The Bureau of Labor Statistics has shown that high school dropouts earn an average under $20,000 annually (female dropouts age 25-34 earn less than $15,000) compared to their high school graduate counterparts who earn $28,800. The average annual income for an adult with a bachelor’s degree jumps to $46,300. Over the course of a thirty year working career, a college graduate with a bachelor’s degree will earn almost $750,000 (with no adjustments for inflation) more than a high school dropout.

The differences in the income levels between the college graduate and high school dropout are significant, particularly when considering the impact of the lessened tax rates on public services and infrastructure.

Income

South Carolina does not tax the first $2,670 of federal taxable income. For amounts over $2,670, South Carolina’s graduated tax rate is 3-7 percent of taxable income (SC Tax Commission, 2009). The individual income tax brackets are adjusted annually for inflation. When comparing the tax revenues collected from a dropout with those of a college graduate, the economic implications for South Carolina are significant. These lowered tax rates result in shortfalls for our economy in the form of our highways, hospitals, libraries, schools and all publicly funded infrastructure and services. The income gap situation becomes exacerbated when the higher income earners begin to bear more of the financial burden for the same services consumed by the entire population. Over time, the shortfall will likely be made up by other means, or face costly deficits.

The income earned by high school dropouts, between the ages of 25-34, was roughly 1.4 billion dollars annually. Compared to high school graduates (no college included) who earned 4.8 billion, the resulting gap amounts to 3.4 billion dollars. At a tax rate of 5 percent, the unrealized tax revenue amounts to more than 170 million dollars annually for South Carolina.

Personal Property

In South Carolina, personal cars, light trucks and motorcycles are assessed at 6% percent of market value for tax year 2008. If you own a $10,000 car today, for example, based on an average millage rate, your annual property tax would be about $173.40.

Although South Carolina’s “property tax relief” law means homeowners are exempt from all property taxes levied for school operating purposes on a legal residence, there are further economic implications for reduced property tax rates that counties collect given the evidence that a dropout earns far less and is statistically more likely to pay less in property taxes.

Again, the reduced tax revenues that counties and cities depend on for services and infrastructure are compromised due to the disparity between the earning potential of a dropout compared to a graduate.

Income Gap

The implications of this income gap reach far into the future with implications for all South Carolinians and our public welfare. In addition to the gap that persists between lower and higher levels of achievement (the primary indicator of dropping out of school), there is a proportional gap in income levels between the dropout and the graduate. This income gap will likely widen as we recover from a recession and those in poverty remain at their current levels due to unemployment, underemployment or insufficient training/education.

Solutions

A review of the related literature has identified numerous measures to address the dropout rate in schools. Only a few of the more distinct suggestions show the urgency with which public policy makers might act in order to relieve the burden for future generations of South Carolinians.

Research indicates numerous effective processes and strategies that can be implemented to curtain the tide of dropouts. Among the suggestions are: parents/guardians need to be better engaged with their children’s education; colleges and universities must better prepare those entering the teaching profession; high schools need refined and rigorous curricula with highly qualified teachers implementing improved instruction and assessment; schools need additional appropriate alternatives for those students who are not on the traditional diploma track and for those students who are chronic disruptions to teaching and learning; schools need to be administered by leaders capable of attracting and retaining successful faculty. Finally, policy makers must institute greater urgency and implement necessary changes to our public schools-South Carolina’s future depends on it.

There are a number of organizations that examine and report on dropout rates. The most recent data analysis indicates the cohort graduation rate of the class of 2007 was 55.87 percent. For 2006 the percentage was 50.43 and for 2005–48.71. Between 2004 and 2007, South Carolina has averaged graduating only 51.7 percent of those who enter the ninth grade on time. As a statewide aggregate, those completion rates amount to more than 129,000 children who have dropped out of a public school in South Carolina over the last four years. Although the most recent data indicates a modest improvement, this rate will need to accelerate substantially in the near term.

South Carolina has a pattern with troublesome implications for our future as the state continues to absorb those dropouts into the economy. With the current U.S. economic trend showing a decline, the tax base in S.C. is particularly compromised by the reduced income that dropouts are known to earn and put back into the local economy as a tax base. This ripple effect will continue to be a strain on our state’s development until we significantly improve our intellectual capital (our youth’s education).

