiness for allstudents, especially the state’s low-income students.


The Economic and Social Imperative

In the United States today, all young people need notonly to graduate from high school but to graduateready to succeed in postsecondary education and injobs with advancement potential. In a global andunforgiving economy, there are serious consequencesfrom dropping out of high school or graduating with-out the skills, attributes, and knowledge required bycollege and by family-supporting careers. Graduationfrom high school college- and career-ready is the firstmajor benchmark toward earning the postsecondaryskills and credentials that are increasingly necessaryin this economy.

Massachusetts needs an educated workforce for itsmajor industries—including health, biotechnology,communications, and defense. Young people need tocomplete at least some postsecondary education andcredentialing if they are to enter and advance in anyof these sectors. According to the Massachusetts Divi-sion of Career Services, by 2010 the Massachusettseconomy is expected to expand by 9 percent, or304,500 new jobs, with 62 percent of the new jobsrequiring at least an Associate’s degree (MassachusettsDepartment of Education 2006). In a mobile econ-omy, these jobs will be filled by the most qualifiedgraduates.

Each leak along the education pipeline results in sig-nificant losses in tax revenue and government costsfor health and other social benefits for the Common-wealth. Dropouts and high school graduates who donot earn a postsecondary credential have higher ratesof unemployment, earn substantially less, are morelikely to receive public assistance, and are less likely tobe in good health, to volunteer, or to vote.1 In Massa-chusetts, high school dropouts earn, on average, 36percent less than high school graduates annually and

69 percent less than holders of Bachelor’s degrees.On average, over the course of a lifetime, a highschool graduate earns $456,000 more than a highschool dropout, a college graduate with a Bachelor’sdegree earns $982,000 more than a high schoolgraduate and $1,438,000 more than a dropout (Sumet al. 2007).

The recent publication of four-year cohort graduationrate data for the class of 2006 in Massachusetts heldsome good news for the Commonwealth: the state isgraduating 80 percent of its students in four years ofhigh school—almost 10 percentage points higher thanthe estimated national average. However, the dataalso reveal that the 20 percent of students who do notcomplete a high school diploma on time are concen-trated disproportionately in the Commonwealth’slow-income communities that are spread across thestate. In these communities, high school graduationrates average 62 percent, and some districts reportrates of 50 percent or lower.2

Other recent state reports also suggest that many ofthose who graduate from high school and go on topostsecondary education are not fully prepared.According to a 2005 Massachusetts Board of HigherEducation report, 37 percent of incoming graduatesfrom the state’s public high schools were required totake a remedial course in reading, writing, or math in2004 in the public state higher education institutions(Massachusetts Department of Education 2006). Inthe state’s community colleges, over 60 percent ofthose entering from the state’s high schools are placedin at least one remedial course (Massachusetts Boardof Higher Education 2007).



PART I. THE CURRENT CONTEXT IN THE COMMONWEALTH

The consequences for students of entering collegeill-prepared are severe: 76 percent of students whorequire remediation in reading and 63 percent ofthose who require remediation in math fail to earndegrees.3 Moreover, the Commonwealth is essentiallypaying twice for the same coursework.

These economic and moral concerns underscore theneed for the state to do more to ensure that studentsgraduate from high school on time and ready to suc-ceed in postsecondary education.

Why Young People Disengage from andDrop Out of High School

Young people themselves can be allies in a state’sefforts to increase graduation rates and college readi-ness. Increasingly, they are becoming, as oneresearcher aptly puts it, “keen economists.” In recentyears—a period in which no improvement occurred inthe graduation rate nationally—the percentage oftenth graders reporting high education aspirations (aBachelor’s degree or higher) increased from 40 per-cent to 80 percent, with the largest increases amonglow-income youth (Roderick 2006).

This calls into question why so many young peopledisengage from school. Massachusetts has turned toyouth to find answers and possible solutions. Duringthe spring and fall of 2006, the Department of Educa-tion conducted a series of focus groups across thestate with young people who had either dropped outor were at risk of doing so. The results reveal anuanced picture of student disengagement. Youthreported that key reasons for disconnection from highschool included school-related problems, such as poorrelationships with teachers; impersonal learning envi-ronments; falling behind on credits and struggling tokeep up; and recommendations from staff to drop outand enter a GED or other alternative program. Theyalso said that problems with peers, the need to gener-ate an income, and various personal problems werecontributors to dropping out. Key changes that theyouth reported would help keep them in school weregreater respect and attention from teachers, smallerclasses, and more academic and social supports (Path-ways to Success by 21 Initiative and Department ofEducation 2007).

These findings are comparable to those from TheSilent Epidemic, a widely disseminated national studyof recent high school dropouts, commissioned by theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In this study,dropouts reported that they were bored in school andwere not challenged to reach their potential. Youthalso reported falling behind and failing in school askey reasons for leaving and say they regret leavingand wished they had been encouraged and supportedto work harder while they were in school (Bridgeland,Dilulio, & Morison 2006). Extrapolating from suchstudies, education leaders are calling for high schoolsthat embody the new 3 “Rs.” Such schools combinea Rigorous academic program with strong Relation-ships among students and teachers, as well as greaterRelevance of the curriculum and learning experiencesto students’ futures (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation2005).

Current Moment of Opportunity inMassachusetts

The Commonwealth is well positioned to make sub-stantial progress on a dual agenda of high standardsand high graduation rates. Massachusetts has longbeen a leader in standards-based education. As aresult of a decade’s work, the state has crafted aca-demic standards, accompanied by a quality assess-ment system to certify academic proficiency, both ofwhich are considered among the best in the nation.Massachusetts has also drawn widespread publicattention to closing achievement gaps through its suc-cess in getting virtually all students to earn the mini-mum competency determination.

Since 2003, earning the competency determination bymeeting the “needs improvement” standard on MCASwith a minimum score of 220 has been a statewidegraduation requirement. Analysis of the results for theclasses of 2003 through 2006 indicates that this mini-mum-standards policy has been highly successful inclosing achievement gaps between students of colorand white students, as well as between low-incomeand higher-income students. The state’s considerableinvestment in MCAS academic support servicesplayed a critical role in helping schools and districtsget most students over the bar. However, the statecontinues to struggle with significant achievementgaps at the proficiency, or 240, level on MCAS.


Led by the State Board of Education and the Commis-sioner of Education, Massachusetts recently adopteda set of policies and regulations to put importantpieces of the architecture in place to raise both aca-demic performance and graduation rates. The boardadopted new regulations to intervene more decisivelyin persistently low-performing schools and, throughthe new Commonwealth Pilot Initiative, to offer someschools the chance to gain flexibility and autonomy inexchange for accountability for results. The Depart-ment of Education has taken critical first steps tobring more coherence to the delivery of student sup-port programs, so that high schools can provide moreof the layered support needed to help struggling stu-dents. The expansion of the state’s groundbreakingExpanded Learning Time Initiative is another poten-tial vehicle to ensure that students have the time andsupport to complete a rigorous program of study.

Recently, the attention of leaders and policymakershas also turned to the challenge of decreasingdropouts and keeping many more young people con-nected to and through high school graduation. In Feb-ruary 2007, Massachusetts became one of the firstseven states in the nation to follow through on thecommitment of the National Governors AssociationGraduation Rate Compact to calculate and publiclyrelease a four-year cohort graduation rate. The Com-monwealth reported four-year cohort graduationrates for the class of 2006 by state, district, and schoollevel and disaggregated by ethnic/racial and incomegroups.

In addition, the Department of Education has teamedup with Pathways to Success by 21 (P21), a cross-system reform and capacity-building initiative toimprove educational and employment outcomes forat-risk youth. The intent of the cross-system collabo-ration is to reduce dropping out and improve theCommonwealth’s graduation and college-successrates. In March 2007, the Department of Education,in collaboration with P21, held a Graduation Summitthat brought together 700 education, workforce, andhuman service leaders from across the state to buildcollective responsibility and action for improvingcollege-ready graduation rates.


The Commonwealth now has an opportunity to“close the deal.” Although it has made significantprogress closing achievement gaps and getting stu-dents to meet minimum standards, Massachusettsmust set its sights on attaining the twin goals of grad-uation from high school and college and work readi-ness for all students. Working on these goals together,and keeping them in balance, will require strategicaction on the part of a broad set of stakeholders,including those that are already engaged through theP-21 effort.

