CHAPTER 5: School Issues that Relate to At-Risk
Children and Youth
•
•
•
•
•
If families do not… Then schools must
Provide roots for children… So they stand firm and grow,
Provide wings for children… So they can fly.
Broken roots and crippled wings Destroy hope.
And hope sees the invisible, Feels the intangible, And achieves the impossible.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
The Value of Education
Box 5.1 Separate and Unequal 15-Year-Olds
Research on Effective Schools
Variables in Research on School Effects
•
•
•
•
•
•
Leadership behaviors
Academic emphasis
Teacher and staff factors
Student involvement
Community support
Social capital
Definitional Issues in Research on School Effects
Case Study: The Diaz Family
•
•
•
•
School culture
Student climate
Peer involvement
Teacher climate
Box 5.2 Teacher Climate
Educational Structure: Schools and Classrooms
School Structure
School Choice
Charter Schools
Classroom Structure
Curriculum Issues
Conclusion
•
In education, the term at risk refers primarily to students who are at risk of school
failure. As we discussed earlier, at risk actually means much more than flunking
reading or math, or even dropping out of school. Yet from an educator’s perspective,
educational concerns define at-risk issues. School problems and dropout are linked to
many other problems expressed by young people (Suh, Suh, & Houston, 2007; Henry
et al., 2009; Rumberger & Ah Lim, 2008). The strong relationships between school
difficulties and other problems, as well as evidence that educational involvement is a
protective factor influencing resilience (Search Institute, 2006), highlight the pivotal
position of schools. In schools, prevention efforts can reach the greatest number of
young people; therefore, examining the educational environment is critical.
THE VALUE OF EDUCATION
There are a number of indicators of the value placed on education in the United States.
News reports compare the scores of students in the United States and in other countries
on tests in geography and spelling, math and science. These reports consistently favor
students in other countries. They imply that learning in U.S. schools is somehow not
quite up to par. Does a student’s ability to spell reflect his or her ability to think? Does
recall of dates, locations, or facts indicate a student’s problem-solving skills? The answer
to these questions is “No.” Learning is the act of acquiring knowledge or a skill through
observation, experience, instruction, or study, yet these comparisons suggest a view of
learning that reduces this complicated act to an isolated and mechanical process. In
addition, these comparisons often fail to note that in the United States all children are
expected to attend school through high school graduation, not just wealthy or middleclass urban or college-bound students.
How learning is valued is also reflected in the following statistics. In 2000, the average
household income was about $55,000 (Census Bureau, 2001). Nearly 10 years later, the
average teacher’s salaries was less than $54,000 (NCES, 2010). Schoolteachers and
counselors, over 50% with master’s degrees, continue to be paid less than the national
average and are poorly remunerated relative to other professionals. Low teacher salaries
reflect the value society places on education and is one contributor to the current
teacher shortage.
In response to the current shortage of teachers, many states are lowering teacher
standards, with many new teachers not meeting state licensing requirements. During
1999–2000, more than 70% of the students in ESL/bilingual education classes had
teachers without certification. In addition, 17% of high school physics students, 36% of
high school geology students, and 29% to 40% of biology/life science and physical
science students were being taught by teachers without certification (Seastrom et al.,
2002). Students learn more from better teachers. Interestingly, more affluent schools
attract teachers with greater academic skills (Wayne, 2002); a much greater percentage
of teachers at poorer schools have poor academic and teaching skills. And the disparity
between rich and poor schools is increasing (Berliner, 2001; Kozol, 2005). The richest
school districts in the United States spend 56% more per student than the poorest
schools. Economists, sociologists, and educators have known for decades about the link
between the social and economic disadvantage and the student-achievement gap. To see
real school reform, it is critically important to address the underlying social and
economic conditions (Rothstein, 2004). Those schools serving large numbers of poor
children are likely to have fewer books and supplies and more teachers with less training
and experience. If U.S. schools are expected to combat the societal problems of at-risk
students, we must commit to the education of our children and youth as our highest
priority, which includes attracting and training enough qualified teachers and
counselors, encouraging them to work in poor districts, and providing them with
adequate compensation.
Federal funding and policies provide further evidence regarding society’s support of
education. During Carter’s presidency, Congress elevated the subcabinet agency of
education to the Department of Education (DOE). In the 1980s, the Reagan and the first
Bush administrations insisted that the DOE bring about educational reforms by
“leadership and persuasion”—not by new programs or funds. In fact, during every year
of Reagan’s administration, educational funding was level or reduced for programs that
provided aid for disadvantaged children, bilingual education, and work-incentive childcare initiatives; educational funding fell from 2.3% to 1.7% of the total federal budget
(Carville, 1996). The expenditure per pupil (dollar level adjusted) in public schools rose
very slowly during the 1980s and 1990s. The 1990s saw a disturbing trend in prisons
versus education. For the first time, states spent more on prisons than on colleges:
university construction funds decreased by almost a billion (to $2.5 billion), and
corrections funding increased by almost a billion (to $2.6 billion; Ambrosio & Schiraldi,
1997). For example, the New York State prison budget increased by $761 million while
the higher education budget dropped by $615 million And in California there was a
209% funding increase in the prison system budget, but only a 15% increase in state
university funding (Taqi-Eddin, Macallair, & Schiraldi, 1998). The capital expenditure
for a prison cell is $180,000; it costs $35,000 per year to house an inmate (Hora,
Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999), a huge drain on public funds.
A society loses by producing nonproductive citizens. If schools do not provide a safety
net for children, health and well-being are reduced. Investing in prisons instead of
education and prevention is an expensive, wasteful, and failing long-term strategy.
America spends more dollars on incarcerating nonviolent offenders than on welfare
programs and considerably more than on child care. Although the United States has
only 5% of the world’s population, it has 25% of the world’s prisoners and the highest
rate of incarceration in the world (Walmsley, 2011). Of the 10 million incarcerated
people in the world the United States, along with Russia and China, are detaining almost
half. Yet America’s children have greatly underfunded schools.
The publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983) has led to three decades of public school education bashing and launched the
high-stakes testing phenomena, in which consequences for not passing standardized
tests include grade retention for the individual and decreased funding for schools that
fail to achieve required pass rates (Amrein & Berliner, 2002). In The Manufactured
Crisis, Berliner and Biddle (1995) provide convincing evidence of a political agenda
underlying A Nation at Risk and present thorough and sound data indicating that public
schools in the United States have done a marvelous job of educating American children.
In fact, they demonstrate that children actually know more than earlier generations,
compare very favorably to students educated in other countries, and perform better than
ever before (see Box 5.1).
BOX 5.1: Separate and Unequal 15-Year-Olds
A new look at the literacy of teens living in the industrialized world shows that American
students are about average. “Average is not good enough for American kids,” warns
former Education Secretary Rod Paige. True enough—but Paige and the Bush
administration miss the point. Hidden in those results is yet one more piece of evidence
that American youngsters attend schools that are separate and markedly unequal.
