The perspectives of educators and administrators in the surveys and focus groups highlighted some of the opportunities for -- and barriers to -- making progress in addressing the high school dropout epidemic. We must continue  to improve high school graduation rates and prepare all students for college, work, and life. We cannot accomplish these goals, however, without the engagement of teachers and principals and their allies in schools and communities who can help them boost student achievement.

In our surveys, we found that a near majority of teachers (48 percent) and more than half of principals (55 percent) felt that their schools were graduating at least 90 percent of their incoming freshmen class. Indeed, teachers report an average graduation rate of 83 percent and principals report an average graduation rate of 85 percent. The national statistic for high school graduation is between 68 and 75 percent, which indicates a disconnection between perceived and actual graduation data. All states need to follow the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, as put forth by the National Governor’s Association in July 2005 and recently adopted by the U.S. Department of Education. At the state, district and school levels, graduation rates need to be disaggregated by racial, ethnic and economic status, English language learner, and special education populations so that teachers and administrators have clear and accurate information. This data should reveal the school’s overall graduation rate, as well as an annual review of how well students are progressing toward graduation. In a time when the high school diploma represents the bare minimum requirement for success in the work force, states and school districts need to have an accurate understanding of the shortcomings of the nation’s high schools in order to make improvements. Better state, district, and school level information on graduation rates, however, is not enough. We also recommend that states establish ambitious graduation rate goals and hold districts and schools accountable for making continuous and substantial progress towards these goals. Schools, need accurate tracking systems that will allow teachers and administrators to keep tabs on students’ progress toward high school graduation and to prompt appropriate interventions if necessary. Too often, teachers find students missing from their classes and do not know if the students have withdrawn from school, transferred to another, or dropped out entirely. Finally, teachers and administrators need to be brought fully into the mission of graduating all students ready for college and careers. Students cannot be separated into two groups – those who receive a rigorous and challenging curriculum and those who do not. The majority of today’s high school students understand that college is important, and have a desire to go. In a survey conducted of high school seniors, 69 percent expected to attain a bachelor’s degree or higher, and another 18 percent expected to complete some kind of postsecondary education.66 In fact, college enrollment rates have increased from 49 percent in 1972 to 69 percent 2005.

67 Despite these ambitious goals, many high school students who apply and are accepted to colleges do not end up graduating from college, as they find themselves ill prepared for the rigors of a postsecondary curriculum. The academic struggles of many college students lead to only 34 percent of incoming college freshmen graduating in four years, 64 percent within six years, and 69 percent within eight and a half years. To improve the prospects for all students to graduate from high school with the appropriate knowledge that will allow them to succeed in college, high school students and educators need to be briefed on the personal, social and economic impacts of dropping out and the demands of the 21st century economy, in which most family-wage jobs require at least a high school diploma based on a rigorous curriculum and high expectations. Our survey results seem to reflect a lack of urgency from teachers and principals that all students need to graduate from high school college-ready, as 35 percent of teachers and 24 percent of principals felt that the dropout problem was either a minor problem or not a problem at all. Similarly, only 17 percent of both teachers and principals felt that their schools needed significant improvement in ensuring all high school graduates have college-level skills. Significant numbers of educators may still be assuming that ample employment opportunities exist for academically deficient high school graduates, when in reality, today’s job market provides very few careers for high school graduates who do not possess sufficient reading, writing, and critical thinking skills to earn a family-wage job.
STANDARDS-BASED
RIGOROUS
CURRICULUM
& HIGH
EXPECTATIONS
FOR EVERY
STUDENT
Students should have fewer, clearer and higher standards aligned with college requirements so that every student has the opportunity to graduate ready for a post-secondary education. Providing a rigorous curriculum for students has been shown to have a positive effect on keeping students engaged in school and raising graduation rates in high schools.69 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan touted its importance during his confirmation hearing when he said, “We have to increase rigor in high schools to prepare young people for the next stage of life.”70
Studies show that by offering rigorous courses, schools can positively affect their dropout rates. One study found that schools that offered few math courses below the rigor of Algebra I reduced the odds of their students’ dropping out by 28 percent, and those that offered a rigorous course, such as calculus, reduced the odds of their students’ dropping out by 55 percent.71 In addition, research shows that a challenging high school curriculum is the best pre-college indicator of one successfully attaining a bachelor’s degree.72 A number of studies have investigated the positive relationship between a rigorous curriculum and high school graduation rates, yet access to challenging high school coursework is unevenly distributed.73 Low-income students are less likely (28 percent) to be enrolled in a college preparatory track in their high school than medium-income or high-income students (49 percent and 65 percent, respectively).74 In fact, in 2002, only six percent of students from the lowest-income families earned a bachelor’s degree by 24 (typically an individual’s 6th year of college) – the same percentage as in 1970.75 Studies have shown that students who feel that their teachers have low expectations for them quickly adopt this perception of themselves and fail in school.76