To be sure, this is an ambitious agenda. Fortunately,some of the key building blocks needed to supportthis dual agenda are squarely in place. By building onpolicy work that has begun here and elsewhere, lead-ers in the Commonwealth have the opportunity to sig-nificantly improve the educational outcomes of low-income, minority, and struggling students. More isknown now than ever before about the secondaryschool performance and behavior factors that are pre-dictive of high school non-completion and, mostimportantly, about the school conditions, interven-tions, and programming that make it possible forstruggling students to succeed in high school andbeyond.

This report provides an assessment of what education,policy, business, and community leaders in Massachu-setts are doing to advance an agenda of high standardsand high graduation rates, and it recommends poten-tial action steps to improve education outcomes forhigh school students in the Commonwealth.

Organized around four major recommendations, theremainder of this report provides a rationale for eachrecommendation, an assessment of recent stateprogress, and a detailed set of action steps. The actionsteps underpinning the recommendations call on dif-ferent stakeholder groups to act on behalf of movingthe Commonwealth closer to achieving substantialincreases in college- and career-ready graduationrates. In some cases, the action steps suggest how thestate Board of Education and/or the Department ofEducation could build on work in progress. Othersteps call for action on the part of the legislatureand/or the Governor. Business, higher education, and

social services partners also have a vital role to play insome action steps.

While different stakeholders may have the responsibil-ity and ability to move various pieces of the dualagenda of high standards and high graduation rates,ensuring that all the Commonwealth’s students, andespecially those from underrepresented groups, gradu-ate ready for college and careers will take a coherentand coordinated effort among all stakeholders and thepublic.

Recommendation One:Increase the Number of Students Taking andSucceeding in the MassCore and Earning theCertificate of Mastery and the Certificate ofOccupational Proficiency.

Completion of a high school program of study of highacademic intensity and quality has a significantimpact on success after high school, especially forlow-income students and students of color. A substan-tial body of research shows that a young person’scourse of study in high school is the single biggest pre-dictor of college success—greater than family back-ground, parents’ education level, test scores, classrank, and GPA (Barth 2003). A strong academic pro-gram of study that includes a math sequence at leastthrough Algebra II in high school reduces the Bache-lor’s degree attainment gap between white andAfrican-American and Latino students by more thanhalf (Adelman 1999). Moreover, the benefits of a col-lege-ready course of study extend to all students,whether or not they go on to college, and previouslylow-performing students benefit the most (Adelman1999; Barth 2003).

In recognition of the importance of a challenging andintensive curriculum, the Massachusetts Departmentof Education, in partnership with the MassachusettsBoard of Higher Education, has developed a voluntaryprogram of study—the “MassCore”—that all studentsshould complete to graduate prepared for college andcareers. A key challenge Massachusetts now faces ishow to foster the large-scale adoption of the MassCorein districts across the state and the completion of therecommended program of study by students. A relatedand equally important issue is how to ensure that all


PART II. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION STEPS

students, regardless of where they attend school, haveequal access to the MassCore.

Assessment of Recent Progress

Historically, Massachusetts has left most high schoolgraduation requirements to the discretion of localschool committees, with the exception of the MCAScompetency determination, one year of U.S. history,and four years of physical education. The new pro-posed course of study, the MassCore, aligns with orexceeds higher education entrance requirements atstate colleges and at the University of Massachusetts(see Table 1). At the same time, Massachusetts hasrevised the requirements to earn a Certificate of Mas-tery (COM), an added and voluntary “endorsement”to the diploma that students can earn by meeting addi-tional requirements. And the state is in the process ofdeveloping a Certificate of Occupational Proficiency(COP) as an additional pull for all students towardalignment with college and substantial careers.

Beginning with the students in the class of 2009, to beeligible for a COM, a student must earn a competencydetermination and:

• Achieve at least 240 or its equivalent on the grade10 English Language Arts and Mathematics MCAS;

• Maintain a minimum 3.0 grade point average ingrades 11 and 12;

• Achieve the passing standard on any test identifiedby the Department of Education to establish profi-ciency in Algebra II or more advanced mathematics;

• Demonstrate proficiency in writing through anassessment identified for this purpose by the Depart-ment; and

• Meet one of the following two criteria:

- Complete a high school curriculum designed toprepare students for college and career readiness,consistent with any standards established by theBoard, or

- Earn a Certificate of Occupational Proficiency.

The Department of Education intends to ask theBoard of Education to approve the MassCore as theminimum set of courses and credits required for a stu-dent to earn the Certificate of Mastery.

Table 1. Current and Proposed GraduationRequirements Compared to Higher EducationAdmission Requirements

Moving Forward: Action Steps to AddressBarriers and Leverage Opportunities

By creating the MassCore, the Certificate of Mastery,and the Certificate of Occupational Proficiency, Mas-sachusetts has put itself on the path to ensuring allstudents have access to a rigorous curriculum.According to a 2007 survey conducted by Achieve,Inc., 13 states now require students to take a college-and work-ready course of study to earn a diploma, upfrom just 2 in 2005. Another 16 states report thatthey plan to raise requirements. The 13 states havetaken two routes to the required course of study:mandating the core curriculum as a diploma require-ment for all youth; or making the college- and work-ready diploma track the “default” option that stu-dents can opt out of with informed consent.

The recommendations and action steps that followpresume that the Commonwealth’s goal is for virtu-ally all students to participate in the MassCore, andfor many students to earn the COM or the COP, butthat the strategy at this point is for the MassCore tobe voluntary. The action steps are aimed at providingthe right kind of incentives and supports for wide-spread and effective implementation of the MassCore,COM, and COP. If the Commonwealth decided tomake the MassCore a default diploma option or man-dated it for all students, the action steps would be


StatewideRequirements

for a High SchoolDiploma

AdmissionRequirements for

Massachusetts Public,Four-Year, Higher

Education Institutions MassCore

English 4 4

Mathematics 3 (includingAlgebra II)

4, with at leastAlgebra II and amath in senior

year

Social Studies/U.S. History

1 2 3, including U.S.history and world

history

Science 3 (two with lab) 3 lab sciences

Foreign Language 2 in a singlelanguage

2 in a singlelanguage

Health/P.E. 4 2

Other MCAS score of220

6 electives

similar, though there would be some changes in priori-ties and in particular details (see box, “Consideringthe Merits of Voluntary vs. Mandated Programs ofStudy”).

Action Step One: Communicate widely to students,educators, and the public about the MassCore andthe Certificate of Mastery and the Certificate ofOccupational Proficiency.

Because the COM has been substantially revised, theCOP is under development, and the MassCore is anew program of study, policymakers, business leaders,and community members should work together tocommunicate widely about these new options avail-able to students.

The Department of Education can leverage the“Think Again” advertising campaign, a joint effortwith the Board of Higher Education. “Think Again”is part of a broader college- and career-ready initiativedesigned to encourage low-income students and stu-dents from underrepresented groups to prepare forand succeed in college. This multi-media campaign,which features Boston Public School students,includes paid advertising statewide on radio, TV, andbuses and in movie theaters. Print materials, such asposters and stacks of postcards, have been sent toevery high school in the state.

A key aim of the campaign is to direct students towww.readysetgotocollege.com, which provides sim-ple, specific steps and guidance and tools to help stu-dents understand what they need to do to graduatehigh school, get into the right college, and succeed.The state should ensure that the advertising campaignand Web site send a clear message to students that get-ting prepared for college means completing the Mass-Core program of study.

Other venues for the message that a rigorous programof study matters include the follow-up activities fromthe P21 Graduation Summit and the department’s reg-ular communications about high expectations. Themessage in all of these efforts should be strong, clear,and consistent: Students who take the MassCorecourse of study and earn the COM and COP will bebetter off, no matter what path they pursue aftergraduation.


Considering the Merits of Voluntary vs.Mandated Programs of Study

The current proposal to the Board of Education envisions

the MassCore, COM, and COP as voluntary for students to

participate in and voluntary for school districts to require.

Whether to make the MassCore voluntary or default is an

important decision that merits careful consideration. It will

require significant public discussion among Massachusetts

policymakers and residents about the demands of the 21st

century economy and how best to put all Massachusetts

youth on track for success after high school. This discussion

should inform whether graduation standards continue to be

determined locally, whether the MassCore is made the

default program of study with the opportunity to opt out or,

alternatively, whether the MassCore is mandated as the

program of study for all students.

In 2006, Michigan policymakers decided to require a

minimum set of 16 courses, and eventually 18 courses,

as the basis for a new high school diploma; they saw the

need to upgrade expectations and skills as too urgent and

essential to wait for local boards to decide whether to

change diploma requirements. Prior to this decision, high

school diploma requirements had been entirely at the

discretion of local boards of education, as they are to a

great degree in Massachusetts.