The Program on International Student Assessment (PISA) seeks to understand what 15year-olds in 27 industrialized nations learned in reading, mathematics, and science from
school and non-school sources. PISA’s goal is to assess how well we teach youth to think
and solve common, everyday problems in those three disciplines. With 85% of a
student’s waking hours up to graduation from high school spent outside school, this is
really a study of how well our society educates our young.
The answer depends on whether the teens are white, African American, or Hispanic.
Overall, American 15-year-olds were close to the international averages in all three areas
of literacy; about 10% scored in the top 10% worldwide on all three scales. The three
tests correlated so highly that national scores on any one measure of literacy were
almost a perfect proxy for scores on any other measure.
In reading, our strongest area, teens in only three nations—Finland, Canada, and New
Zealand—scored significantly higher than ours; in fact, 81% of U.S. teens scored at levels
two and above on a five-level reading literacy scale (with Level Five being the top).
This is noteworthy because of what PISA says a “Level Two” teen can do: make a
comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge, draw on
personal experience and attitudes to explain the text, recognize the main idea when the
information is not prominent, understand relationships or construe meaning within a
selected part of the text, and locate one or more pieces of information, which may
require inferences to meet several conditions. Only 12% of our teens, those classified in
Level One, cannot reach this remarkably high standard. Even among the least-literate
teens classified at Level One, almost half were able to successfully respond to the more
difficult items in Level Two.
On all three tests, our youth didn’t do badly overall—but we didn’t shine either. Why?
The answer becomes clear when the scores of different 15-year-olds are viewed
separately.
PISA clearly shows we have some ill-educated 15-year-olds, and most of those are poor
and minority children. On the reading literacy scale white students in the United States
are 2nd in the world, but African American and Hispanic students rank 25th; in
mathematics white students are 7th, African American students are 26th; in science
white students are 4th, African American and Hispanic students are 26th.
The unpleasant reality is that the United States runs separate and unequal schools and
neighborhoods. The conditions of the schools and neighborhoods for our poor, African
American, and Hispanic youth are not designed for high levels of literacy in reading,
mathematics, and science. We accept poverty, violence, drugs, unequal school funding,
uncertified teachers, and institutionalized racism in the schools that serve these children
and in the neighborhoods in which they live. These unequal conditions appear to be the
major reason we fall short in international comparisons. We combine the scores of these
ill-educated children with those of children who enjoy better resources. As long as these
differences are allowed to exist, we will rank about average in international
comparisons.
As PISA makes clear, accepting deficient schools and troubled neighborhoods for our
poor and minority students diminishes our international competitiveness. In ignoring
these data about who does well and who does not, we diminish our moral authority in
the world as well.
PISA exposes what we have known for too long: that we have social problems to which
we pay scant attention. In every international comparison of industrialized nations, the
United States is the leader in rate of childhood poverty. African American and Hispanic
students attend public schools as segregated as they have ever been. Our poor and
minority children are not getting the opportunities they need for the nation to thrive.
Politicians who spend their energy condemning the public schools for their supposed
failure to educate American youth are ignoring what PISA tells the world: that we fail
selectively, having organized our society to provide poor and minority 15-year-olds less
opportunity to achieve. Shame on us.
David Berliner, Regents’ Professor
Emeritus Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 was a sweeping reform of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act and it redefined the federal role in K–12 education.
Unfortunately, its promise to help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged
and minority students and their peers was only moderately successful. NCLB contained
four basic principles: stronger accountability for results (e.g., decreased funding for
schools that do not meet pass rates for standardized tests), increased flexibility and local
control, expanded school choice options for parents (e.g., parents can remove their
children from failing schools), and an emphasis on scientifically supported teaching
methods. While infusing resources to schools, there have been significant concerns
about the effects of the NCLB Act. For example, even more funding is likely to flow away
from those public schools in most desperate need (Pierce, 2002). Some argue that the
NCLB act undermines support for public education (e.g., Meier, Wood, et al., 2004).
Others raise serious concerns about accountability and the ways that the NCLB Act may
diminish attention to both above and below average students (Goldhaber, 2002; Reville,
2002). Schools required to demonstrate improvement will do so most efficiently by
focusing resources on those children who test just below the minimum pass rates. Those
children who have very poor test scores are unlikely to raise scores high enough to
increase the school’s pass rate, and those students with good scores are already part of
the pass rates. Both the highest and lowest achieving students are less likely to receive
support or services. While some aspects of NCLB continue, the Obama administration
has introduced the Race to the Top (RTTT) Act designed to replace NCLB. RTTT
program is designed to spur K–12 education reform and is funded by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. RTTT goals are to improve student achievement,
improve high school graduation rates, ensure postsecondary success, and close
achievement gaps between best and lowest performing schools (USDOE, 2010).
Most teachers work hard, are concerned about children, and try to do a good job of
teaching. Teachers know that all children need support, care, and nurturing. They also
know that with the decline of economic stability, the pressures facing parents, and the
fragmentation of neighborhoods and communities, the support and care children
receive at school is even more critical. Teachers are expected to do more than ever
before in classrooms that some find increasingly unsafe. Gang activity occurs around
schools. School shootings leave teachers questioning whether such shocking violence
could happen “at my school.” Of course for some, incidents of victimization lead to
disenchantment and even departure from teaching (Smith & Smith, 2006; Dinkes,
Kemp, & Baum, 2009). Amidst these concerns, teachers are constantly bombarded
about how “teachers are not doing their jobs,” how “schools are inadequate and failing,”
and how teachers must “do more with less.”
For public education to succeed, increased financial support is needed for struggling
schools. More money is needed. School reform is critical to the development of more
effective schools. However, reforming education is more than revising tests, rewriting
curricula, and restructuring schools. Reform must include supporting the human
resources on whom so much depends. Teachers and counselors and other people
personnel must be better compensated, freed from bureaucratic harassment, given a
role in academic governance, allowed to do what they were trained to do, and provided
with the best methods and materials.
RESEARCH ON EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS
Variables in Research on School Effects
Researchers have identified a number of elements common to effective schools (Henry
et al., 2009; Sadker, Zittleman, & Sadker, 2010). These can be classified into the general
categories of leadership behaviors, academic emphasis, teacher and staff factors,
student involvement, community support, and social capital.
Leadership Behaviors
Effective schools have autonomous staff management at the school site. Administrators,
teachers, and counselors make many decisions about programs and program
implementation without the need to seek approval of the school board or the district.
Effective schools have a clear mission and place an emphasis on strong instructional
leadership.
Academic Emphasis
Effective schools provide a rigorous curriculum. Students are expected to perform, and
they are frequently monitored. Academic achievement is recognized on a schoolwide
basis, instructional time is maximized, and the curriculum is consistently improved
(Rumberger & Ah Lim, 2008).
Teacher and Staff Factors
Effective schools are characterized by collegial relationships among the staff,
encouragement of collaborative planning, and low turnover among the faculty. Further,
staff development is provided on a schoolwide basis.