The idea of holding all students to high expectations, providing them with a rigorous and relevant curriculum, and setting them up for success in a postsecondary environment may be relatively novel and groundbreaking ideas in the education sector. Many teachers may not have been educated on the magnitude of the dropout problem, its multiple dimensions related to factors within and outside school, or the importance of preparing students for a post-secondary education. School districts and teacher preparation programs need to make the extent of the dropout problem as transparent as possible and arm current and future educators with the necessary tools to address the problem for every student.
The majority of teachers and a significant minority of principals in our surveys think that “we should have a separate track that would allow students who are not college bound to get a high school diploma without achieving” high academic standards. From a policy perspective, this brings significant concerns to the forefront, as it begs the question, at what point is a student determined to be either “college-bound” or “non college-bound?” Many students enter high school at age 14 or 15 and it would be a disservice if they were immediately determined as worthy or not worthy of being held to high expectations. The idea of having separate tracks for different groups of students leads to questions dealing with at what age or grade is this decision made? And by whom? Is a student’s input, or that of their parent, considered? Who decides?
It is important to reject the idea of “educational predestination,” by assuming certain students can more readily achieve than others. Research has shown that students rise to the level of expectation once they sense they are considered smart and capable, and are provided appropriate support. They often become engaged in the curriculum and work harder to reach their academic goals. Regretfully, poor performance is too often associated with low ability and intelligence. This mindset must be corrected. Many students who end up graduating from high school, and later attend college, largely
attribute their success to “having one person who believed I could do it.”77
When read together -- the surveys and focus groups of educators, the
perspectives given by parents in One Dream, Two Realities that showed
the level of parental engagement in high- and low- performing schools,
and The Silent Epidemic that chronicled the viewpoints of dropouts –- there
seems to be a significant level of misunderstanding and miscommunication
among educators, parents, and students surrounding the behaviors and
experiences that lead to dropping out.