Other states, such as Indiana and Texas, started with a

voluntary college-preparatory diploma. Leaders in these

states communicated widely about the benefits of a

rigorous core curriculum, and they tied serious incentives—

financial aid for college—to completion of the

recommended program of study. Both states saw such

progress in getting students to complete the program of

study and enrolled in college that policymakers later made

the college- and work-ready diploma the default option for

all students.

The data and experience gained by voluntary

implementation in the Commonwealth will be important.

They will help state officials determine if a more aggressive

implementation effort is needed—or if the voluntary

approach is bringing fast enough progress toward the goal

of all graduates prepared for careers and college.

Action Step Two: Create incentives for students anddistricts to pursue the MassCore, COM, and COP byphasing in aligned higher education admissionsrequirements; providing scholarships for low-incomestudents completing the MassCore; and waivingplacement tests for students who earn the COMand/or the COP.

If the MassCore is voluntary, Massachusetts needsincentives that will foster its large-scale adoption bydistricts as minimum diploma requirements, as well asincentives for students to complete the MassCore andgain the skills needed for postsecondary education,training, and careers. First, the Board of Higher Edu-cation should align the minimum requirements foradmission into a public, four-year state college or theUniversity of Massachusetts by increasing mathemat-ics and science expectations. This change should bephased in to give schools and districts enough time toupgrade their curriculum offerings and graduationrequirements. Financial aid and scholarships for low-income students to complete the MassCore, COM,and/or COP also are promising tools. The experienceof Arkansas, which has an Academic Challenge Schol-arship tied to its Smart Core curriculum, as well as ofIndiana and Texas, shows that students will respondto these types of incentives.

In addition, the Department of Education, the Massa-chusetts Secondary School Administrators Associa-tion, and the Massachusetts Business Alliance forEducation have teamed up to pilot MassachusettsState Scholars, a voluntary communications and out-reach initiative encouraging students to take rigorousclasses, in five high schools. State Scholars initiativesin other states have galvanized business participationand support for students who are pursuing a strongcourse of study; in some State Scholars states, employ-ers have provided financial and other incentives forstudents taking and completing the State Scholars cur-riculum.

Another trend in state policy is to assess whether highschool students are on track to place into credit-bear-ing, non-remedial freshman courses when they get tocollege. States are increasingly pursuing this option inorder to streamline the number of tests students haveto take and to ensure a more seamless transition fromhigh school to work and college. Here the Common-wealth has an advantage, as the department is plan-ning to implement upper-level assessments of stu-

dents’ proficiency in mathematics, writing, and work-related skills. Because the COM and COP will includesuch measures that certify that students have met col-lege- and work-ready standards, employers and pub-lic, four-year state colleges should accept results onthese assessments, as well as the COM and COP cre-dentials, as evidence that graduates are prepared forwork and college courses. Graduates who have earnedthe COM and/or the COP should gain automaticplacement into credit-bearing courses, training, andapprenticeship opportunities.

Action Step Three: Ensure consistent depth andchallenge of the MassCore, COM, and COP withoutstifling innovation at the local level.

In order to ensure that the MassCore, COM and COPare offered consistently and with sufficient rigoracross the state, the Department of Education needsto disseminate voluntary curricular materials, publishschool committees’ graduation requirements, course-taking patterns, and achievement results, and developend-of-course assessments.

The MassCore is designed to help address longstand-ing concerns about the quality of and access to highschool courses offered by districts. The COM andCOP are intended to recognize high academic achieve-ment and credential students who demonstrate thatthey are ready for additional training, postsecondaryeducation, and careers. The Department of Educationhas a responsibility to students to ensure that localschool committees and secondary schools are provid-ing equal access to the MassCore and the COM/COP.According to a recent Department of Education sur-vey of high schools, about 70 percent of graduatesstatewide have taken the equivalent of the MassCore,while only 45 percent of urban high school studentsgraduate at this level.

In collaboration with high school teachers and highereducation faculty, the department plans to publishexplicit standards and curriculum guidance to supportsuccessful implementation of the MassCore. Thedevelopment of course descriptions and model syllabithat reflect the MassCore program of study, includingones that incorporate the same content and perform-ance expectations into more integrated approaches,such as interdisciplinary courses or courses with astrong applied focus, can help promote consistentdepth and challenge as well as local innovation. The


availability of such materials will provide importantguidance to districts and schools, helping them toclose the gap between current requirements and thoseneeded for college and career preparation.

Efforts are underway to develop model course syllabithat are aligned with the Commonwealth’s Curricu-lum Frameworks and with the expectations of first-year college courses. Over the next several months,the department in collaboration with the Board ofHigher Education and the University of Massachu-setts will offer a series of meetings to help define“what is college and career ready,” including the char-acteristics of those courses that prepare students forsuccess in both college and careers. These activitiesshould be accelerated and widely disseminated.

The department can use the power of public reportingto shine a spotlight on local implementation of theMassCore, COM, and COP. By publishing course-taking patterns—disaggregated by income, ethnicity,and special populations—as well as local graduationrequirements and achievement results, the departmentcan help reduce disparities in the degree to which stu-dents get access to the learning opportunities neededfor success after high school. The department isadding a new “yes/no” data element to the longitudi-nal student information system to track how many,and which students, are completing the MassCore fornext year’s graduating class. While this is a step in theright direction, to effectively monitor and reportcourse-taking patterns, the state needs to include stu-dent-level transcript data in the longitudinal studentinformation system. Establishing clear criteria foridentifying a course as part of the MassCore wouldallow the state to more accurately monitor its imple-mentation and assess the relationship between com-pleting this program of study and college readiness.

One of the most effective ways the Commonwealthcan ensure that the courses students take help themgain college and work-ready skills is to require stu-dents in these courses to take corresponding end-of-course assessments. We are not suggesting that stakesfor students be attached to the end-of-course assess-ments. The purpose of requiring participation in theassessments is to provide comparable data to schools,districts, and the public on student performance in theMassCore. The state also could consider modulariz-ing the assessments to measure key content areas andskills without locking schools and districts into partic-

ular courses. Whatever the test format, achievementdata can be used to benchmark performance and cur-ricula across districts and to help state officials deter-mine if additional steps are needed to get all Massa-chusetts high school students prepared for college andcareers.

Recommendation Two:Recognize and Reward High Schools that Hold ontoStruggling Students and Graduate All StudentsCollege-Ready.

For nearly ten years, the state’s accountability systemhas focused schools and districts on MCAS scores andparticularly on movement toward proficiency (scoreof 240) on the test. The Commonwealth now is pro-moting the MassCore college- and career-ready pro-gram of study for all students, in part, becauseresearch has revealed that a score of 240 on theMCAS does not in itself equal readiness for entry-levelcollege courses or jobs. An analysis of the tenth-gradeMCAS exams indicates that the test measures onlysome of the knowledge and skills that colleges andemployers say are essential (Achieve 2004).

The state has recently taken the additional critical stepof taking the four-year cohort graduation rate intoaccount, and it is now in position to reliably identifystudents who are highly likely to drop out. A key chal-lenge is how to offer incentives to districts and schoolsto hold onto struggling students and keep them ontrack, while also making continued progress towardthe goal of all students reaching the MCAS profi-ciency standard and successfully completing theMassCore program of study.


When the state released the new four-year cohortgraduation rate for the class of 2006 in February2007, it revised the state accountability formula toinclude graduation rates as a key indicator determin-ing whether schools and districts make Ade-quateYearly Progress (AYP), along with attendancerates and MCAS competency determinations.4 Begin-ning this year, high schools will have to meet or sur-pass the target graduation rate of 55 percent (by sub-group and overall) to make AYP. The Board ofEducation passed the target rate with reservations atits February 2007 meeting.


Board members expressed concerns about the lowexpectations conveyed by a rate of 55 percent, while,at the same time, recognizing the limits to the currentdata (for example, five-year graduation rates will notbe available until 2008) and the lack of adequateresources to support underperforming schools. Toaddress this concern, in March the board establisheda task force to work with Department of Educationstaff to review additional data relating to the highschool graduation rate—including five-year gradua-tion data when available—and to consider issuesincluding recommendations for improvement targetsand questions of capacity and resources to increasethe percentage of students who graduate from highschool.