Student Involvement
Students at effective schools tend to have a sense of community, a feeling of belonging,
and a sense of safety at school (Khoury-Kassabri, 2011). They also are likely to have clear
goals. Teachers and counselors work to help students feel connected. Student discipline
is fair, clear, and consistent but not oppressive or punitive.
Community Support
The communities in which effective schools are located have high expectations of the
schools and their students. Further, district support and supportive parental
involvement are evident, and relationships between home and school are strong and
positive.
Social Capital
Social capital, the network of relationships that surround an individual child, is
important for development (Terrion, 2006). One of the major reasons some schools
perform significantly better than others is that they are so rich in social capital
(Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Terrion, 2006). The nuclear and extended family, the
neighborhood and church community, the social service agencies, and community
organizations form a supportive enclave of adults who are united with school personnel
around a system of similar educational beliefs and values. This network of relationships
is extremely important to the education of all children. Improvements in social capital
leads to reduced family stress, which results in improved child behavior. Most school
systems are severely constrained today because of the general reduction of social capital
in society.
Definitional Issues in Research on School Effects
Most research on effective schools—partly a by-product of the NSLB Act, measures
effectiveness as students’ performance on standardized achievement tests, an extremely
narrow view of learning. Other cognitive criteria, such as decision making and critical
thinking, are largely ignored Most high quality knowledge cannot be measured by
standardized, machine-scored tests (Wubbolding, 2007). To judge school effectiveness
by the narrow criterion of scores on standardized tests pressures teachers and districts
to carry out test-driven curriculum. It may not be helping the educational problem
anyway. In one study examining a decade of data from 18 states that implemented highstakes testing, Amrein and Berliner (2002) found that scores on standardized tests such
as the ACT and the SAT did not increase after high-stakes testing was implemented,
even when the high-stakes test scores increased. Scores on the ACT, SAT, and content
measures stayed the same or actually decreased.
Results of research on school effectiveness must be viewed with caution. For example,
schools with higher dropout rates potentially have higher test score averages than do
schools that retain their lower achieving students longer. If effectiveness is judged by
performance on high-stakes tests alone, a school that fails miserably with at-risk
students by pushing them out may be deemed highly effective! Alternative indices, such
as students’ involvement in the community, attendance rates, the incidence of school
vandalism and violence, or dropout rates, are seldom measured in school effectiveness
research but these indices may be more relevant to the school, community, and country.
Another dimension of school effectiveness is school culture. School culture focuses on
aspects of education more directly relevant to at-risk youth. Let us consider the Diaz
family case study.
CASE STUDY: The Diaz Family
Enrique Diaz came to the United States from El Salvador some years ago when he was
23 years old. He was forced to flee El Salvador when his membership in a small labor
union was revealed to the government authorities, and he left behind his parents,
brothers, sisters, and extended family. He brought his sister’s 2-year-old daughter
Ramona with him because the baby’s father had been killed for his labor union activity
and his sister feared for her own life. A church group participating in the Sanctuary
movement of the 1980s provided Enrique and Ramona with shelter in a local safe house,
as well as assisting Enrique in finding employment. Enrique works as a day laborer for
growers and lawn maintenance companies. He met Alicia, a Mexican American woman
volunteer at the safe house, during his first week in the United States. Alicia began
spending a great deal of time caring for Ramona, and she and Enrique married 10
months after his arrival. One of the things that attracted Alicia to Enrique was the fact
that he was a very hard worker and did not drink alcohol. Currently Enrique continues
to work as hard as ever during the day, but he now consumes one or two six packs of
beer most evenings. Alicia is the second child in a family of nine children. Her parents
came to the United States from central Mexico as young adults. Alicia works as a motel
maid and has a second part-time job doing custodial work at her church. Alicia and
Enrique have raised Ramona, now 18, as their own daughter, and also have a son,
Carlos, who is 13, and another daughter, Lidia, who is 5 years old. They live in a small
rented home and maintain a very modest standard of living. Enrique became a
naturalized citizen just before the birth of Lidia.
Enrique understands but does not speak English. Alicia was raised in a monolingual
Spanish household but learned to speak English in school. Although her English skills
are solid, she is very reluctant to use English unless she has to because she believes that
she makes many mistakes and feels self-conscious about her accent. Both of the parents
express concern about their children because family life is curtailed by the long hours
the parents spend at work. They are especially concerned about their children’s
educational problems. Neither parent completed high school; both desperately want
their children to have a better life. They view education as a necessary step toward that
goal. Their communication with the school system has been complicated by language
barriers. In addition, Enrique and Alicia are convinced that the teachers think they are
bad and uncaring parents because they have not learned enough English.
Upon entering kindergarten, Ramona Diaz was placed in an ESL (English as a second
language) program. She was transitioned into an English-only classroom when she
entered middle school because that was district policy; however, she did not seem
prepared to enter this environment. Ramona associated only with other girls who were
Spanish-language dominant and fell behind in all of her content areas. She resisted
going to school, even skipping classes on occasion. In parent–teacher conferences, her
teachers would consistently say that she was not turning in her homework, or would
turn in work that was incomplete and inaccurate. Ramona would insist that she was
turning it in but that her teachers were misplacing it and grading her unfairly because
they thought she was “stupid” and didn’t like her. Enrique was enraged by Ramona’s
attitude toward school, and they had explosive arguments two or three times per week,
which were most likely to occur in the evening after Enrique had been drinking for
several hours. Finally, at age 16, Ramona dropped out of school and began working five
nights per week at ABC Burgers. Although Enrique and Alicia did not approve, they had
felt somewhat out of control of Ramona and were unsure of how to help her in school.
With Ramona out of the house at night, and because homework was no longer a
constant source of tension, the fighting between Enrique and Ramona decreased.
Enrique’s drinking did not decrease.
Ramona tells her parents that she will eventually earn her GED. Alicia is concerned that
Ramona will become pregnant and be stuck in low-paying jobs for the rest of her life.
She rarely sees Ramona. Ramona arrives home from work after her parents are in bed
and is still sleeping when Enrique and Alicia leave for work in the morning. Alicia
suspects that Ramona has a boyfriend at work, but Ramona denies this and is very
closed about her social activities. She has been contributing to the family income and is
affectionate with her brother and sister when she sees them. Just last week, however,
Ramona told her parents that she had lost her paycheck and would not be able to help
out the family until the next one arrived.
Carlos Diaz is in the seventh grade. He has had a solid relationship with his parents,
particularly his mother. Carlos has been in a regular classroom for the past 2 years. He
has generally done well in his schoolwork, but he is not a model student. He has often
had trouble with his peers and at times gotten into fights on the playground. Since he
has moved into junior high school, his social problems have decreased somewhat. He
has several teachers now, and the classes are larger than those in the primary school. He
has begun to make friends, although his lack of free time outside of school has made this
difficult.