There is a preponderance of evidence that shows S.C. largely trails the U.S. in high school completion rates. Our rate of school improvement must rapidly outpace our competitors which now include students from Asian, European, Hispanic and other developing nations. High school graduates once only had to compete with local graduates for high paying jobs. The youth, educators and policy makers of S.C. now must reconcile the fact that we compete for economic development with a global community.

This is particularly significant since secondary school dropout rates in many developed nations are as low as the single digits. In terms of developed nations, the U.S., despite our prosperity, is actually behind many countries in the proportion of students we graduate from secondary school. Research indicates that many developed nations abroad will have secondary dropout rates as low as the single digits. South Carolina’s dropout rate has averaged in the double digits for a number of years.

In our state we compare local school dropout rates to our district peers. There are 210 high schools in South Carolina and we award roughly 32,000 diplomas each year. Nationally there are some 23,000 high schools. South Carolina high schools represent less than 1 percent of all secondary schools nationally, but contribute more than 5 percent of all dropouts. Currently we average losing more than one hundred students for every high school in the state.

There must be greater urgency in our efforts to reverse the trend of high school dropouts in S.C. The unfortunate legacy of failure could be that this generation of youth may be the first since World War II that is no longer more prosperous than their parents’ generation.

The incidence of low graduation rates and high dropout rates are only symptoms of more pervasive, underlying problems. The long term, permanent solution to high school dropouts lies in our efforts to institute multi-faceted reforms in order to meet the rigorous demands of a global economy.

Across the nation educators are trying new programs including ninth grade academies and smaller learning communities, to mention two. These programs may be ignoring the single highest predictor of high school dropouts—student achievement.

Dropping out of high school isn’t a particular event, but rather a process often in place long before high school. Therefore, we must address achievement, and fundamentally improve teaching and learning. Our focus might begin with how teachers are prepared in colleges and universities. Teachers must be better prepared to enter the modern public school classroom with wide-ranging skill-sets addressing classroom management, instructional delivery, assessment, standards, data analysis, scheduling and the list goes on.

Students are known to enjoy learning and stay in school when their needs are met and the provider – the school – constantly seeks new ways to enhance the partnership. What works and what does not?

Public schools will need expanded flexibility to offer alternative program choices, in addition to a standard diploma track, and not be penalized (counted as a dropout) when a student enters the alternative program whether due to special needs, discipline, parenthood, work, age, or alternative career choice.

If South Carolina is to effectively reform the system used to calculate data, then we must have better data, provide it to schools in a timely manner, and respond to the data in an efficient manner. There are more than 14,400 school districts nationwide and many are embracing a data driven model of decision-making. South Carolina must join those states by better defining, calculating and reporting high school dropouts. While the current system, SASI, serves many purposes, is has shortcomings and is frequently used differently from district-to-district. With clear and reliable data, and the ability to share those data we can bring down the dropout rate.

Recently 47 states agreed to collaborate and address the problem of high school dropouts. There may be no better time than now to implement a national student data system that provides the ability to quickly, safely, and accurately share student data across districts or states. South Carolina uses a number of confusing terms when reporting dropouts: completion rate, dropout collection cycle, dropout rate, event rate (SC’s calculation method), and high school completer. This vocabulary is confusing and removing the “event rate” is crucial as it is shown that dropping out isn’t an event, but a process.

Research indicates that a “cohort rate” is the best practice for determining dropouts. The method tracks a group of students – a cohort – from the time it enters high school until it graduates with a diploma. While not all students are likely to complete high school with a state issued diploma, there needs to be alternative completion guidelines without lumping everyone together and calling them a “high school completer” (as it is currently).

Finally, to evaluate our service to students, we must have a system of evaluation/accountability in place to measure progress in all of these reform efforts. This will ensure that we are capable of assessing our efforts and more importantly-capable of changing the way we prepare our youth through teaching and learning. Our future depends on it.

The United States Department of Education requires state departments of education to report graduation rates. These rates help to determine whether schools are meeting the federal mandate for “adequate yearly progress” in educating the youth of America. Just as importantly, accurate dropout data holds the potential to establish and sustain public trust and improve the education services we provide to our youth.