At the same time that Massachusetts became one ofthe first states in the country to include cohort gradu-ation rates in its accountability system, the state alsoidentified an MCAS score of 240 as the target for stu-dents. Since 2003, the state has required students tomeet the “needs improvement” level on MCAS (scoreof 220) as a criterion of graduation. In fall 2006, theState Board of Education voted to require students(beginning with the class of 2010) to either achieveproficiency (at least a 240) on the state’s tenth-gradeELA and math MCAS tests or achieve at least a 220and complete an educational proficiency plan. Theplan specifies the coursework students must completeto move toward proficiency in each of the contentareas for which they did not achieve a score of 240 orbetter. The board also voted to add new competencydeterminations in science and technology/engineering(beginning with the class of 2010) and history andsocial studies (beginning with the class of 2012).5


Massachusetts has made significant progress in put-ting in place data and accountability policies andinfrastructure to support the goal of moving all stu-dents to academic proficiency and a college- andcareer-ready diploma. Yet additional recognitions andincentives are needed so that schools and districtshold onto struggling students, get them back on trackto a diploma, and increase student readiness forcollege and careers.

Action Step 1: Adopt an expanded set of indicatorsto create incentives for schools and districts to keepstruggling students in school and progressing towarda college-ready graduation.

Currently, high schools are held accountable forMCAS results, attendance, and the four-year cohortgraduation rates for AYP determinations. These indi-cators alone will not provide the incentives for highschools to encourage struggling students to stay inschool, keep on track, and complete the MassCoreprogram of study or earn the COM/COP endorse-ments. The Board of Education should work withselected districts to develop and pilot a set of indica-tors, outside the AYP framework and requirements,that reflect student progress through school towardscollege-ready graduation. The index could includeadditional indicators for the purpose of rewardingand recognizing schools for keeping struggling stu-dents in school, recovering dropouts, getting studentson track to proficiency, and increasing the numbers ofstudents who participate in MassCore and earn theCOM and COP (see Table 2). Depending on theresults of the pilot, the state could phase in the systemstatewide over time.

An expanded set of indicators is especially critical forschools that have large numbers of students whoeither enter ninth grade overage and/or behind in skillor for those students who become “off track” duringthe year (i.e., do not earn sufficient credits and failcore courses based on year-long grades).

Massachusetts has already signaled its intent todevelop a measure that indicates the percentage ofstudents in each high school grade that are “on track”to graduation in four years. The Commissionerrecently suggested that the state could allow schoolsto either meet the minimum graduation rate standardor show improvement in the proportion of studentsstill enrolled and on track to graduate in four years.Using an on-track indicator in this way would placethe Commonwealth squarely in the forefront of stateefforts to leverage cutting-edge research on predictingfuture graduates.


(see box, “Predicting Future Dropouts”). Specifically,to support districts, the state can use the research tomake the case for early warning systems, analyze thebest data currently available at the state level to iden-tify the scope, concentration, and characteristics oflikely dropouts across the state, and offer districts thetools and technical support to implement such asystem.

Research on leading indicators of dropping out hasshown that dropouts follow identifiable patterns ofperformance and behavior—patterns that states,districts, and schools can analyze and address(Jerald 2006). Recent studies conducted by ElaineAllensworth and colleagues at the Consortium onChicago School Research at the University ofChicago, using data from the Chicago public schools,showed that an on-track indicator that signals whenninth graders are falling serious off the track to earn-ing a diploma is 85 percent predictive of future drop-ping out (Allensworth & Easton 2005). In thePhiladelphia public schools, Robert Balfanz of JohnsHopkins University and Liza Herzog of the Philadel-phia Education Fund found that school-based factorssuch as behavior reports and poor grades as early assixth grade have value in predicting who later willdrop out (Balfanz & Herzog 2005). This new knowl-edge base makes it more possible than ever before forstates and districts to invest in the most promisingand effective practices and policies.

Guided by such research, the Board of Educationshould analyze the best data currently available at thestate level to identify the scope, concentration, andcharacteristics of likely dropouts across the state andto help guide strategic investments to get young peo-ple back on track to a college- and career-readydiploma. This could include, for example, a look atstudents who as middle graders had poor attendanceand/or were retained in grade; first-time ninth graderswho are “off track” to promotion to grade 10; repeatninth graders; and students who enter high schooloverage or are overage for grade—with analysis bydemographics and by special populations. Analyses ofsuch factors and additional tools and technical assis-tance would help schools and districts appropriatelytarget services and school-wide interventions and pro-gramming directed at increasing on-time promotionand graduation.


College- and Work-Ready Indicators Graduation Indicators

Completing the MassCore

Earning Certificate of Masteryor Certificate of OccupationalProficiency

Participating in AdvancedPlacement or InternationalBaccalaureate courses andearning minimum scores onexams

Earning college credits whilein high school

On-time promotion rates

Percentage of students who enterninth grade off track (or becomeoff track early on) and who bythe end of ninth grade haveaccumulated the course creditsfor promotion to the tenth grade

Percent of first-time freshmenwho have on-time creditaccumulation by the end of thetenth grade

Percent of dropouts who reenroll

Predicting Future Dropouts

As part of the Moving Forward initiative, Robert Balfanz of

Johns Hopkins University has partnered with Boston Public

Schools officials to research and identify the leading indicators

that are most predictive of future drop outs. Key indicators that

the study is considering include course failure and test scores in

core academic subjects, attendance, and behavioral incidences

in the middle grades. This research, and other research being

conducted by the Parthenon Group with support from the Bill

& Melinda Gates Foundation, is helping Boston Public Schools

leaders, faculty, and community members analyze the scope

of the dropout problem, know which indicators are most

predictive of dropping out, and better target interventions

and resources to students who are most at risk.

Table 2. Possible Indicators to Recognize and Reward HighSchools for Graduating Students Ready for Work and College

Action Step Two: Develop “early warning systems”to help districts identify and support the studentswho are unlikely to graduate from high schoolwithout an intervention.

Massachusetts should draw on groundbreakingresearch on leading indicators of dropping out andongoing work in Boston in order to help other dis-tricts identify students who are unlikely to graduateand design appropriate interventions and supports

Recommendation Three:Place a Priority on and Dedicate Resources toState Intervention in Persistently Low-PerformingSchools.

Low-income students, especially those moving intohigh school significantly behind in skills or with lim-ited English proficiency, are especially at risk of notgraduating from high school or of graduating unpre-pared for work and college. While the Massachusettsfour-year graduation rate for the class of 2006 of80 percent is well above the estimated national aver-age of 70 percent, the four-year graduation rate forlow-income students is only 62 percent; it is only 64percent for African Americans, 57 percent for Hispan-ics, and 55 percent for students with limited Englishproficiency.

While low-income and minority students attendschools across the state, they are concentrated in a rel-atively small subset of high schools where graduationis, at best, an iffy proposition. In Massachusetts, 40high schools (about 12 percent of the state’s highschools) had four-year graduation rates of 55 percentor less—the new minimum state target for AYP—forthe graduating class of 2006. With a few exceptions,

these schools are found in 14 of the state’s 22 urbandistricts.6 Located in large urban centers, as well assmall to moderate-sized cities, some of which borderrural areas, these 14 districts are spread across thestate. Based on available public data, 18 of the 40identified high schools have also not met MCAS com-petency determinations on ELA or math for at leastone subgroup for at least two years. Competencydetermination data were not publicly reported for 14of the schools due to low enrollment. If further exami-nation reveals that these schools are small alternativesdesigned for off-track students, an adjusted cohortgraduation rate of five to six years may apply, as rec-ommended on page 21 of this report.

These 40 high schools with graduation rates of lessthan 55 percent for the class of 2006 disproportion-ately serve low-income and minority students; 81 per-cent of students in the class of 2006 were minorities;81 percent were low-income students; and 19 percenthad limited English proficiency. Graduation ratesacross these schools were dismal (see Figure 1). Andwhile these schools enroll only 7 percent of the totalstudents statewide in the class of 2006 (and 17 per-cent of all low-income students), they account for 38percent of the minority non-graduates, 26 percent of


Figure 1. State Graduation Results for High Schools with Graduation Rates Less than 55%,by All Students and Student Subgroups

Subgroup

Perc

enta

ge

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

Expelled

Dropped Out

GED

Non-Grad Completer

Still in School

Graduated

Minority

18 .13 %

3.64 %2.20 %

34 .72 %

0.62 %

40 .69 %

Low-Income

17 .73 %

3.28 %1.66 %

33 .27 %

0.56 %

43 .48 %

Limited EnglishProficient

20 .16 %

5.68 %

0.40 %

37 .12 %

0.20 %

36 .42 %

All Students

17 .83 %

3.28 %2.34 %

0.64 %

40 .77 %

35.16%

the low-income non-graduates, and 30 percent of lim-ited English proficient non-graduates.