Because of Ramona’s job at ABC Burgers, Carlos has the responsibility of watching his
little sister after school, and he has had difficulty completing school assignments. His
after-school activities now include cleaning the house and helping to prepare dinner in
addition to babysitting, so he has only a limited amount of time to complete the
homework assigned by his five teachers. When his assignments require use of a
computer, Carlos has to stay in from recess to use one at school because his family does
not own one. Some nights he works on every subject for at least a short time, but on
other nights he is able to complete an assignment for only one of his classes. At the time
they entered counseling, Carlos was behind in every class and was falling asleep in
school. Some of his teachers seem to think he is lazy, contrary, and unresponsive. Many
of them seem frustrated that Carlos is not completely fluent in English “by now.”
Carlos’s social studies teacher, Ms. Bassett, has taken a particular interest in him. At
first, she found him inattentive in class and unresponsive to her questions, and she
assumed this behavior was a combination of language and lack of ability. She noticed,
however, that when he did complete his homework it was usually well done and
accurate. After consulting with the school counselor, she gave Carlos a more active role
in his own education. She found ways to give him more responsibility for learning,
provided a means for him to monitor his own progress, and generally encouraged him to
be more active in learning. The counselor also suggested that cooperative learning
groups might be especially beneficial to Carlos, not only academically but also as a
means to help Carlos develop better peer relationships. Ms. Bassett is currently
struggling with ways to modify her teaching style in a school that bases evaluations of
her teaching on direct instruction, a method that typically works well for social studies
recitation classes but fails to allow students to take an active role in learning. Enrique
and Alicia view Carlos as a very responsible young man and hope that he will continue
on in school. They are aware that he is under a lot of pressure at home and in school but
do not seem to know what to do about it. In spite of their concerns, they have not
responded to Ms. Bassett’s invitation to meet with them or talk on the phone. They seem
to fear that she will be upset about Carlos’s caretaking role and that she will not
understand their family situation.
Lidia Diaz is in kindergarten this year. Last year she participated in Head Start, which
greatly aided her language skills and helped prepare her for kindergarten. In spite of this
advantage, she is progressing quite slowly. She is one of 30 kindergartners in the
classroom. Some of her classmates attended private preschools and can already read. To
deal with the large number of students in her class, Lidia’s teacher groups the children
according to their ability in reading and arithmetic. Lidia knows that she is in the lowest
group in both subjects. Like her older sister, Lidia often feels stupid. Lidia’s teacher
believes that Lidia has the potential for school success and wishes she could spend more
time with her. Lidia’s elementary school has a retention policy for kindergarten students
who do not make certain gains in achievement. In spite of her teacher’s belief in her
abilities, Lidia fits the criteria for the district retention policy, and if things do not
improve, she will probably be kept back next year.
© Cengage Learning 2013
School Culture
Every social organization has its unique culture, and schools are no exception. School
culture is determined by student involvement, teacher factors, community support,
curricular focus, and educational leadership—factors that also define effective schools. A
culture provides its members with two things. First, it establishes a set of rules,
expectations, and norms for members. Carlos’s teachers encourage an English-only
norm. In Lidia’s school, retaining students who do poorly is the rule. Essentially, school
culture provides an informal understanding of the way things are done. Second, culture
can enhance self-esteem—or not—through shared values, beliefs, rituals, and
ceremonies. Students, faculty, and staff who take pride in their school culture are likely
to do better than those who do not. Many of Carlos’s teachers share negative views of
bilingual education; Lidia’s feelings of stupidity are due in part to her exclusion from her
school’s culture. Participation and attendance in school activities can greatly enhance
school connectedness and pride. These activities are generally hard hit when resources
are scarce, and even when available students such as Carlos are not able to take
advantage of them. The culture of a school can be described in terms of student and
teacher climate.
Student Climate
Several aspects of student climate relate directly to children and youth at risk. Children’s
experiences with their peers provide them with an opportunity to learn how to interact
with others, develop age-relevant skills and interests, control their social behavior, and
share their problems and feelings. As children get older, their peer group relationships
increase in importance. The child’s recognition of belonging to a group is an important
step in development, and students with more friends at school feel more connected to
their schools and generally have fewer problems (Karcher, 2004; SCDRC, 2010). But
belonging to a group has both benefits and costs in the child’s subsequent social
development and behavior. Many students who are at risk for school failure know early
that somehow they are different from—less acceptable and less accepted than—other
students. Lidia Diaz is one such student. Consistently grouping students by ability
heightens such self-perceptions. Who of us did not know by the second grade which
groups constituted the “good readers” and the “poor readers”? More important, the
expectations of students depend somewhat on their group membership. Students who
succeed in school have both high expectations of themselves and a strong, positive sense
of belonging to the school community. Students who are at risk for school failure are
often placed in the lowest ability groups and excluded from the academic success
community. Exclusion from the school community limits the potentially positive effects
of school culture on students at risk for failure (Sinclair, et al., 2002).
In addition to academically based groupings, student climate is influenced by the peer
groups that students form. Peers influence one another by offering support, advice, and
opportunities to discuss conflicting points of view, but peers may also negatively
influence others by coercion and manipulation. Peer group pressure can be either a very
powerful ally or a formidable antagonist, dissuading or encouraging problem behaviors
(Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). Behaviors such as misbehaving in class, fighting,
arguing, victimization (Khoury-Kassabri, 2011), and neglecting to turn in homework all
interfere with learning and are related to school failure. Students are more likely to drop
out in schools with a poor disciplinary climate as measured by student disruptions in
class or in school (Rumberger & Ah Lim, 2008). Carlos’s earlier playground fights
demonstrate how poor decision making among students can hinder positive student
climate. Efforts to improve students’ problem-solving and decision-making skills have a
positive effect on the at-risk population (Shure, 2006, 2007; and see Chapter 13).
Some schools have reported a marked reduction in disruptive behaviors after students
have been taught to mediate disputes on their own. Significant benefits accrue when
students teach and model social skills (Blake et al., 2000). The ability of students to
solve their own problems and peacefully settle disputes directly and positively affects
student climate. School mediation programs (discussed in Chapter 14) have been
especially helpful in this regard (Jones, 1998; Lane & McWhirter, 1996; Smith & Daunic,
2002).
Peer Involvement
Because peers play such an important role in adolescents’ risky behavior, prevention
and treatment efforts should focus not only on individuals’ problems but also on the
peer group itself. Peer programs that emphasize training in assertiveness and other
social skills have a good success rate (Herrmann & McWhirter, 1997). If these skills are
not taught to the whole peer cluster (see Chapter 8), or if adolescents return to the
same peer cluster after receiving treatment away from their peers, they often regress to
past patterns.
Adolescent girls—especially those who are talented—experience decreases in selfconfidence and more social anxiety than in earlier grades. Some have argued that there
is an abrupt psychological shift at age 14 from needs for achievement to needs related to
love and belonging (Neihart et al., 2002). Talented girls see more disadvantages to their
abilities than do their male peers and, simultaneously, girls’ self-esteem plunges
between ages 11 and 17. They perceive that their achievements will threaten boys; thus,
they “dummy down” and hide their abilities. In addition, girls receive inequitable
instruction in the classroom, less attention from teachers, less informative responses
from teachers, less detailed instructions on the correct approach to tasks, and more
reprimands for calling out answers to questions and other “assertive” responses.
