The Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients
A Forum — October 23, 1998
Background: The General Educational Development (GED) tests were developed by the Army, in cooperation with the American Council of Education (ACE), during World War II to help returning veterans pursuing a college education. After the war, the GED gradually became more popular among civilians, and states began to award high school credential for those who passed the tests. By 1960's, civilian test takers outnumbered the military. In 1995, 724,000 persons age 16 and above had taken the tests. Currently, GEDs represent 16 percent of all high school
diplomas/certificates in the country, according to David Boesel, Senior Research Associate, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, and Nabeel Alsalam, Principal Analyst of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Boesel, Alsalam and Thomas Smith, National Center for Education Statistics, analyzed more than 50 years of research on the GED for their report Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients.
Content and passing rates: The GED consists of five mostly multiple-choice tests: writing, interpretation of literature, math, social studies and science. The tests emphasize real world problems, with little emphasis on academic knowledge. ACE produces and administers the test through its GED Testing Service, and its Commission on Educational Credit and Credentials sets the minimum passing standards. Above this minimum, each state can set its own passing conditions and over half of the states require passing scores higher than ACE’s. After criticisms that the reading levels of GED recipients were as low as the 9th-grade, the ACE raised standards
in 1982 and added a written essay to the tests in 1988. The current passing rate is 72 percent, a little below the high school graduation rate, but the rates are expected to fall to around 66 percent with the new GED standards, which were raised again in 1997.
Key functions: Boesel and Alsalam described five functions expected from the GED. The first function is to stimulate investment in human capital. In this case, the authors argue, the GED represents a lower level of investment and should not be considered as a replacement for a high school diploma. When compared to a GED recipient, high school graduates get 861 more hours of core curriculum, an equivalent of 2.1 more years of education. Recognizing this fact, the ACE does not permit high school students and youth below the age of 16 to take the tests. However, for those students who dropped out of school, the GED represents a second chance to improve their education, and some states have developed in-school programs using GED preparation as a
dropout prevention strategy. Secondly, the tests are a good tool to measure and assess cognitive skills. GED recipients score as well as high school graduates on the National Adult Literacy Survey; on the Army Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, they score below high school graduates but above dropouts. Third, the GED tends to select out dropouts with good cognitive skills. When compared to dropouts who will never take the tests, GED takers tend to have better cognitive skills, more education, and families with higher income and parental education.
Fourth, the GED can be an important tool when applying for federal student loans or entering a training program or a college that does not have open enrollment policy (91 percent of these colleges accept GED as part of their admission requirements). Fifth, as a self-confidence builder, passing the GED may boost self-esteem, although the feeling may not be enduring.
Benefits: The authors describe benefits of the GED in the areas of postsecondary education and training, employment and military recruitment. Half of GED recipients pursue postsecondary education and training and of these, two-thirds enroll in 2- or 4-year colleges. For those who remain in college, the GPA at graduation is similar to that of high school graduates. However, while GED recipients are as likely as high school graduates to complete postsecondary vocational programs, they are less likely to earn an associate or bachelors degree. Research shows that three-fourths of GED recipients in postsecondary education get one year or less of college, as compared to one-fourth of high school graduates. Overall, when compared to dropouts, a GED certificate increases full-time employment by five percent and earnings by 10 to 20 percent. These results vary according to gender. Male GED recipients tend to work less than dropouts and have more job turnover, while females work more and have less turnover. When compared to high school graduates, GED recipients are less likely to be employed, have higher job turnover and earn less. The military has limited the percentage of GED recipients they accept annually because of their high attrition rates (45 percent, compared to 22 percent for high school graduates).
Persistence: It is possible that the high job turnover, the high college dropout rate and attrition rate in the military are all related to the same factors that make GED recipients drop out of school in the first place. These factors may be either personal (motivation, social skills, organizational capability) or situational (older, single parents, low income). The tests do not measure noncognitive attributes related to persistence vs. dropping out.
Conclusion: The educational and labor market performance of GED recipients indicate that the GED should be seen as an opportunity for more education, but not as a substitute for it. It is important to continue encouraging prospective dropouts to stay in high school, put more emphasis on high school completion programs and provide counseling for GED recipients to remain in college. To improve outcomes for high school dropouts, some states, such as Rhode Island, Tennessee and California, are experimenting with adult programs geared toward obtaining a regular high school diploma. Fifty years of research on GED shows that a high school diploma is still the best tool for a better future.
This information is from an American Youth Policy Forum held on October 23, 1998 on Capitol Hill.
The events of the Forum are made possible by the support of a consortium of philanthropic foundations: Pew Charitable Trusts, Charles S. Mott Foundation, Commonwealth Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation and General Electric Fund.