With the vast majority of students graduating high school unprepared for college, can we say that the close and replace strategy -- Bloomberg's dominant strategy to improve struggling schools -- is significantly improving academic prospects for NYC students? Or, is it largely moving the highest needs students around in a shell game?

While it is unclear whether closing schools is having positive impacts on student achievement, a number of questions remain unanswered: What is happening to the highest needs students who used to attend the large campus high schools, but do not attend the new small schools? What is happening to the students who give up on school altogether because their school is being closed?

What we do know is that the educational futures of many high needs students are being neglected while the City doubles down on this damaging policy.

With the vast majority of students graduating high school unprepared for college, can we say that the close and replace strategy -- Bloomberg's dominant strategy to improve struggling schools -- is significantly improving academic prospects for NYC students? Or, is it largely moving the highest needs students around in a shell game?

While it is unclear whether closing schools is having positive impacts on student achievement, a number of questions remain unanswered: What is happening to the highest needs students who used to attend the large campus high schools, but do not attend the new small schools? What is happening to the students who give up on school altogether because their school is being closed?

What we do know is that the educational futures of many high needs students are being neglected while the City doubles down on this damaging policy.

With the vast majority of students graduating high school unprepared for college, can we say that the close and replace strategy -- Bloomberg's dominant strategy to improve struggling schools -- is significantly improving academic prospects for NYC students? Or, is it largely moving the highest needs students around in a shell game?

While it is unclear whether closing schools is having positive impacts on student achievement, a number of questions remain unanswered: What is happening to the highest needs students who used to attend the large campus high schools, but do not attend the new small schools? What is happening to the students who give up on school altogether because their school is being closed?

What we do know is that the educational futures of many high needs students are being neglected while the City doubles down on this damaging policy.

Education can be a powerful tool for child welfare-involved youth to overcome their circumstances and become successful adults. Sadly, educational outcomes for young people in care are notoriously poor. Students in foster care have lower standardized test scores, and they repeat grades and are suspended much more frequently than other students. They are significantly over-represented in special education programs, change schools repeatedly and often miss substantial amounts of school. Youth who age out of foster care are more likely to drop out of high school than other young people; most do not enroll in college or other post-secondary programs, and few ever complete a college degree.

Over the last decade, child welfare agencies and advocates have begun to recognize that the students they serve need access to greater educational opportunities, and that education is critically important to child wellbeing, permanency planning and a successful transition to adulthood. In particular, best practices research has consistently identified education advocacy as an effective strategy to improve school stability and educational outcomes for this population of vulnerable youth. This report offers insights from one program, called Project Achieve, which pairs Advocates for Children of New York ("AFC"), a non-profit that provides education advocacy to low-income students in New York City, with local foster care and preventive services agencies. The report explains how Project Achieve works and examines its long-term impact on the children and families served by these agencies, the people who work there and the city's child welfare system itself.

In 2009, 14.5 percent of students in New York State graduated high school with a local diploma. The State is in the process of phasing out the local diploma as an option, requiring students to achieve the more rigorous Regents diploma or drop out and seek their General Educational Development (GED) diploma. For now, students with disabilities have the additional possibility of leaving school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) diploma, which is basically a certificate of achievement that carries few of the benefits of the other graduation credentials. Policy makers reason that without the local diploma to fall back on, schools will push harder to prepare more students to qualify for the Regents diploma and thereby graduate young adults who are better equipped to succeed in higher education and the job market.

What will happen to the young people who previously depended on the local diploma to graduate from high school? Will they be able to achieve the more challenging Regents diploma? Or will they be left behind? And would they have derived any benefit from the local diploma in the first place?

In this paper, we explore the potential loss of opportunity that individual students are likely to experience as a result of the phasing out of the local diploma. We first explain the current diploma options available in New York State and identify the demographic profile for each type of diploma. We then provide a closer look at nine students who graduated with a local diploma in recent years and what would have happened, from their perspectives, if the local diploma had not been available. We conclude by urging the State to develop pathways to graduation for struggling students, particularly students who are unable to pass the Regents exams.

In 2009, 14.5 percent of students in New York State graduated high school with a local diploma. The State is in the process of phasing out the local diploma as an option, requiring students to achieve the more rigorous Regents diploma or drop out and seek their General Educational Development (GED) diploma. For now, students with disabilities have the additional possibility of leaving school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) diploma, which is basically a certificate of achievement that carries few of the benefits of the other graduation credentials. Policy makers reason that without the local diploma to fall back on, schools will push harder to prepare more students to qualify for the Regents diploma and thereby graduate young adults who are better equipped to succeed in higher education and the job market.

What will happen to the young people who previously depended on the local diploma to graduate from high school? Will they be able to achieve the more challenging Regents diploma? Or will they be left behind? And would they have derived any benefit from the local diploma in the first place?

In this paper, we explore the potential loss of opportunity that individual students are likely to experience as a result of the phasing out of the local diploma. We first explain the current diploma options available in New York State and identify the demographic profile for each type of diploma. We then provide a closer look at nine students who graduated with a local diploma in recent years and what would have happened, from their perspectives, if the local diploma had not been available. We conclude by urging the State to develop pathways to graduation for struggling students, particularly students who are unable to pass the Regents exams.