Many educators and administrators do not see boredom as a factor in most cases of dropout. Dropouts do. The majority of teachers do not believe we should expect all students to meet high academic standards, graduate with the skills to do college-level work, and provide extra supports to help them meet those standards. Research shows the power of high expectations, a challenging curriculum, and extra supports for struggling students in boosting academic achievement. Dropouts themselves wanted more demanded of them and wanted to be inspired and motivated to work harder. Strong majorities of both teachers and principals did not believe students at-risk of dropping out would work harder if more were demanded of them to earn a diploma, when strong majorities of dropouts said the opposite.
Large majorities of teachers and principals felt a lack of parent engagement was a key factor in some or most cases of dropout, yet parents of students trapped in low-performing schools see the need for a rigorous curriculum and their own involvement the most. That said, most of these parents do not feel their schools effectively communicate with and engage them, and want better information and tools to help their children succeed academically.
Working as a community, these series of disconnects can be addressed. We recommend that schools create parent engagement strategies that focus on simple things such as teacher feedback to parents about class participation, missed assignments, grades and upcoming tests. Schools should also provide parents more information about graduation requirements and college admission and homework hotlines so they can help their children stay on track. Schools cannot be expected to fix dysfunctional family structures or assume responsibility for a student when they are not in school, but they can be proactive in creating a web of supports that enables students to attend and succeed in school. Other strategies that would be beneficial include incorporating homework assignments that involve families, recruiting parent volunteers to serve as liaisons between the school and other parents (particularly those who speak another language), and distributing course information and teacher contact information to every parent at the beginning of each semester.78
In addition to increasing parental involvement, there must also be an increase in the use of adult mentors and community wrap-around support systems. The National Association of Secondary School Principals recommends that every high school student have a mentor who can help personalize the education experience.79 Adult advocates can be invaluable in assisting schools with struggling students, including through attendance monitoring, school and peer counseling, mentoring, tutoring, internships, service-learning, job shadowing, summer school programs and after-school programs.80
Schools also need to have frank conversations among students, educators, and parents on the levels of student effort, attendance, and attention, the need for rigorous instruction and challenging curricula, and the adequacy of student supports that are essential to prepare students for success in and after high school.
All three parties need to actively communicate with one another with the single goal of preparing college-ready high school graduates, particularly for students in low-achieving schools. As an important next step, dialogues should be held in communities and schools across the country to address these disconnects and opportunities among teachers, parents and students to boost student engagement, achievement and ultimately high school graduation rates.

When teachers call for more parental involvement, smaller classes, early warning systems, and more alternative learning environments, they are calling for making the challenge of graduating all students more manageable. The typical middle school or high school was built for
another era, in which many students completed their formal schooling at the conclusion of high school. As a result, the standard teacher load of five classes with 25 to 30 students each, leading to a total of 150 students, typically organized along department lines, made sense from an efficiency standpoint.
The assumption was that a teacher would teach a good lesson and then it would be up to the students how much they wanted to make of it. The students who put forth the most effort and had good prior instruction did well and were moved along a college preparatory track and those who did not were simply asked to complete enough assignments with sufficient quality to pass onto the next grade -- under the assumption that their schooling would end with high school. That era no longer exists, though it is clear from the teacher and administrator interviews that its structures and many of its explicit and implicit assumptions still do exist.
To move forward, there needs to be a redesign of secondary schools, so that they are supportive of all students graduating from high school to be college and career ready, and help teachers and administrators in achieving this objective. This will not occur, as said by one of the teachers attending our colloquium, if we continue to have high schools in which 500 high school freshmen need extra supports to succeed. Nor will schools succeed if teachers continue to teach students in isolation, as is the case in many elementary schools where teachers are responsible for educating their students in all subject areas. In these situations, teachers cannot single-handedly provide the appropriate outreach and supports to their struggling students.
Fortunately, alternative models do exist. Although more rigorous scientific evidence is needed, there is some evidence that secondary schools can be redesigned to enable all students to succeed. The U.S. News and World report recently identified 100 high schools that met
its gold standard criteria for preparing their students regardless of their
background for success in college. Among the 100, there were more
than a few schools that educated large percentages of low income and
minority students.81 A 2005 report by the Education Trust similarly identified
a number of high schools that, despite having high concentrations of lowincome
and high-minority students, produced high rates of graduation
and achievement. The report goes on to identify the characteristics of
these outstanding schools, such as having a school culture centered
on college and academic excellence, as well as providing necessary
supports for struggling students that allow them to continue with their
college-preparatory courses.82