High schools that fail to graduate students with theskills needed for success often present a thick stew ofproblems that make it difficult to turn them around.Consider, for example, research by Robert Balfanzand Nettie Legters of Johns Hopkins University thatreveals that, in the 2,000 high schools across thecountry that are losing 40 percent or more of theirstudents, 80 percent of the ninth graders are overagewhen they enter high school, require special educationservices, have less than seventh-grade reading andmath skills, or are repeating a grade for the second oreven third time (Balfanz 2006). In addition, theseschools often have significant numbers of inexperi-enced teachers and teachers teaching classes outsidetheir certification, as well as high rates of teacherturnover.


As part of its ongoing education reform agenda, theBoard of Education recently amended the regulationsgoverning underperforming schools to designate asCommonwealth Priority Schools those schools thatfail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress for four ormore years for the entire population of studentsenrolled in the school (that is, across all subgroups)and to target these Priority Schools for immediatestate support and intervention. In addition, therevised regulations stress the need to change theunderlying conditions and cultures in low-performingschools that inhibit the chances for success even withadditional resources and capacity.

Research indicates that transformation of low-per-forming schools may require sufficient autonomy atthe school site to make decisions over resources,staffing and curriculum, as well as the resources andsupport to improve teaching capacity. Schools withhistories of under-performance often cannot signifi-cantly improve achievement without fundamentalchanges in management and capacity.7

Taking this commitment to turn around failingschools farther, the Board of Education also offeredthe two high schools and two middle schools recentlyidentified as Commonwealth Priority Schools theopportunity to become state “Commonwealth PilotSchools.” Pilot schools originated in Boston in 1994

and were the result of a unique partnership among thesuperintendent, the teachers’ union, and the schoolcommittee. Unlike traditional district schools, PilotSchools have charter-like autonomy over their budget,staffing, school-day and school-year calendar, curricu-lum, and governance structure. Commonwealth PilotSchools, or “Co-Pilots,” will gain these sameautonomies and, as in Boston, will need the approvalof the collective bargaining unit, superintendent, and65 percent of the teachers in the school. All four Com-monwealth Priority Schools have moved forward withthe Co-Pilot option.


Its recent policy shifts place Massachusetts in the van-guard of state efforts to turn around low-performingschools. Without the kinds of significant changes inmanagement and flexibility offered by approaches likethe Pilot School model, it is unlikely that many of thepersistently low-performing high schools in Massa-chusetts will become places where all studentsprogress toward proficiency.

To realize these policy innovations on the groundwill require both additional action and additionalresources. Making headway on improving achieve-ment and degree attainment in the worst-performinghigh schools in the state will require a carrot-and-stickapproach. Pursuing the following action steps will putthe Commonwealth on sure footing to close the grad-uation and achievement gaps dividing the state’s low-income and minority students from their more afflu-ent peers.

Action Step One: Provide adequate resources andfunding to support the Board of Education’s effortsto turn around underperforming schools anddistricts.

The Governor and legislature, despite the toughbudget choices they face, should adequately fundintensive intervention services in underperformingschool districts and in Commonwealth PrioritySchools. The board’s request includes funding for hir-ing incentives and performance bonuses to secureservices of highly qualified principals and masterteachers; support to guide implementation ofresearch-based school improvement practices; andthird-party services to enhance the quality and effec-


tiveness of district conditions negatively affectingschool performance.

At the same time, the legislature should also approvefunding for the Statewide Commonwealth Pilot Initia-tive, a proposal that would strengthen the hand of theCommonwealth in turning around schools before aswell as after they are failing. This initiative wouldallow a school to request funding to convert to Pilotstatus long before it risks being labeled chronicallyunderperforming.

Action Step Two: Compress the timeline forintervention and be prepared to require alternativemanagement and governance for low-performingschools that fail to make progress.

To have a fair chance of success, the state needs tocompress the timeline for targeting and supportinglow-performing schools to significantly less than thefour or more years currently stipulated in state regula-tions. A proposed shorter timeline was dropped fromthe fall 2006 amended regulations governing under-performing schools because a lack of resources to pro-vide the necessary supports and services to designatedschools made it an unviable proposition. The boardand department should be able to intercede after twoyears of low performance when needed to turnaround underperforming schools.

Leading-edge research points to the critical impor-tance of significant changes in governance and man-agement to create the necessary conditions forimproving achievement in persistently low-performingschools. Improving underperforming schools is oftencomplicated by a lack of flexibility at the district level,caused by a combination of longstanding bureaucraticpractices, top-down management practices, collectivebargaining agreements, and tight budgets with com-peting priorities.

Districts that do not create the necessary conditions—and begin to show improvements in student achieve-ment in Commonwealth Priority Schools within a rea-sonable amount of time—should be required tocontract with alternative school providers to managethe schools. When a district or school committee isunwilling or unable to partner with alternative man-agers, the state should retain the authority to appointalternative governance. If new statutory authority isneeded, the legislature should provide it to the Boardof Education to carry this out.

Action Step Three: Place the priority for action onthe subset of high schools failing to meet bothgraduation rate and MCAS competencydetermination benchmarks.

To gain significant traction in improving college-readygraduation rates, Massachusetts will need to takeaction in the lowest-performing high schools. Givenavailable resources, the state Board of Educationwould be wise to place a priority on the relativelysmall subset of 18 high schools that have four-yeargraduation rates of 55 percent or lower and also havefailed to achieve benchmarks on either of the MCAScompetency determinations for at least one subgroupfor two or more years.

Most of these schools will require a whole-schoolrestructuring process, such as the one the state hasarticulated for the Commonwealth Priority Schools orCommonwealth Pilot Schools. The Board of Educa-tion has recommended that these schools and theirdistricts address the fundamental conditions thatresearch shows enable low performance to occur inthe first place, including policies, processes, practices,and agreements (including teacher work rules) thathinder the delivery of high standards and high sup-port. School plans should also include key, research-based elements associated with improved student out-comes, including, for example, extended attention andtime in core subject areas, a systemic program of regu-lar assessments in core academic subjects, and anexpanded day to provide tutoring, supplementalinstruction, and skill development.

Some students attending these schools will also need acombination or intensity of services that schools alonecannot provide. Schools will need to connect withcommunity-based organizations that can provide suchservices as mentoring, mental health counseling, andeven housing.

The Department of Education has teamed up withPathways to Success by 21 (P21), a cross-systemreform and capacity-building initiative to improveeducational and employment outcomes for at-riskyouth. With continued support from the department,the regional teams of education, workforce, andhuman service leaders brought together at the Gradu-ation Summit can play a key role in forging school-community partnerships to bring needed services tostudents in these schools.


Recommendation Four:Open New Schools Designed to Improve College-Ready Graduation Rates for Low-Income andStruggling Students.

In Massachusetts, as in all other states, low-income,African-American, and Hispanic students are consid-erably more likely to not complete high school ontime and less likely to graduate from high school pre-pared for college and jobs with advancement potential(see Figure 2).Many students find high school to bean alienating and discouraging experience. As a grow-ing body of research and practice indicates, schoolsthat are effective combine personal attention and apositive peer culture with evidence-based practices tohelp students catch up, accelerate their learning, andconnect to postsecondary institutions and career pos-sibilities. Often the high schools that beat the odds aresmall schools that emphasize relationships and rele-vance along with academic rigor (see box, “What CanWe Learn from “Beat the Odds” Schools?”).8

For the large group of young people who enter highschool academically ill-prepared, there are still not

enough options—in either the mainstream or alterna-tive education systems—that will accelerate and sup-port them to earn a rigorous high school diploma andachieve success in postsecondary education andcareers. In the Commonwealth, achievement andgraduation challenges occur not just in the largeurban districts but also in smaller cities and towns,some of which border rural areas. If graduation ratesand career- and college-readiness rates are to signifi-cantly improve across the state, particularly in com-munities where the problems are most serious, a morerobust supply is needed of high-quality options forlow-income and struggling students.

Emerging evidence suggests the efficacy of thisapproach. In the last few years, for example, the NewYork City Department of Education has replaced thelowest-performing large high schools with new smallschools, and it has developed new, even smalleroptions and pathways for the 140,000 students whoare overage for their grade, seriously lacking in creditsneeded for graduation, or out of school altogether.This has begun to pay off in an upward trend in theoverall high school graduation rate. Also, transfer


Figure 2. State Graduation Results for All Students and by Student Subgroups

Subgroup

Perc

enta

ge

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0

Expelled

Dropped Out

GED

Non-Grad Completer

Still in School

4-Year Rate

HispanicAfrican-AmericanLow-Income

9%

%

1.0 0 .8%

7%

All Students

79 .9%

6.4%

1.0%

11 .7%

0.2%

Limited Eng. Prof.

