CCR Data and Transparency Quiz

Just ten states – Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Nevada, and Florida – report data about whether students are on track to graduate. See how all states stack up here. 

Sorry, not quite. Just Delaware and Nevada earned a perfect score in the category evaluating whether states report data for all eight indicators of student readiness. Check out their complete state reports here.

Nope. While there are small groups of states who report certain indicators the same way, only the adjusted cohort graduation rate can be compared across all states – and that’s because there is one mandated definition for how to calculate that number. Unfortunately, too many states collect data in ways that cannot be compared across states. Often the reason for this is that they only use data from a subset of students

Nope. The lowest score, earned by Pennsylvania, was just 4 out of 32 possible points. See the state’s full details in its transparency report here.

Correct. If a state has made data available from the two most recent graduating cohort years (2014-15 and 2015-16), they earned points for this category. Any data older than two years did not earn points for timeliness. Postsecondary indicators have a longer lag time in reporting and a different definition of timeliness. For the full details on this and other point-awarding criteria, see the transparency report methodology.

Minnesota and Massachusetts earned top marks in Achieve’s transparency reports for breaking their data down by student subgroups, earning scores of 7.25 and 7 out of 8 possible points, respectively. See how all states did here.

Nope. Oklahoma is the only state that doesn’t publicly report their four-year graduation rate.

Looking at only one indicator gives an incomplete picture. It’s important for states to consider multiple indicators of college and career readiness to get the most complete picture of student readiness. That data also needs to be disaggregated and count all students. Using only an aggregate number could mask gaps between different groups of students.