Similarly, Mass Insight’s school redesign program, the Turnaround Challenge, also aims to implement dramatic and comprehensive interventions in low-performing schools that produce significant gains in student achievement. These components are also outlined in the recent Institute for Educational Science Practice Report on Dropout Prevention and can be found in comprehensive whole school reform design with strong track records like the Talent Development High School model.
The need to improve the quality of middle and high schools has been recognized by the federal government and its lawmakers. The Graduation Promise Act authorizes $2.5 billion in new funding for secondary school reform in the nation’s lowest performing high schools, as well as advancing research to identify more highly effective secondary schools in hopes of using them as models. Similarly, the Success in the Middle Act targets reforms at the middle school level by providing funding for developing early warning systems in schools, as well as providing more high quality professional development opportunities for teachers and principals.
More work needs to be done to build upon and to test with rigorous evaluations these promising designs, and local, state, and national officials need to recognize that effective secondary school designs may not be driven so much by their governance model as by their attention to combining rigorous college and career ready curricula with multiple layers of teacher and student supports. In addition, schools need to have an organizational structure that enables teachers and administrators to work as teams with manageable numbers of students while continuously using data to guide and evaluate their success. Moreover, some of the most successful redesign programs have been able to incorporate a second contingent of adults -- from community-based organizations, national service volunteers, integrated student support providers, and after school programs -- to make sure that each student receives a skilled and committed adult outside of school.
MORE
RESEARCH TO ENSURE A
HIGH
QUALITY
TEACHER IN
EVERY
CLASSROOM
According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a “highly qualified teacher” is defined as an individual with a bachelor’s degree, a state certification of licensure, and who can prove they know their subject area by passing a state examination. There are also stipulations in the Act that allow uncertified teaching candidates in alternative-route programs to teach for up to three years while seeking certification. These qualifications, according to the Center for Teaching Quality, call for “minimally”– not “highly”– qualified teachers.83
Education researchers have consistently pointed out that an underlying cause of our nation’s dropout crisis is having under-qualified and ineffective teachers in classrooms. Studies have shown the uneven distribution of quality teachers across school districts -- with low income and minority schools receiving the fewest of these teachers. According to a study done in New York, 7 percent of white students were taught by a teacher who had failed the licensure exam the first time, compared to 21 percent of nonwhite students.84 Overall, only about 15 percent of expert teachers (experienced teachers who have proven they can produce above-average gains in student achievement) teach in high-poverty, underachieving schools.85 Organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, cite improving teacher quality as the “most important factor in improving education.”

The importance of having high quality teachers has been empirically proven in research studies. In a study done on 9th grade students in Chicago Public Schools, researchers found that if students were given a teacher who was one standard deviation higher in quality for one year, those students scored 22 percent higher on the state math exam given at the end of the year. The greatest improvements were seen in African-American and low-income students.86
A similar study was done in Los Angeles and the results showed that students who were taught by teachers in the top 25 percent of effectiveness gained, on average, 5 percentile points relative to their peers. On the other hand, if the students were taught by teachers in the lowest 25 percent of effective teachers, they lost, on average, 5 points relative to their peers.87
In order for a sufficient supply of highly effective teachers to be created, attention must be paid to teacher preparation programs. Educational researchers have called the “inadequate training of teachers as the single most debilitating force in American high schools” and have commented on how unappealing the teaching profession is for highly intelligent and motivated individuals.88 It is important that proper attention be given to the admission requirements, curriculum, and graduation policies of the nation’s teacher preparatory programs. In addition to passing state licensure and subject matter exams, candidates in these programs must also show proficiency with effective teaching methods.
Individuals who wish to become teachers do not have to follow a traditional certification process, and many opt for alternative licensure programs. This serves as an effective tool to increase the candidate pool. Schools may choose to partner with regional college and universities, as they have many intelligent and qualified students who may be intrigued by the challenge of working in hard-to-staff schools. This has successfully been done by Teach for America, a nationally recognized service organization that recruits exceptional college students to teach for a minimum of two years in low-income schools.
Schools also should look at undergraduate students who are not enrolled in teacher preparation programs, especially students majoring in math, science, or bilingual education. Studies have shown that large proportions of science, engineering, and math undergraduates are interested in K-12 teaching.89 In addition to seeking potential teachers through college and universities, school districts also can turn to programs that train adults who see teaching as a second career, help capable substitute teachers and teachers’ aides with attaining licensure, and implement licensure reciprocity agreements to recognize out-of-state teacher licenses as valid.