South Carolina currently uses a number of terms when reporting high school dropouts: completion rate, dropout, dropout collection cycle, dropout rate and high school completer. They can be very confusing if one is not familiar with their specific meanings and how each factors into the equation of calculating a dropout. This confusion is a pivotal characteristic in the discussion about shaping education policy.

A South Carolina dropout is someone who leaves school before graduation or completion of a “program.” A dropout rate is the proportion of students who leave during a single year without completion of a program or entering another school. The confusion arises with how, and how many ways a dropout is defined and the data that is actually reported.

For example, in 2004, South Carolina awarded 32,310 diplomas. Those same students in 2001 (while in the ninth grade) numbered 64,735. The high-school completion of this specific group closely corresponds to independent analyses that reported South Carolina graduation rates between 51 percent and 53 percent. For the same student group, the state reported an average dropout rate of 3.17 percent and graduation rate of 76.81 percent for 2004.

South Carolina is certainly not alone when it comes to creating public confusion over defining, calculating and reporting school completion information. With very few exceptions, states provide highly ambiguous dropout data and have set extremely small goals to improve their progress. Most states have said that any improvement in their rate is sufficient to meet the adequate year progress standard. Four states have said that progress of at least 0.1 percent is adequate (California, Louisiana, Maryland and North Carolina). Two states have said no progress whatsoever, as long as the graduation rate doesn’t decline is sufficient, to meet the standard New Mexico and South Carolina.

Federal education officials want better accountability. The U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education has stressed the importance of high school reform and thoroughness in calculating and reporting information. He emphasized the “urgent need for better graduation rate data to make high schools more accountable and to help prevent students from dropping out. “

High school dropout rates affect us all via economies and public welfare, not to mention the tax revenue earmarked for education. The ultimate goals of education are to serve students, practice sound leadership and exercise stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It’s worth wondering aloud if we are doing our best to fulfill those goals when no progress is viewed as adequate progress in South Carolina.

The Civil Rights Movement and the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which extended equal protection under the law to minorities, also paved the way for a growing population of children with disabilities. Parents, who had begun forming advocacy groups as early as 1933, became the prime supporters in the struggle to provide educational opportunities for their disabled children. The South Carolina State Legislature in 1977 passed the Education Finance Act, which reformed and strengthened state financial aid for public schools.

The act recognizes local financial ability, requiring every district to pay its “fair share” for education. The law ensures every child in every public school an educational opportunity that at least meets state standards. It further provides that all children of kindergarten age have the opportunity for pre-school education. All handicapped children and gifted and talented students must also be provided special educational programs to serve their needs.

Special Education Law
1. In 1967 Congress added Title VI to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, creating a Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (now called OSEP) and created and funded what is now called the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development, by which school districts can acquire and disseminate promising educational practices to teach students with disabilities.
2. The Education for the Handicapped Act (EHA) (P.L. 94-142)-The Education for all Handicapped Children Acts is more commonly known as the EHA: A. Guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education for all children with disabilities, ages 5-21. B. Provides, at no cost to the parents, Special Education and related services to meet students’ individual educational needs. C. Provides that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed for each child eligible for special education and related services. D. Provides that all children, to the maximum extent possible, youth with disabilities will be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). E. Guaranteed parents have the right to participate in every decision related to the identification, evaluation, and placement of their child. Parents must give consent for any initial evaluation, assessment, placement decision, and have rights to appeal.
3. EHA Amendments-1986 Amendments (P.L. 99-457) Preschool and Infant/Toddler Programs: A. Extended legislation to include children ages birth to 5. B. To extend the guarantee to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to children with disabilities, ages 3-5. C. To establish Early Intervention Programs (EIP) for infants and toddlers with disabilities, ages birth to 2. D. To develop an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) for each family with an infant/toddler with disabilities.
4. 1990 Amendments (P.L. 101-476): A. Renamed the EHA as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The amendment also replaced the phrase “handicapped child” with “child with a disability.”
B. Provided Transition Services for students before age 16.
C. Extended eligibility to children with autism and traumatic brain injury. D. Defined Assistive Technology Devices and Services for children with disabilities for inclusion in the IEP. E. Extended the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) to require the child, to the maximum extent appropriate, be educated with children without disabilities — in the same class they would have except for the disability.
5. 1997 Amendments (P.L. 105-17): A. Extended LRE as an assurance that all students would have “access to the general curriculum.” B. Assistive Technology Devices and Services on the IEP’s of all students were extended to the extent that use of school-purchased AT in a child’s home or other settings is required if the child needs access to those devices to receive FAPE. C. To include orientation and mobility services to the list of related services for children who are blind or have visual impairments, as well as for other children who may also need instruction in traveling around their school, or to and from school.
6. 2001, Public Law print of PL 107-110, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: A. Comprehensive legislation designed to address the full continuum of educational services. View NCLB here: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
7. 2004-H.R.1350, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). View IDEA here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h1350enr.txt.pdf.

