Analysis of U.S. High School Graduation Rates and Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of National Performance and SDG 4

Recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicates progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education. The national adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) for public high schools reached 87 percent in the 2021-2022 period, an increase from 80 percent in 2011-2012. However, significant state-level disparities persist, highlighting challenges in achieving universal secondary education completion as outlined in SDG Target 4.1.

State-Level Performance Analysis

State performance in achieving high school graduation rates varies, reflecting differing levels of progress towards educational benchmarks.

Top Performing States

1. West Virginia (over 90%)
2. Tennessee
3. Kentucky
4. Wisconsin
5. Massachusetts

Lowest Performing States and Territories

• Arizona (77%)
• Alaska (78%)
• Idaho (80%)
• Puerto Rico (74%)

Factors Influencing Educational Attainment and SDG Alignment

The variation in graduation rates is multifactorial, touching upon several interconnected Sustainable Development Goals beyond SDG 4.

SDG 4: Quality Education & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• State Graduation Requirements: As noted by Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University, states maintain unique graduation requirements. Richard Murnane of Harvard University cites the example of Massachusetts, where the removal of mandatory state tests is expected to increase graduation rates, illustrating how policy changes can impact metrics without necessarily reflecting a change in educational quality.
• Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors: Mavis Sanders from Child Trends emphasizes that graduation rates are influenced by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and English language proficiency. These disparities underscore challenges related to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), as they reflect unequal access to educational opportunities.
• Immigrant Student Populations: The percentage of immigrant students, many with low English proficiency, affects state graduation rates. This highlights the need for inclusive educational systems that support all learners, a core tenet of SDG 4.
• Public vs. Private Schooling: In states with a high number of private schools, the public school ACGR may not reflect the entire student population, potentially concentrating students with higher barriers to completion in the public system.

SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health), & SDG 8 (Decent Work)

• Economic Conditions: Family income is a critical determinant of educational outcomes. Experts warn that legislative actions, such as potential cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, could negatively impact school budgets and student well-being, creating barriers to education and hindering progress on SDG 1 and SDG 3.
• Economic Opportunity vs. Education: Richard Murnane notes a paradox related to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), where strong local economies can lead to higher dropout rates as students leave school for available jobs.

Expert Commentary on Data and Policy

Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University

• Advocates for analyzing graduation data over time within a single state to assess performance, assuming consistent requirements.
• Stresses that successful completion is more likely for students in well-resourced schools with strong family, community, and school support systems, aligning with the holistic approach of the SDGs.

Richard Murnane, Harvard Graduate School of Education

• Raises concerns about the reliability of graduation data, noting that schools may have incentives to report students who leave as “transfers” rather than “dropouts.”
• Points out that the rigor of data verification varies by state, affecting the comparability of ACGR figures.

Mavis Sanders, Child Trends

• Describes graduation rates as complex outcomes shaped by job opportunities, state requirements, and specific support pathways.
• Reiterates that these rates reflect broader systemic issues of educational access and opportunity, directly linking them to the principles of equity central to the SDG framework.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s primary focus is on public high school graduation rates in the United States, directly aligning with the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education. It discusses the national average graduation rate, variations between states, and factors influencing educational completion.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article explicitly highlights disparities in educational outcomes. It mentions that “graduation rates also vary significantly across student groups and are influenced by factors such as socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and English language proficiency.” This connects directly to the goal of reducing inequality within and among countries.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article indirectly addresses SDG 1 by discussing socioeconomic factors that impact education. It notes that “family incomes” contribute to variations in educational outcomes and warns that potential “Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts could impact school budgets,” linking poverty and social safety nets to the educational environment.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.1: “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.”

     The entire article is centered on this target, as it analyzes high school graduation rates. The text discusses the “adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) for public high school students,” which is a direct measure of secondary education completion. The article’s examination of the rise in graduation rates from 80% to 87% between 2011 and 2022 reflects progress toward this target.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.”

     This target is relevant because the article points out significant variations in graduation rates based on student backgrounds. Mavis Sanders is quoted saying that rates are “influenced by factors such as socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and English language proficiency.” The challenges faced by immigrant students with “low English skills” are also mentioned, highlighting issues of inclusion in the education system.

   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…”

     The article addresses this by discussing how different state-level policies create unequal opportunities for students. For example, it notes that states “have their own graduation requirements,” which makes direct comparisons difficult and results in different outcomes. The fact that Massachusetts removed a state-administered test requirement, which is expected to raise its graduation rate, is a clear example of a policy affecting equality of outcome.

3. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.3: “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.”

     This target is implied through the article’s concern over potential cuts to social protection systems. The text warns that “Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts could impact school budgets,” suggesting that these programs are crucial for supporting vulnerable students and that their reduction could negatively affect educational access and outcomes, which are linked to poverty cycles.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 4.1 (Ensure completion of secondary education):

   • Indicator: Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR). The article explicitly defines and uses this as its primary metric: “the percentage of public school students who graduate within four years of starting ninth grade with a regular diploma.” The NCES data cited, such as West Virginia’s rate of over 90% and the national average of 87%, directly serves as this indicator.

2. For Target 10.2 / 10.3 (Reduce inequalities of outcome):

   • Indicator: Graduation rates disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and English language proficiency. The article implies these indicators when Mavis Sanders states that graduation rates “vary significantly across student groups and are influenced by factors such as socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and English language proficiency.” Measuring these specific variations would be the indicator for progress on reducing inequality.
   • Indicator: Graduation rates disaggregated by immigrant status. This is implied when Richard Murnane mentions that graduation rates depend on “the percentage of students who are immigrants” and that “many immigrants come with low English skills and have trouble doing high-school-level work.”

3. For Target 1.3 (Implement social protection systems):

   • Indicator: Impact of social programs (like SNAP) on school resources and student outcomes. The article does not provide a quantitative indicator but implies one by warning that “SNAP cuts could impact school budgets.” This suggests that tracking the correlation between social assistance funding and educational metrics (like graduation rates or dropout rates) could serve as an indicator of how social protection systems support vulnerable students.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: newsweek.com