The idea of “merit pay,” the process of giving financial incentives to outstanding teachers who improve student performance, has been explored by many states, as well as the federal government. In 2006, the federal government signaled its commitment to rewarding effective teachers with the Teacher Incentive Fund, administered by the U.S. Department of Education. The Fund, however, has been met with criticism from many education experts, as they find it to be insufficiently funded, poorly regulated, and it has become a point of contention among federal lawmakers.
At the state level, using merit pay to recruit and retain teachers in the form of signing bonuses, increased salaries for high student achievement, and even housing incentives, has produced mixed results. Many recent studies have shown merit pay as beneficial to reducing teacher attrition and increasing student achievement,90 with the greatest results seen in high-poverty schools and when only given out to relatively few teachers.91 Another study showed that for every $1,000 increase in teacher salary, a 6 percent decline in teacher turnover resulted.

92 Many school districts across the country are facing the challenge of recruiting, placing and retaining high quality teachers in classrooms. Reducing the dropout rate, closing the achievement gap and producing well-educated high school graduates all hinge on the availability of highly effective teachers.
The reality of placing a highly effective teacher in every classroom cannot be realized without assuring that each of those teachers is teaching a subject for which he or she is trained or licensed. Research shows that middle and high school teachers with demonstrated knowledge of their subject are more likely to produce stronger student achievement results, especially in mathematics and science.

93 The most current School and
ELIMINATE
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING
Staff Survey (SASS) from 2003-2004 shows that in secondary schools across the country, far too many students are being taught by teachers with neither an academic major nor state certification in the subjects they teach.94 This problem is especially prevalent in middle schools, math and science classes, and in high-poverty, high-minority schools.
Teachers are often not responsible for their out-of-field placement, as it is usually a result of principals and school board members facing budgetary constraints and not being able to hire another teacher, or not having an adequate supply of highly qualified teachers in a certain subject area. While states have a responsibility to use highly qualified teachers in classrooms correctly placed in their subject matter, significant discrepancies exist between what the state reports to the Department of Education and what teachers themselves say in the SASS. For example, according to the Education Trust, the State of Ohio reported that 93 percent of teachers in core academic classes were teaching “in field,” while the SASS reported that only 63 percent of core academic classes were being taught by highly qualified and certified teachers in that state.95
To eliminate the problem of out-of-field teaching, states and school districts need to attract an adequate supply of effective teachers with appropriate subject-matter knowledge, assigning only highly-qualified teachers to low-income and minority students, and monitoring the progress of these teachers by producing accurate data. Certain states have made notable strides in attacking the problem of out-of field teaching on their own by partnering with private organizations and universities.96

By eliminating out-of-field teaching, teachers will be correctly placed
in subject areas in which they are licensed. Teachers must have strong
background knowledge of their subject matter and allow them to
more enthusiastically and more confidently relay that knowledge onto
their students. Research shows that a highly qualified teacher, who is
knowledgeable and engaging, is the single greatest advantage a student
can have to raise their academic potential.

97 As a result of the steep challenges beginning teachers face, states and
school districts have rapidly increased the amount of mentoring and
induction programs they offer. A 2006 American Association of State
Colleges and Universities report estimates that 80 percent of teachers
receive some version of these supports, up from 40 percent in 1990.

98 While mentoring usually involves “one-on-one” interaction between
veteran and beginning teachers, “induction” programs are assumed to
be more comprehensive. Often times, induction programs are poorly
managed and merely exist to help novice teachers “survive” their first
year in the classroom. Instead, according to the Alliance for Excellent
Education, induction programs should be comprehensive programs that
combine mentoring, professional development and support, and formal
assessments for teachers in their first two years.