54 .4%

14 .7%

4.6%.3%

25 .6%

0.2%

62 .3%

12 .0%

2.1%

22 .0%

0.3%

64 .4%

13 .5%

2.5%1.1%

18 .0%

0.4%

56 .9%

12 .0%

3.0%1.2%

26 .5%

0.3%

0.8%

1.2%

schools—small, personalized high schools designed tohelp students who are overage and under-creditedgraduate from high school and move on to postsec-ondary education—are graduating two times to threetimes more of these students than are comprehensivehigh schools (Lynch 2006).


In Massachusetts today, policies and programs thatsupport charter schools, alternative schools, expandedlearning time, and dual enrollment in secondary andpostsecondary institutions offer potential vehicles forexpanding quality options for low-income and strug-gling students.

Massachusetts provides for two types of chartering: astate approval process for Commonwealth charterschools and a locally driven process whereby localeducation agencies and their collective bargainingunits jointly apply to the state for a Horace Manncharter school. Currently, 59 charter schools are oper-ating in Massachusetts: 51 Commonwealth and eightHorace Mann charters.9 The vast majority of thecharter schools are found in urban settings. Chartersin Massachusetts are “capped” at 72 for Common-wealth and 48 for Horace Mann charters.

Alternative education is largely the purview of dis-tricts, which use a variety of strategies, ranging fromcontracting with outside providers to setting up pro-grams within existing high schools. The state Depart-


Findings from recent studies convergearound a set of school organizationaland instructional practices thatcharacterize high-poverty high schoolsthat “beat the odds” with strugglingstudents.

1. Focus on the Transition intoHigh School

It is not left up to the students alone tonegotiate the often bumpy transitionfrom the middle grades into high school.Teachers and counselors meetindividually or in groups with incomingstudents. Some models include summerprogramming between the eighth andninth grades, and some include anintensive, first-semester focus on skills tohelp students prepare for high school—both socially and academically.

2. Support Students to Stay on Track

Early warning systems are in place toidentify and immediately reach out tostudents and families when studentsevidence attendance or performanceproblems, especially in literacy ornumeracy skills. Schools are organizedto provide referrals or to offer necessarysupports, opportunities, and services tostudents and families.

3. Expand Learning Time

Teachers and administrators takeresponsibility for ensuring that studentsget the instructional time they need—during and beyond school hours—inorder to stay on track with collegepreparatory requirements. Schoolsenable older students to accumulate orrecover credits over shorter periods oftime by organizing the calendardifferently (e.g., trimesters), usingtechnology for distance learning,customizing instruction and feedback,and using extended learning time forprojects geared to “real world”standards (see no. 5).

4. Provide Academic Challengefor All

All students are expected to take onacademic challenges (e.g., honors-levelwork or college-level work while in highschool) and are supported in doing so.Teachers feel part of a professionallearning community in which they aresupported with high-quality curriculaand professional developmentparticularly focused on keeping theintellectual level high, even whilehelping students to catch up on skills.

5. Align Performance Standards toCollege and Career Readiness

Schools focus explicitly on preparingstudents for life beyond high school,rather than on graduation as an endgoal. They use college- and work-levelstandards as benchmarks against whichto assess the academic rigor andrelevance of their courses. They embraceexternal standards and use assessmentdata to improve curricula and schoolpractices, not just to measure students’past performance.

6. Focus on the Transition fromHigh School to College and Careers

Schools make explicit links amongacademic work, student interests,college success, and careers by creatingopportunities for upper-grade studentsto pursue accelerated academiclearning, college exposure, and course-taking, as well as to engage in workinternships (paid or unpaid). Suchexperiences are used as opportunitiesfor students to develop 21st centuryskills of self-management,communication, and continuouslearning that will help them succeed incollege and careers.

What Can We Learn from “Beat the Odds” Schools?

ment of Education is in the process of adding a dataelement to the student management information sys-tem; this will allow tracking of outcomes for studentsenrolled in alternative schools and programs in orderto identify both the alternative schools and programsthat need assistance and those that are producing thebest student outcomes and could be models for expan-sion. The department has undertaken several effortsto improve the overall quality of alternative educationschools and programs and to support new innovationon the ground, including work through the NationalGovernors Association Honor State grant to developself-assessment tools to help these schools improve.

Massachusetts has had dual enrollment legislation onthe books since 1993, when it was included as part ofthe Education Reform Act. Although budget con-straints caused the legislature to cut funding in 2003,in Massachusetts the precedent has been establishedthat dual enrollment options serve not only academi-cally advanced students but also high school studentsattending alternative education or GED programs. Tobe eligible, these students did not need a minimumgrade point average, but they did need to meet the col-lege’s placement testing standards.

More recently, Massachusetts launched what isquickly becoming a nationally recognized ExpandedLearning Time Initiative. The initiative emerged froma partnership of the Department of Education withMassachusetts 2020, a nonprofit organization com-mitted to broadening educational and economicopportunities for children and families across thestate. The initiative calls for participating schools anddistricts to demonstrate a commitment and capacityboth to expand school hours by at least 25 percent forall students in the school and to reconsider the use oftime during the whole day, not just the after schoolhours. Selected schools receive additional funding tosupport a longer and redesigned school day thatallows for more time on core academics, as well asenrichment opportunities and social and emotionaldevelopment. Professional development is alsoembedded in the school day and includes a focus onusing student data to help improve instruction.


As the assessment of progress indicates, Massachu-setts has key building blocks to enable growth in thesupply of pathways or options designed to put low-income, African-American, and Hispanic young peo-ple on track to a college- and career-ready high schooldiploma. Yet, as in most states, these policies and pro-grams need to be more fully resourced and used moreintentionally and strategically to ensure the rapidexpansion of quality school models and pathwayswith a track record of helping struggling students.

Action Step 1: Create new incentives to open chartersecondary schools designed to improve outcomes forstruggling students.

At this point, only a handful of charter schools (allHorace Mann Charters) are designed specifically toincorporate evidence-based practices to improve out-comes and options for young people who are off trackto graduation or are returning dropouts. The numberis unlikely to increase significantly without a con-certed effort on the part of the state to provide incen-tives to serve this population of young people.

One immediate step the state could take would be toadvertise its desire for and give priority to Common-wealth charter applications for school models that aredesigned to serve struggling youth. Texas does this,holding to its cap of 215 open enrollment chartersunless the school applying plans to serve at least 75percent at-risk students or returning dropouts.

Community-based organizations that already partnerwith school districts to serve the state’s most vulnera-ble youth could be especially encouraged to apply forcharter status. The state should also encourage super-intendents of districts with low graduation rates towork with the local collective bargaining unit to offerHorace Mann charters for schools designed for strug-gling students and former dropouts. As experience inBoston has demonstrated, community-based organi-zations and other providers working with vulnerableyouth are often very interested in offering their con-siderable expertise as partners in such a venture.

The legislature or department might need to injectnew resources as incentives—or make clear that exist-ing funding streams can be combined and used cre-atively to support these charters. This could become


an immediate agenda item for the P21 regional part-nerships. The private sector, legislature, and depart-ment also could offer new strategies, such as debtfinancing and assistance in locating and securing ade-quate facilities for such schools, because the lack ofadequate facilities is often a barrier to charter schoolstart-up.

Action Step 2: Allow for the use of an adjustedcohort graduation rate for “second chance” highschools designed for overage, under-credited studentsand returning dropouts.

Schools specifically designed to help young people getback on track to a high school diploma and college-and career-ready skills may be unfairly identified asunderperforming under the state’s new accountabilityindicator for four-year cohort graduation rates. Bydesign, these schools—whether charter, district-run,or contracted—serve students who may have alreadybeen in high school for a number of years withoutcompleting the requisite requirements that wouldkeep them on track to graduation; in some cases, stu-dents have been out of school altogether for signifi-cant periods of time. By the time these students enter a“second-chance” school or program, they mayalready be in the third or fourth year of their desig-nated cohort. Yet the students may need at least twoyears to complete a diploma.

Rather than identifying all second-chance schools asimder-performing, the Board of Education shouldallow for the use of an adjusted graduation rate. Thisis consistent with the Commonwealth’s standards-based approach, in which performance rather thanseat time is the core value. The adjusted rate wouldreflect the percentage of overage, under-credited stu-dents and returning dropouts who graduate within sixyears of entering ninth grade, rather than four. Todetermine eligibility, schools could be required to sub-mit a description of the educational program and aproposed alternative expected completion time for thepreponderance of the students in the school, to beused for calculating an adjusted-cohort graduationrate (up to but no more than six years from entry intohigh school). For example, each school in this cate-gory could be expected to increase its approvedadjusted-cohort graduation rate an average of 2.5 per-centage points per year from the established baseline.