Another group of students who are especially impacted by the climate of schools are
those whose sexual identity or sexual orientation do not conform to strict
heterosexuality (Russell & McGuire, 2008). They are under consistent stress. Too often
other students, and sometimes teachers, demonstrate nonacceptance, rejection, and
hostility. In many ways school climate is particularly important for them.
Student climate is affected by students’ ability to monitor their own behavior and
progress, take responsibility for their own learning, and contribute to the school
community. Most learning research focuses on methods and procedures that increase
desired student behaviors and center on strategies teachers and counselors can use
(Farkas et al., 2011). More research is needed, however, on the ways teachers and
counselors can modify the classroom environment and expectations in a manner that
helps young people help themselves. At-risk youth are capable, thinking people who are
able to see and monitor their own progress. They need to be taught how to do so. They
need to be encouraged to develop a shared responsibility for learning.
Teacher Climate
The working environment for teachers and other school employees is also part of school
culture. Levels of collegiality and collaboration among staff members, community
support, autonomy, adequacy of funding, and the effectiveness of leadership all
contribute to teacher climate within the school.
Consistent and focused meetings with teachers and support staff (psychologists,
counselors, social workers) encourage stability, development, collaboration, and
collegiality. Unfortunately, school personnel usually meet for curative rather than
preventive reasons—ultimately a costly and inefficient procedure—largely because of
heavy demands on their time combined with limited understanding of one another’s
efforts and strategies. Moreover, they generally have no training in a collaborative,
collegial model of working together to prevent problems. If Carlos’s teachers were able
to work as a team, as middle school teachers often do, they might gain a better
understanding of his previous bilingual problems and devise potential solutions. Models
of shared decision making and leadership organized around shared values,
commitments, and beliefs can make a dramatic difference in teacher climate. Box
5.2 illustrates one dimension of how teacher climates can vary.
BOX 5.2: Teacher Climate
One of the authors of this text had the experience of spending 15 minutes in two
different middle school teachers lounges in the same week during a research project.
The atmosphere within the two lounges could not have been more different and
provided insight into the teacher climate at each school.
In the first lounge, five teachers were filling coffee cups, organizing papers, and chatting
energetically about the events of the week. One teacher approached the
author/researcher, asking her name and making introductions to the others. Entering
teachers were greeted by name. There was some joking about the “mountains of
grading” that faced several of them.
In the second lounge, two teachers were silently grading papers when a third entered
and immediately began talking about a student using crude and insulting language. The
other two teachers offered comparable stories about difficult students, also using
language such as “asshole” and “bastard.” Then the third teacher stated, “God I can’t
wait to retire” and left the room; the other two teachers returned to their grading. All
three teachers completely ignored the author/researcher and did not make eye contact
at any time.
© Cengage Learning 2013
When teachers are identified as professionals, the effect on teacher climate is positive.
Unfortunately, it is frequently the case that teachers are not treated as experts on
learning, pedagogy, and curriculum. Teachers have a base of professional knowledge, a
professional language, and bring specific skills to their job. Yet teachers often are
required to simply follow mandates regarding curriculum and pedagogy. Educational
practices that stifle teachers from utilizing their knowledge produce a poor teacher
climate and ultimately a poor student climate. This is true for school counselors as well.
There is a need for teacher empowerment in the workplace, particularly with regard to
curriculum. Teachers’ knowledge about lesson preparation should prevail over the
prepared lesson plans found in teachers’ manuals. Teachers are capable decision makers
and need to be involved in school-based management. Team-teaching is another way in
which teachers can contribute to high-performance schools. Teachers in the teams
receive immediate feedback from one another. The team provides teachers with a
support group to help resolve educational and behavioral problems.
How do schools typically respond to increasing incidences of disruption? Often, schools
respond with “zero tolerance” policies, the addition of security guards and video
cameras, and the suspension or expulsion of disruptive students. Although removing
disruptive students from the classroom or the school provides some immediate relief to
the affected teachers and students, these short-term policies have a series of negative
consequences. They shift responsibility away from the school, reinforce antisocial
behavior and an environment of control, devalue the adult–child relationship, and
weaken the ties between academic and social behavioral learning. Positive Behavioral
Support (PBS) is an alternative that involves a significant investment of resources and
time, but it provides significant long-term benefits (Farkas et al., 2011). PBS is a
systemwide approach to school behavior management that combines a system that
supports teacher behavior with data that support effective decisions and practices that
support student behavior. The purpose of PBS is to increase the effectiveness, relevance,
and efficiency of academic and social learning for all students, and especially for those
with emotional and behavioral problems by (1) increasing time devoted to teaching
(instead of managing behavior problems) and (2) increasing students’ academic
engagement time and achievement. That is, PBS changes individual behavior by
changing the context in which behavior occurs. PBS establishes a schoolwide system for
discipline with clear procedures and behaviors that are expected. There is a continuum
of reinforcement for positive behaviors and a continuum of discouragement for negative
behaviors. School staff are required to collaborate throughout the school (Farkas et al.,
2011).
Initiating PBS requires a commitment of several years, with maintenance of the system
a top priority. Other requirements include a team-based approach, active administrator
support, proactive instructional approach, local behavioral expertise, and the use of
data-based decision making. Implementation of PBS requires an enormous amount of
time, resources, and energy. So why would a school select this intervention? Answer:
Results. In one school, the average daily referrals in December dropped from 21 down to
6 per day the following December. Four years later the changes were maintained, with
an average of 5 referrals per day in December with similar effects every month. The
savings of time and energy that go into dealing with office referrals, as well as the
increased satisfaction and security experienced by school personnel, are enough to
convince many schools to adopt this program.
EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE: SCHOOLS AND
CLASSROOMS
The structure of education can be manipulated at two levels: the school itself (grade
configuration, type of building) and the classroom (the teacher’s philosophy and
teaching style, the instructional method). Reform may be needed at both levels to
optimize the academic success of students at risk.
School Structure
Grade configuration has been the primary organizing principle of our system. The rapid
growth of high schools in the United States after the Civil War led some sections of the
country to operate under an 8–5 schedule: eight years of elementary school, five years of
high school. Other areas used a 6–6 plan: six years of elementary school, six years of
high school. Toward the end of the century, the 8–4 pattern became popular. In 1909
the first junior high school was introduced. Since then, grades have been configured in a
variety of patterns (6–3–3, 6–2–4, 7–2–3, 5–3–4, 4–4–4) in attempts to group
students by developmental needs and to increase the cost-effectiveness of education.
However, evidence (Bickel et al., 2001) contradicts the widely held notion that large
schools serving a small range of grades are uniformly more cost-effective than singleunit (K–12 or K–8) schools. With respect to human costs, a larger size school is more
damaging to disadvantaged students’ achievement. After an in-depth analysis of a
variety of indicators, Bickel and colleagues conclude, “If we were also interested in
balancing expenditure per pupil with achievement-based equity, the best configuration
seems to be a small single-unit school…. This makes the achievement advantage of small
schools (where they are most needed, that is, in impoverished communities) more
affordable than previously expected.” It is important to engage in deeper level
examination of issues such as cost-effectiveness, and to raise questions such as
“beneficial to whom?” and “cost-effective with respect to what dimensions?” and “what
dimensions have not been considered?”