The statewide data summary contains information from state operated programs and Headstart programs. The data table reflects information collected from the 85 school districts for the years 2002 through 2004 for all disability models provided by the public school districts and programs in South Carolina. Appendix A illustrates the comparison of all categories of the same years as well as the total for years 2002 through 2004. Overall disability totals have increased each year for time frames reported. It is unclear from the data reported by the SDE why the significant increase was shown from 2002 to 2003 in the preschool child with disabilities. The 2002 data indicated 2,256 individuals with a preschool disability were found, while in 2003 that same group was reported to have swelled to 11, 818.

According to the SDE, all students with disabilities are to be included in statewide or district-wide assessments and if necessary, must have accommodations or modifications, or must participate in an alternate assessment. B. Decisions regarding the methods of assessing individual students are made on an individual basis by the IEP team or 504 accommodations plan team and documented in the Individual Educational Program (IEP) or 504 Accommodations Plan.
C. Accommodations and modifications that are used in assessing those with disabilities must be the same ones as the student uses in the classroom. While the IEP team has the authority to decide accommodations or modifications, state and local agencies have the authority to determine how test results are reported and used.
D. An alternate assessment is one developed to assess students with disabilities who cannot participate in the regular assessment even with accommodations or modifications. The PACT-Alt is a portfolio based assessment system. These PACT-Alt data are reported with the overall state PACT data.
E. In addition to the PACT-Alt, students with disabilities may qualify for an off-grade level PACT. The decision to test a student on an off-grade level PACT is determined by the IEP team. The level of individual off-grade level PACT is based on the classroom instructional level of the student. These data, according to SDE, are not reported with the overall state PACT data.
F. South Carolina reported in 2004 that an average 5.88 percent of the student population (39,069) in the state took an off-grade level test on the PACT. These data included 6.32 percent who took an off-grade level english language arts portion and 5.45 who took an off-grade level math portion.

Implications
1. Among the implications pertaining to special education in South Carolina are that the number of students being served by the system is substantial and growing. In 2004, 111,509 students were classified as having a disability (almost 1 out of every 6 students in the state). 2. Of the 664,439 students in South Carolina in 2004, almost 6 percent of them are taking a statewide assessment which is not reported with the general achievement data in South Carolina. Therefore, the student achievement data in the state fails to accurately represent the true student population.
3. As the number of students with a disability in South Carolina grows, so does the costs associated with providing services to those individuals. As with many students with a disability, classroom size is limited depending on the nature of their classification. Therefore, the per-pupil-cost of instruction increases substantially when students are placed in a classroom model where the number of students can be half of what their non-disabled peer’s number.
4. With the substantial number of students classified with a disability, and the added costs associated with serving this population, does the state have a process in place to facilitate the identification and tracking of best instructional and assessment practices?
5. Given that 5.88 percent of the student population is administered an assessment not reported with the general achievement data, to what degree might curricula, instruction, and assessment be aligned with state standards and assessments and still remain in compliance with NCLB?
6. Students who meet the criteria for placement in a self-contained model for serving the learning disabled are subsequently removed from the traditional high school diploma track. What alternatives are in place to adequately provide high school (or equivalent) credentials to the self-contained learning disabled?
7. Finally, what strategies are employed to address and remedy significant and persistent achievement gaps between student disability subgroups and their non-disabled peers, other than a change in placement? Is there a mechanism in place to share and evaluate best practice data state-wide?