To ensure that the school districts maintain responsi-bility and are accountable for these young people, theBoard of Education should require that studentsenrolled in such alternative or second-chance settingscontinue to be counted in their original ninth-gradecohort for the purposes of district (not school)accountability. Districts would thus derive no advan-tage from encouraging students to move into second-chance programs.

Action Step 3: Open early college high schools anduse other forms of dual enrollment as a strategy toincrease college readiness and postsecondary successfor underrepresented youth.

Early college high schools offer young people theopportunity to complete an Associate’s degree or upto two years of college credit while still in high school.A relatively new model, it has captured the imagina-tion of educators, policymakers, and philanthropists,and already offers some promising early results. In thepast five years, Jobs for the Future has partnered with13 intermediaries in the Early College High SchoolInitiative, with support from the Bill & Melinda GatesFoundation. The initiative has started 130 schools,serving approximately 16,000 students in 23 states.10

In the first programs to graduate students, over 95percent earned high school diplomas, over 57 percentearned Associate’s degrees, and over 80 percent wereaccepted at four-year colleges (Vargas 2006).

Taking college courses while still in high school showsstudents the level of academic work that is required toenter and succeed in college. College coursework canchallenge and raise the aspirations of youth who arestruggling to persist in and complete high school andserve as a bridge for first-generation college-goerswho might feel that college is “just not for them.” Inaddition, early college high school can help low-income families lessen the time to a degree and lowerthe overall costs of higher education.

Massachusetts should support the development ofearly college high schools and place an emphasis onaccelerated learning and college experience/credits inhigh school for the full range of learners, and particu-larly for those who are disengaged and struggling inhigh school. Several versions of “college in highschool” exist or are in development in the Common-wealth. For example, Early College High School atHolyoke Community College in Springfield serves


to College program at Massasoit Community Collegeand Mount Wachusett Community College offersstruggling students and returning dropouts an oppor-tunity to earn their high school diploma while alsoacquiring college credits. The state can look to severalother states for strategies for expanding early collegehigh schools across the state. For example. NorthCarolina has created a special Learn and Earn initia-tive to open 75 early colleges on community collegecampuses across the state (see box, “Learn and Earnin North Carolina”).

To lay the groundwork for early college high schoolsto start, the state should reactivate dual enrollmentlegislation. Current legislation “on the books” shouldbe expanded to enable new schools to access dualenrollment funds and to ensure that data collection isadequate to assess impact.

Action Step 4: Create a public/private SchoolInnovation Fund to support new school models builton instructional and organizational practices with atrack record of improved outcomes for strugglingand out-of-school youth.

Throughout the Commonwealth, more needs to bedone to stimulate new, high-quality schools. Citiesacross the nation—from Boston to Chicago to Indi-anapolis to Milwaukee to New York City—are help-ing struggling students graduate ready for college andcareers by replacing failing schools with new schools.In partnership with local nonprofit organizations andnational funders, Boston Public Schools has under-taken a significant high school renewal initiative, putnew focus on its alternative schools, and expanded thePilot Schools experiment. This level of effort deservesto be replicated in many of the struggling school dis-tricts in Massachusetts.

A school innovation fund would support a range ofschool models. Currently, the only funding availablein the Commonwealth for such development isthrough a competitive grant program—$1.25 million,renewable each year—to help expand and create addi-tional Alternative Education programs and schoolsand for Safe and Supportive Learning Environmentgrant projects. Fifty districts submitted proposals foreight of the Alternative Education grants in 2006:demand clearly exceeds supply for even these nar-rowly tailored grant programs.


Learn and Earn in North Carolina

North Carolina has embarked on an ambitious effort to

create a system of small high schools as part of a statewide

high school redesign effort. This includes the design and

implementation of “Learn and Earn” high schools—early

college high schools designed to enable thousands of

students across the state to earn both a high school diploma

and up to two years of college or an Associate’s degree,

tuition-free, in five years. Faculty from K-12 and higher

education work together to integrate course offerings and

provide a seamless system of early awareness and college

preparatory academic and exploratory experiences to young

people starting as early as sixth grade.

A primary support vehicle for this work is the North Carolina

New Schools Project, a public/private partnership that

operates as the state’s premier school-development entity.

The NSP was launched to coordinate statewide high school

reform efforts, as well as to provide technical assistance and

resources to local partners to plan or redesign the new small

high schools. For example, the NSP provides multi-year

implementation grants to selected schools to develop

innovative new models of teaching and learning. The NSP

expects to provide support to over 100 new small high

schools over the next several years.

Strong support from the Governor and other state leaders

has been instrumental in rapidly expanding education

options in North Carolina. Currently, 33 early college high

schools are open and a total of 75 are planned.

Tuition waivers are available in North Carolina to students in

early college programs. In addition, the Governor has

provided increasing levels of support within the state budget

for the expansion and sustenance of new small high

schools.11

eleventh- and twelfth-grade youth with MCAS sup-port and blended high school and college coursework.Another Route to College at Northern Essex Commu-nity College serves twelfth-grade Lawrence youthwith MCAS support and college coursework. Mostrecently, the replication of the Oregon-based Gateway

A more fully resourced school innovation fund, sup-ported by the public, philanthropic, and private sec-tors, could support the spread of school designs thatare effective in improving outcomes of students whoare not on track to an on-time graduation. It couldalso build the capacity of existing and proposedschool and youth development entities to become cen-ters for the expansion of such proven practices andmodels, as in North Carolina (see box). Funds couldbe disbursed through a competitive grant processopen to existing or proposed school developers,including: charter school applicants; school reformentities formed by districts (including, for example, adistrict’s office of high school redesign or alternativeeducation) and higher education (including early col-lege high school models); and private and nonprofitorganizations (including youth development organiza-tions and community-based organizations with alter-native education models).

To compete for funding, school development entitieswould have to demonstrate through a comprehensiveapplication the ability to implement school designsand practices that are specifically geared for youngpeople not on track to a high school diploma. Theywould also have to demonstrate that the designswould significantly improve the graduation rateamong these students. Special consideration could begiven to programs that can also demonstrate highrates of college participation of their graduates.

Action Step 5: Increase funding for the ExpandedLearning Time Initiative, with a portion allocatedfor high schools.

Recent experience in Boston demonstrates that new,small high schools, including those created as conver-sions of larger, underperforming high schools, canmake good use of extra time to accelerate the learningof students who enter high school without the skillsnecessary for academic success and to ensure that stu-dents graduate from high school prepared for thetransition to college (see box, “Increased InstructionalTime in Boston’s Small High Schools”). Research hasalso shown that expanding the learning day, whencoupled with focused attention to the quality ofinstruction, can improve student achievement andhelp close the achievement gap, particularly for low-performing and high-poverty students (Chait, Hous-man, &Muller Forthcoming).

By fully funding the Expanded Learning Time Initia-tive, the legislature would help to ensure that highschool students in new and redesigned schools havethe instructional time, enrichment, and supports theyneed to reach the goal of a college- and career-readygraduation.


Increased Instructional Time in Boston’sSmall High Schools

About half of Boston’s new, small high schools, most of

which are conversions from large high schools, have made

an extended day a requirement for ninth graders. The

goal: provide extra, focused time to acclimate students to

the more rigorous work expectations of high school,

address gaps in their learning, and help them succeed in

their courses and assessments. Some of the schools also

offer programming for older students, particularly with the

goal of promoting college and career readiness: schools

are taking advantage of the wide range of Boston’s higher

education institutions to connect students, particularly

juniors and seniors, with college-level coursework and

other college-campus learning opportunities.

For example, the headmaster of the Noonan Business

Academy, a small school that began as part of an

intervention into and conversion of Dorchester High

School, credits the extended-day program with

contributing to the school’s marked improvement in MCAS

scores last year. The extended-day program begins the first

week of school so that the routine and expectations

become established. All ninth graders take a math course

after school three days per week. Most enroll in the math

enrichment course that reinforces fundamental, middle

school-level math skills. Ninth graders without such skill

deficits have the option of pursuing advanced math

courses in algebra, geometry, or pre-calculus. Upper-grade

students take college courses at UMass Boston or Bunker

Hill Community College.