The school-within-a-school concept is one way of structuring the school so that smaller
groups of students are clustered together. For example, the school population of a
specific secondary school is divided into four “houses.” These houses become the major
vehicles for social interaction, intramural athletics, school activities, discipline, and so
forth (think of the organization of Hogwart’s Academy of Witchcraft and Wizardry,
featured in the popular Harry Potter books by J. K. Rowling). The main reference group
can be reduced in this way from, for example, 2,000 students in the comprehensive
school to 500 students in the house, increasing the sense of community. Another
example of school-within-school programs are high school Career Academies. They
provide academic coursework and curricula based on a career theme with work
experience available through employer partnerships. They show positive effects on
staying and progressing in school for youth at-risk of dropping out (Kemple, 2004).
Some schools build before-and after-school supervised programs into their structure
(see Chapter 2). Youth without supervision after school and who are with peers are
more likely to engage in risky behaviors and to have poorer school achievement than
youth who are with caretakers after school. In addition, there are significant benefits to
participation in quality after-school programs (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010;
Durlak et al., 2010). The demand for school-based after-school programs exceeds the
supply, and even existing programs are constantly threatened by decreasing funds.
After-school care programs could be of significant benefit to at-risk students like Carlos
and Lidia Diaz.
School Choice
School choice has been offered as a solution to poor-quality schools. The proponents of
school choice include political conservatives who view public education as overly
controlled by the government, religious conservatives who view public schools as
damaging to children because of exposure to immoral values and practices, private
schools seeking increased enrollment, and activist, urban parents of color seeking a
higher quality education for their children. Based on the belief that choice inspires
competition and therefore higher quality, the school choice movement was supported by
a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Cleveland
school voucher program, which enabled students to attend private religious schools. In a
study of the Milwaukee Public Schools (Witte et al., 2010), students who used a voucher
to attend secular or religious private schools demonstrated no significant differences
between math and reading achievement. The National Education Association, the
National Association of School Principals, and the American Federation of Teachers
maintain strong opposition to the voucher system, believing that the effects will damage
public education by reinforce and replicate inequities for lower SES, ethnic minority,
and poor achieving students.
Charter Schools
The charter school movement emerged from school choice and has expanded
enormously: from 1999 to 2008, the number of students enrolled nearly quadrupled, to
nearly one and a half million students (NCES, 2010). Although charter schools are
public schools that offer a free education, they differ from district-controlled schools in
that they are run by private organizations. Charter schools embody many different
visions of school improvement.
Charter schools have the freedom to be innovative and to become a source of good ideas.
Supporters view charter schools as a promising way to raise academic standards,
empower educators, involve parents and communities, and expand choice and
accountability. Despite these promising possibilities, the variation in characteristics has
made it difficult to evaluate and compare their effects with one another and with
traditional schools. Although in one study (Gleason et al., 2010), charter school students
scored no differently on math and reading and they were no different on
attendance, grade promotion, or student conduct than noncharter students. However,
parent and student satisfaction showed significant positive results in favor of the charter
schools. In another study (Tuttle et al., 2010), students had higher reading and math
test scores than similar students in traditional public schools.
Charter schools have the potential to be an important educational innovation. However,
the accessibility of charter schools must be addressed with respect to transportation,
enrollment procedures, requirements, and a better understanding of who actually
enrolls.
Classroom Structure
Classroom structure affects the academic experience of at-risk students. The structure of
the class can give at-risk students a feeling of control over their situation. An
environment in which students are treated as unique individuals who have unique
contributions to make to the group yields positive results (Wubbolding, 2007). Such an
environment produces an acceptance and appreciation of differences, an increase in
creativity, an enhancement of personal autonomy, an improvement in mental health,
and the ultimate overall quality of learning (McNeely et al., 2002). A caring relationship
between adults and students helps meet the needs of at-risk students and is related to
the classroom social climate established by the teacher early in the year (Mainhard et al.,
2011).
Class size also affects at-risk students. There is strong evidence (Rumberger & Ah Lim,
2008) that small classes (15:1) in grades K–3 improve high school graduation rates.
Certainly Lidia Diaz’s teacher would be able to meet Lidia’s needs more effectively if she
were responsible for fewer children. Indeed, academic achievement and connection to
school have been found to be related to class size (Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2005;
Rumberger & Ah Lim, 2008). In fact, four or more years in small classes (13 to 17
students) in early elementary school significantly increase the likelihood of students
graduating from high school. This is especially true for students from low-income homes
(Finn et al., 2005).
Because Lidia’s class is large, students have been assigned to smaller groups based on
ability levels. Although little advantage accrues to students assigned to the high groups,
students assigned to the low groups suffer great disadvantage. Educational researchers
now advocate smaller heterogeneous groups that work cooperatively in lieu of
homogeneous ability groups working competitively (Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson,
2008). When teachers and students are encouraged to work collaboratively, there is a
positive effect on the overall school environment (Reminger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992).
Students who are at risk for school failure are usually several grades behind their age
mates; school structures that emphasize cooperation over competition meet the needs of
these students better (see Chapter 14).
Curricular and instructional practices also affect students who are at risk for school
failure. Students have little enthusiasm for a curriculum that focuses simply on learning
facts and isolated skills and over time become passive players in the schooling process.
Further, controversial and sometimes very interesting content areas are being omitted
from the curriculum (Wubbolding, 2007). Educators, as well as the parents’, pass down
the common values of society. Yet anything associated with “values clarification,”
“values education,” or “morals” sets off alarm bells in some segments of the community.
Many districts tightly regulate classroom discussion of topics such as sexual behavior
and pregnancy prevention in an effort to avoid controversy.
Curriculum Issues
A curriculum that ignores moral education, development of social skills, student
dialogue, and critical thinking does not help at-risk students. For example, making
contraceptives available to teens and providing information about effectiveness has been
criticized as contributing to sexual activity among teenagers. However, even though
sexual activity among teenagers is approximately equal in the United States and Europe,
the teen birthrate is much lower in Europe, where contraception is available. In the year
2000, a narrowly defeated bill in Oregon would have prohibited school discussion of
safe sex activities that prevent AIDS because of the unsubstantiated accusation that such
information “promotes homosexuality.” (We return to this important issue in Chapter
9.) The argument that children and adolescents should get their information at home is
a hollow one in light of the vast numbers of families that do not provide this information
at all.