99 Research has shown that comprehensive induction programs, because
they are cost effective, reduce the time it takes for novice teachers to
perform at the same level as an experienced teacher, and cut teacher
turnover rates in half.

100 Currently, only 1 percent of teachers receive
comprehensive induction, and while recent studies have found that
30 or more states have some form of required mentoring programs for
beginning teachers, only 16 states finance these programs, and only 5
states provide the program for a minimum of two or more years.

101 We urge that all states have comprehensive induction programs for all
beginning teachers during their first two years of teaching. States should
give priority to those schools and teachers working in low-income and
low-performing schools. A 2004 report showed that a new teacher’s
decision to transfer out of a low-income school rested on the degree of
support he or she received from highly effective mentors and help with
understanding and presenting the curriculum.

102 A key component of the comprehensive induction program is the process
of matching a highly effective veteran teacher with a novice one. States
and school districts need be especially conscientious when selecting these
mentors and appropriately matching mentor and mentee by the same
subject area. Research shows that the best mentors have strong content knowledge, a proven ability to raise student achievement, and measurable success working with linguistically and ethnically diverse students.

103 Mentor teachers, or “master teachers” as some are often called, should be rewarded for their efforts with a stipend, or a larger annual salary as a means of encouraging highly-effective classroom teachers to apply for the position.
ENHANCE
PRINCIPAL’S AUTHORITY TO DRIVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TO SCALE
Principals and school leaders have been cited as the second most important factor in student achievement, behind teacher quality, and they must be the driving force behind recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers.

104 Autonomy and strong leadership are key characteristics of highly effective principals. They must have more control over the hiring, firing, and development of their staff. They must exhibit experience within the field, especially those placed in low-performing schools. Research has shown the opposite. On average, principals at high dropout rate schools have 3.6 years of administrative experience compared to the 9.6 years by their peers in low dropout rate schools.

105 Research shows the most effective principals at increasing student achievement and reducing their school’s dropout rate are those with more freedom to hire and fire teachers, set budgets, and avoid micromanagement that seems to incapacitate high school principals.

106 Like teachers, principals also need high-quality professional and leadership development.
Principals must also work to establish a common tone of high expectations, hard work, and collaboration within the school. They must act effectively as the school’s CEO, as they mobilize both staff and students toward a common goal of academic excellence. To further enable principals to succeed with additional autonomy, a new set of standards needs to be developed, which incorporate the most effective research. These standards need to focus on key areas of school operation, including professional development of teachers, implementing a college and career ready curriculum for all students, and providing extra supports for students to succeed.
EARLY
WARNING
SYSTEMS
A student does not abruptly decide to drop out of school. Rather, it is a process of disengagement that produces visible warning signs along the way. We recommend that early warning systems be established in every school in order to identify those students most likely to drop out.
The three most predictive factors that a student will eventually drop out are: absenteeism, behavioral problems, and course failure. Research has shown that 64 percent of students who repeated a grade in elementary school eventually dropped out of school.

107 Dropouts can be predicted with 85 percent accuracy by 9th grade.

108 Chronic absenteeism is, by far, the most significant predictor. For instance, of the 8th graders in Philadelphia who attend school less than 80 percent of the time, 78 percent of them ended up dropping out.

109 Research has shown that the transition into high school is a highly vulnerable time for a student and a large number of those who do not successfully complete their freshmen year are at a significant risk of not graduating. Therefore, it is important
that schools establish “Freshmen Academies,” which operate as a “school
within a school” where groups of 9th graders share classrooms and
teachers in order to get the necessary attention. There are other ways,
such as establishing small learning communities for the entire school, as
done in Talent Development High Schools and First Things First. In all cases,
by establishing early warning systems, especially for these three areas,
school district leaders, educators, parents, and students would be able to
take appropriate action to keep the student on track to graduate.
The Graduation Nation guidebook outlines ways in which schools and
communities can establish early warning systems and provides numerous
suggestions and examples of schools in which these systems have proved
beneficial. These early warning systems could take advantage of
monitoring different “at-risk indicators,” as well as students’ grades, and
identify those most in need of one-on-one intervention.