Boston small school leaders now face the challenge of

how to sustain these programs, beyond the initial

philanthropic support for start-up, which largely comes

from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

PART III. A UNIQUE MOMENT FOR ACTION

Massachusetts has made great strides over the last tenyears to develop a nationally recognized system ofacademic standards and assessments. In particular, theMassachusetts Board of Education and Department ofEducation actions taken over the last two years topush toward the proficiency level on MCAS as thestandard for competency determination, accuratelyreport high school graduation rates, and intervene inlow-performing schools are critical steps to raisingacademic achievement and closing achievement gapsin the state.

Yet the work of improving educational and economicoutcomes for Massachusetts young people is far fromcomplete. Too many high school students continue tostruggle in school and leave before graduating; toomany dropouts and graduates alike are ill-equipped topursue the postsecondary training and education thatare so critical to success in the Commonwealth’sincreasingly knowledge-based economy.

Massachusetts faces a unique moment of opportunityto mobilize a broad set of constituencies to addressthese challenges. The Commonwealth has new leader-

ship in the Governor’s office and on the state Board ofEducation. And Massachusetts will soon have a newcommissioner of education and possibly a new chan-cellor of higher education. The emerging leadershiphas the chance to fashion a signature agenda focusedon the twin goals of significantly raising high schoolgraduation rates, especially among the state’s low-income students, and making college-ready gradua-tion the goal for all students. This dual focus—a wayto address both the achievement gap and the gradua-tion gap—provides a powerful, persuasive messageand platform for the next generation of high schoolreform in Massachusetts.

The dual agenda of high standards and high gradua-tion rates cannot be achieved by the Commonwealth’seducation institutions alone. Rather, it will require astrong and active partnership among secondary andhigher education, the Governor’s office, the legisla-ture, the business community, youth-serving organiza-tions, parents, and youth.


References

Achieve, Inc. 2004.Do Graduation Tests Measure Up?: ACloser Look at State High School Exit Exams.Washington,DC: Achieve, Inc.

Adelman, Clifford. 1999. Answers in the Tool Box: Aca-demic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s DegreeAttainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion.

Allensworth, Elaine and John Q. Easton. 2005. The On-Track Indicator as a Predictor of High School Graduation.Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Augenblick, Palaich, & Associates, Inc. 2006. Return onInvestment in Early College High Schools. Denver, CO:Author.

Balfanz, Robert. 2006. “Intervening in Low-PerformingHigh Schools.” Paper prepared for Taking the Next Step-Defining a Shared Federal Agenda for High School Reform.Third Annual High School Policy Conference, October 12-13. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Balfanz, Robert and Liza Herzog. 2005. Keeping MiddleGrades Students on Track to Graduation. Presentation atthe Regional Middle Grades Symposium, March 18,Philadelphia, PA.

Barth, Patte. 2003. “A Common Core Curriculum For TheNew Century.” Thinking K-16, Volume 7, Issue 1, Winter2003. Washington, DC: Ed Trust.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2005.High Schools forthe New Millennium: Imagine the Possibilities. Seattle, WA:Author.

Bridgeland, John M., John J. Dilulio, Jr., and Karen BurkeMorison. 2006. The Silent Epidemic. Perspectives of HighSchool Dropouts.Washington, DC: Civil Enterprises, LLC.

Chait, Robin, Naomi Housman, and Rob Muller. Forth-coming. Academic Interventions to Help Students Meet Rig-orous Standards.Washington, DC: National High SchoolAlliance.

Education Trust. November 2005.Gaining Traction, Gain-ing Ground: How Some High Schools are AcceleratingLearning for Struggling Students.Washington, DC: TheEducation Trust.

Jerald, Craig D. June 2006. Identifying Potential Dropouts:Key Lessons for Building an Early Warning Data System. ADual Agenda of High Standards and High GraduationRates. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. and Boston: Jobs forthe Future.

Just for the Kids. 2006. Best Practice Studies and Institutes:Findings from 20 States. www.just4kids.org/jftk/twenty_states.cfm.

Lynch, Joellen. 2006. “Developing and StrengtheningSchools and Programs that Lead to High School Graduationand Post-secondary Opportunities for Overage, Under-credited Youth.” Council of Chief State School Officers,Secondary School Redesign Conference, June 7,Atlanta, GA.

Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. 2007. FinalReport of the Task Force on Retention and CompletionRates at the Community Colleges. Available at www.mass.edu/p_p/home.asp.

Massachusetts Department of Education. 2006. Creating aHigh School Curriculum for College and Career Readiness.Background paper prepared by the working committee forthe Massachusetts Department of Education and StateBoard of Education. Available online at www.doe.mass.edu/hsreform/cccr.

Mazzeo, Christopher, Ilene Berman and others. 2003.Reaching New Heights: Turning Around Low-PerformingSchools. A Guide for Governors.Washington, DC:National Governors Association.

Pathways to Success by 21 Initiative and Department ofEducation. 2007. Raising Graduation Rates in Massachu-setts: The Power of Community Partnerships. A Report ofthe Pathways to Success by 21 Initiative.http://p21.us/resources/Raising_Graduation_Rates_in_Massachusetts.pdf.

Postsecondary Education Opportunity. 2006. “MedianFamily Income in Constant 2004 Dollars: 1974 and 2004.”www.postsecondary.org/archives/Posters/MedFamInc04.pdf.

Roderick, Melissa. 2006. Closing the Aspirations-Attain-ment Gap: Implications for High School Reform. A Com-mentary from Chicago.New York: MDRC, Inc.

Quint, Janet. 2006.Meeting Five Critical Challenges ofHigh School Reform: Lessons from Research on ThreeReform Models.New York: MDRC, Inc.

Steinberg, Adria, Cassius Johnson, and Hilary Pennington.2006. Addressing America’s Dropout Challenge: StateEfforts to Boost Graduation Require Federal Support.Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and Boston:Jobs for the Future.

Sum, Andrew, Ishwar Khatiwada, Joseph MClaughlin, et al.2007. An Assessment of the Labor Market, Income, Health,Social, Civic and Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out ofHigh School: Findings for Massachusetts Adults in the 21st

Century. Paper prepared for the Boston Youth TransitionFunders Group, Boston, MA. www.bostonpic.org/youth/g.htm.

Vargas, Joel. 2006. “Creating and Sustaining Early CollegeHigh Schools: State Policies that Support 9-14 Education.”The State Education Standard. Washington, DC: NationalAssociation of State Boards of Education.


Endnotes1 See, for example, Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison(2006) and Postsecondary Education Opportunity(2006).

2 Massachusetts four-year graduation rates by state,district, and school and for subgroups are availableat www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/gradrates/06state.html.

3 Source: National Center for Education Statistics,Condition of Education 2004, Indicator 18.

4 One of the cornerstones of the federal No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001, Adequate Yearly Progress is themeasure by which schools, districts, and states areheld accountable for student performance overalland by subgroups. All public schools, school dis-tricts, and states are evaluated for AYP based onyear-to-year performance and improvement targetsfor student academic achievement, attendance, andgraduation rates (high schools only).

5 Unlike the tenth-grade subject matter ELA, math,and proposed history/social studies MCAS tests; toachieve a competency determination in science andtechnology/engineering, students must pass one offour discipline-specific tests in biology, chemistry,physics, and technology/engineering.

6 The 14 districts are Boston, Brockton, Chelsea,Chicopee, Fall River, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence,Lowell, Lynn, New Bedford, Revere, Somerville, andSpringfield.

7 See for example, Mazzeo, Berman, and others(2003), Steinberg, Johnson, and Pennington (2006),and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2005).

8 See, for example, Quint (2006), Just for the KidsBest Practice Studies and Institutes (2006), and Edu-cation Trust (2005).

9 Commonwealth charter schools are managed byboards of trustees and operate independently of anyschool committee. In contrast, Horace Mann char-ters are district-operated charter schools that requirethe approval of the local school committee and localteacher’s union in addition to the Board of Educa-tion. Nine of the fifty-nine charters are high schools,and an additional twenty-four schools serve highschool students through middle/high and K-12 con-figurations.

10 For up-to-date information and statistics on theEarly College High School Initiative, seewww.earlycolleges.org.

11 For more information, see www.newschoolspro-ject.org.


88 Broad StreetBoston, MA 02110617.728.4446www.jff.org

1775 Eye Street, NW, Suite 410Washington, DC 20006202.419.1540www.achieve.org

high standards and high graduation rates: moving forward on a dual agenda in massachusetts

Documents

postsecondary education

ment of education

jff team

dual agenda of high

national policieson

national education summitsto

higher standards

raiseacademic standards