Measures to assess the curriculum need to be broadened as well. As mentioned earlier in
this chapter, assessment of student learning should go beyond scores on standardized
achievement tests to include critical thinking, decision making, and other factors. As a
result of reforms in several states, students are required to pass benchmarks throughout
K–12 that include social skills, problem solving, and other important career and life
skills. Passing benchmarks in mathematics requires, for example, not simply providing
the correct answer but being able to describe the reasoning process used to arrive at the
answer, and to identify alternative strategies for finding the answer. Connecting
education to the world of work is a critical element for at risk youth and includes seven
components (Bizot, 1999) that provide a connection: (1) develop a sense of competence
based on genuine achievement via opportunities to attempt challenging tasks; (2)
expose students to many areas of potential interest with the opportunity to develop
some greater mastery; (3) foster an ability to set goals, generate alternatives, evaluate
options and results, and cope with obstacles; (4) provide a framework for understanding
and organizing occupational information; (5) convey respect for individual differences
and an understanding of how individual values, interests, and skills lead to different
choices, opportunities, and barriers; (6) provide for participation and opportunities to
collaborate and contribute; and (7) impart an understanding that education and career
are lifelong, ongoing processes. These key elements should be integrated into curricula.
Perhaps if Ramona had been exposed to ongoing career education, and had a
curriculum that made consistent connections between learning and life skills, she might
have seen more benefits to staying in school. At a minimum, she may have had betterdeveloped work and life skills when she did drop out. English as a Second Language
(ESL), also known as English language learners (ELLs) or bilingual education programs,
are also an important part of school curricula for students at risk. From 1979 to 2008,
the number of school-age children who spoke a language other than English at home
increased from 9 to 21 percent or from 3.8 to 10.9 million (USDOE, 2010). ESL students
continue to have disproportionately high drop-out rates and low graduation rates (Gil &
Bardack, 2011). Given the shortage of ESL teachers with appropriate credentials, and
the fact that they live in a district characterized by many poor families, it is likely that
the Diaz children did not have qualified teachers when they were in ESL classes.
Under No Child Left Behind, federal funds support the education of English language
learners (ELLs) with the rapid teaching of English taking precedence at every turn.
Annual English assessments are mandated, and academic progress in English is
expected. Even though the resources provided by NCLB are good news for schools with
substantial numbers of language-minority students, the money is spread thinly—
between more states, more programs, and more students. Although districts will
automatically receive funding based on their enrollments of ELLs and immigrant
students, the impact of federal dollars will be reduced, given the complexity and
heterogeneity of the ESL population. They do not fit a single profile (Bardack, 2010).
ESLs have different socioeconomic status, levels of language proficiency, academic
experiences, and immigration history. A final curricular issue we consider in this section
is access to the World Wide Web—the Internet. The information available to students
and schools via the Internet is virtually limitless, and support services to assist teachers
to incorporate this resource into their teaching are evolving rapidly.
Public schools have made consistent progress in expanding Internet access in
classrooms. Now virtually all public schools in the United States have access to the
Internet, most with broadband wireless connections. The ratio of student to computer
was 12 to 1 in 1998, then 4.5 to 1 in 2003 to about 2 to 1 more recently (DOE, 2006).
Thus computer access at school is nearly universal among 4th grade students (95%) and
very high for the vast majority of 8th graders (83%). Home computer access in 2007 for
8th grade students indicates that 90% had a computer in the home, although as
expected poorer children did not fare so well (Child Trends, 2008). When teachers are
provided with the time and technological support to capitalize on the Internet, students
benefit. And it is clear that access to and ability to navigate the Internet are critical skills
for today’s young people. One of the primary functions of the Internet is for
communication, and many proponents have convincingly described how the Internet
expands the number of people with whom someone can be in easy communication.
Options include e-mail, texting, instant messaging, blogs, online gaming, and social
networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. The social benefits seem obvious. The
Internet is a rich resource that allows a wide variety of activities ranging from
information gathering to communications to game playing, to other forms of
entertainment (Lenhart et al., 2007).
For some adolescents, the Internet relieves social anxiety and social isolation. However,
Internet use raises some serious questions. Does use of the Internet decrease family
communication? What happens to the size of the user’s social circle? Might the social
media actually increase loneliness and depression? As children and youth experience
increased access, it will be critically important to monitor the effects of Internet use on
their social interaction with family and peers. Future research will need to investigate
the combination of media--television, Internet, computers, cell phones, and so forth—
influence the lives of adolescents, and how the media can be used in positive ways to
improve health, education, and development of young people (Jordon, 2008).
CONCLUSION
Educators have control over some educational practices and policies and elements of
school climate that may improve the learning potential of at-risk students. They can
promote curricular and teaching practices that emphasize the entirety of students’
learning and development. Second, educators can increase collaborative efforts that
encourage collegial support and collaborative decision making to improve school
climate. Third, student empowerment can be promoted, and students can be helped to
approach their work and their interactions with tolerance and democracy. Teachers and
counselors can be excellent models of such practices. Finally, educators can assist in
raising public awareness about the value of extended support for children and youth
who are at risk. Collaboration with researchers to provide evidence of successful
prevention and intervention programs (or evidence that programs are not working) is
one way to help draw attention to what does and does not work. Researchers, in turn,
must consult with teachers and other practitioners to draw educators’ firsthand
classroom experience and wisdom into the development and implementation of
prevention and intervention programs. Teacher expertise is a critical component of
school-based programs that provide at-risk students with the skills and resources they
need to be successful in school and in life.
CHAPTER 7: School Dropout
•
Long day coming where any corner I turn any door opening any hallway
minutecan end up with everyone watching all those eyes seeing and no one is
there Later you’ll say “just ignore them” like it would be so easy, like
breathing You’ll tell me stories listen to my plans nod and then smile and look at
your watch like I’m not even talking like I’m not really there We’ll sit in your
office with posters of baby animals on the endangered list(they aren’t the ones who
belong on that list) but you’ll pretend, and then we’ll both pretend that our little
talks make it better that I will bravely endure that this story has a nice quiet
ending and that I will be OK.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Definitional Issues of the Dropout Problem
Literacy Standards
Definition of a Dropout
Scope and Characteristics of the Problem
Immigrant Students
Latino Students
Exceptional Students
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Students
Adjudicated Youth
The Consequences of Dropping Out
Economic Consequences
Social Consequences
Predictive Indicators and Type of Dropouts
Differences between Stayers and Leavers
Predictive Variables and Dropout Types
•
Disengaged Dropouts
•
•
•
Low-Achiever Dropouts
Quiet Dropouts
Maladjusted Dropouts
Specific Intervention Strategies Focused on School Dropouts
Box 7.1 Reflections of a Future Dropout
Specific Intervention: Cyber Technology
•
•
Virtual Counseling Center
Khan Academy
Specific Intervention: Alternative Education
Specific Intervention: Comprehensive, Competency-Based Guidance
Specific Intervention: Solution-Focused Counseling
Conclusion
•
In this chapter we concentrate on young people who leave school before they
graduate. In the following pages we (a) discuss changing literacy standards that
define the term dropout, (b) discuss the scope of the dropout problem, (c) outline
some of the roots of the problem, (d) highlight the economic and social consequences
of dropping out, (e) present information to identify potential dropouts, and (f)
describe pragmatic ideas and interventions designed to reduce dropouts.