110 Schools also need to provide teachers with more comprehensive
information about their students. Teachers should be able to easily access
a student’s past grades, attendance records, and any behavioral issues
that occurred during a student’s academic career. This extra information
would allow teachers to identify which students would be most likely to
need extra supports. With the advent of efficient technologies, school
district leaders and administrators need to establish a database, in which
teachers can freely access and share information on students, with
appropriate privacy protections. This would allow educators to track
students through middle and high school and monitor their progress.
ONGOING
LITERACY
PROGRAMS IN
MIDDLE AND
HIGH SCHOOLS
According to the UNESSCO Institute for Statistics’ Report, U.S. students
score among the best in the world in 4th grade reading assessments That
quickly changes, as American students fall to lower ranks in grade eight,
and finally to one of the lowest rankings in the world by grade ten.111 In
addition, the No Child Left Behind law has also created public indicators
that show American adolescents with high rates of under-proficiency on
state reading assessments and on the National Assessment of Education
Progress, a national standardized exam.112 This ultimately results in having
a large number of students being inadequately prepared for postsecondary
education, employment and citizenship.
According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, more than 8 million
students in grades 4-12 read below grade level, and only 31 percent
of America’s 8th grade and 12th grade students read “proficiently” on
standardized tests.113 As a result of having students reading at below
grade level when they enter high school, many teachers struggle to
effectively teach their subject matter. Organizations such as the National Association for Secondary School Principals stress the importance of ongoing literacy programs at the middle and high school levels.114 Content-area classes, in addition to teaching their subject matter, must also focus on literacy techniques, such as reading comprehension and summarizing.
Research has shown that high school literacy programs are beneficial to students. In a recent report, four states working in conjunction with the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the National Governors Association effectively improved the literacy policies in their high schools. In all four states, creating support for high-quality literacy instruction through professional development was critical. These states found it necessary to educate their teachers and principals on literacy best practices that could be incorporated into a high school subject matter class.115 States should examine a model similar to that of Alabama’s Reading Initiative (ARI), which has a goal of 100 percent literacy among all students, a commitment by 85 percent of the faculty to attend a two-week intensive summer literacy institute, appointment of full-time reading coaches to work with teachers and students, collaboration between schools and higher education faculty partners, who serve as mentors, and partnerships with local businesses. As a result, ARI schools have out-performed non-ARI schools. Specifically, the ARI was seen to have the greatest positive impact on minority students.116
ALTERNATIVE
LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS
School districts should develop options for students, including a curriculum that connects classroom learning with real life experiences, smaller learning communities with individualized instruction, and alternative learning environments that offer rigorous and specialized programs to students at risk of dropping out.
While there are a wide variety of alternative learning programs and schools, they are often characterized by their flexible schedules, smaller teacher-student ratios and modified curricula. They provide an alternate pathway for students who are not succeeding in traditional high schools, since these environments are generally tailored to meet the specific needs of the student. While many of these learning environments are found in separate schools, often specializing in a certain type of curriculum (i.e. technology, math and science, music, dance, etc.), they can also be found as programs within schools that divide students up on the basis of their interests and strengths. For example, students who are interested in medicine and health care can be placed on a separate track with courses that specifically target their interests, such as biology and anatomy. This allows students to receive the individualized attention they need, while maintaining the rigorous curriculum and high expectations that research shows improves student achievement. Connections should also be made between classroom learning and real job opportunities, through internships, job shadowing and work study programs.
In light of the fact that our current education system produces one-third of students who do not graduate from high school, and another one-third who are not sufficiently prepared by the education they have received to be college ready, then a structural change may be warranted.117 States and school districts, particularly those suffering from high rates of dropout, need to offer and test with evaluations a variety of highly rigorous alternatives for students who are not succeeding in a traditional school.