DEFINITIONAL ISSUES OF THE DROPOUT
PROBLEM
Literacy Standards
To understand the apparent decline in academic proficiency of students, we must note
the changes that have taken place in educational standards. In 1890 only 6.7% of the
nation’s 14- to 17-year-olds attended high school. By the late 1990s, more than 95%
attended high school. In 1890, 3.5% of America’s 17-year-olds graduated from high
school. By 1970, 75.6% did so, and by the late 1990s, 89% were graduated. In the late
2000s, 90% of adolescents had completed high school (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). In addition, the criterion for functional literacy has risen steadily from 3 years of
schooling in the 1930s, to 6 years in the 1950s, to the completion of high school in the
1970s. These climbing standards have placed increasing demands on students (Berliner
& Biddle, 1995).
Many more children with widely diverse backgrounds are being educated than ever
before in our history. High schools of one hundred years ago were mainly open to the
most privileged children, and only a handful of them were expected to graduate. Schools
today are called upon to serve vastly larger numbers of children and to serve children
from very different social, cultural, and language backgrounds. Schools also are
expected to deliver many more services and to reach children with a much greater ability
range. Today’s high school dropouts are a major concern for educators and for society,
and there are strenuous efforts to reduce the high school dropout rate to zero. Despite
these challenges, the American educational system has been enormously successful.
Definition of a Dropout
A dropout is a pupil who leaves school before graduation and before completing a
program of study. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has two classifications of
dropout: event dropout and status dropout. Event dropouts are youth who withdraw
from school within a specific time frame—during a given school year, for example.
Status dropouts are nonenrolled youth ages 16 to 24 who are out of school without a
high school diploma. The DOE uses school completion rates as well, both status
completion rates (all completers, age 16 to 24) and the 4-year completion rate (Aud &
Hannes, 2010). These definitions provide consistent criteria for counting dropouts.
However, educators, state governments, policymakers, and school district personnel
sometimes use additional and inconsistent criteria, leaving us with statistics that are
often imprecise and sometimes contradictory.
The quality of dropout data vary as a function of adequacy of school staffing, consistency
of definitions of illnesses, leaves, and transfers, family transience, and specific state
criteria for calculating dropouts. For example, some states count students with
equivalent high school degrees (GED) as graduates; others do not. Schools have a vested
interest in keeping dropout rates low because their funds are often tied to student
counts.
Even statistics based on common criteria rarely include students who dropped out
before entering high school. For example, figures cited for Latino high school
sophomores who drop out by their senior year may actually understate the dropout rate
among Latinos. In one large secondary school district in Arizona, for example, eighthgrade students who do not register for high school are never counted in the high school
census, and therefore they are not counted in the dropout rate. Latino students are
especially affected (Aud & Hannes, 2010).
SCOPE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PROBLEM
Despite ongoing inconsistency in tallying dropouts, educators and researchers have
made headway in their attempts to profile the student who drops out of school. Indeed,
teachers know from their own experience that students who drop out are likely to be
those who are unmotivated by their class work; who have had problems with either the
school authorities, the police, or both; who skip classes or are often absent; who are
pregnant or married; who are poor and must work; who have family problems; who
have drug or alcohol problems; who are students of color; or who have fallen behind
their grade level (Suh, Suh, & Houston, 2007; Rumberger & Ah Lim, 2008). The latter
group includes many students who are learning English as a second language (ESL),
also called second language learners (SLL) or English language learners (ELL). In fact,
students from non-English-speaking homes drop out in much higher numbers than do
students from homes where English is the only language spoken (Gil & Bardack, 2011).
Recall that Ramona Diaz (Chapter 5) gets poor grades and dislikes school. She does
not think school is meeting her needs, and she feels as though she does not belong there.
Her family’s economic situation is difficult, and Ramona feels strongly that she should
work to help support her family. She also feels bad about herself and does not believe
she has the ability to compete at school. Ramona has little social involvement with the
school, partly because of the family’s economic situation and partly because of her
struggle with the English language. These factors make Ramona a prime candidate for
dropping out.
In 2000, 11% of 16- to 24-year-olds were out of school without a high school diploma.
Although the status dropout rate remained fairly consistent from 1992 to 2000, it
declined for young people as a group between the early 1970s and mid-2000. The rate of
this decline, however, varied for European Americans, African Americans, Latino
Americans, and American Indians (KewelRamani, 2011). American Indians/Alaska
natives produce the lowest high school graduation rates. Latinos and African Americans
also had especially low graduation rates (Urban Institute, 2004). The high dropout rate
of Latino students is partly attributable to the dropout rate among Latino immigrants,
many of whom are ESL students
Immigrant Students
Although all countries have experienced immigration, no country in the world has
constantly experienced such a high immigration rate as the United States, especially in
the last few years. Public school systems reflect these demographics, with children of
immigrants accounting for a large percent of all U.S. schoolchildren. Most of the parents
of these children arrived in the United States from Latin America and Asia. A major
concern is the dramatically lower educational attainment of immigrant adolescents from
Latin America, with implications for their later employment, income, health, marriage,
and housing (Fuligni & Hardway, 2004). This problem is likely to get worse as
California, Arizona, and other states drop bilingual education programs in favor of statemandated English immersion programs, putting a substantial proportion of immigrant
children at even more risk. The English immersion approach assumes that immigrant
children, and others whose first language is other than English, learn English very
quickly—generally within a year’s time—under conditions of total immersion.
Interestingly, studies have indicated that the development of oral English proficiency
takes an average of 3.31 years ranging from 1 year to 6.5 years. Only 2.25% of students
demonstrated English proficiency in a year’s time; most achieved English proficiency in
2 to 5 years (MacSwan & Pray, 2005). In English immersion programs, all subjects are
taught in English regardless of whether the student understands. In effect, students lose
a number of years of instruction.
Latino Students
The status dropout rates for whites, blacks, and Hispanics declined between 1980 and
2008. Unfortunately, the high school completion rate for Latinos is about as low today is
it was in the 1970s (Chapman, Laird, & KewelRamani, 2010). The extensive literature on
Latino dropouts indicates that there is not a single cause associated with the decision to
leave school, although foreign-born Latinos dropped out at a higher rate than nativeborn Latinos (Aud & Hannes, 2010). For immigrants, the stress, confusion, and anxiety
when first entering a U.S. school, combined with language problems, are issues. Other
issues are poverty, pregnancy, poor academic achievement, parents’ educational
attainment, lack of motivation, low aspirations, disengagement from learning, and
single-parent families (Chapman, Laird, & KewelRamani, 2010). A growing body of
literature also points to school-related or institutional factors that play an important
role in the dropout process. In some cases, a self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon might
be occurring in schools, such that teachers hold and unknowingly convey lower
expectations of Latino students. One case study by Conchas (2001) examined immigrant
and U.S.-born Latino students’ perspectives on how the school structure mediates
academic success and school engagement. Latino students in this case study expressed
how the stereotypes held by teachers and other students about Latinos in general (e.g.,
Latinos are lazy, don’t try hard enough, and so on) affected their level of school
engagement. For some students, such negative stereotypes foster pessimism about
school.
Exceptional Students
In addition to students of color, immigrant, and English as second language students,
dropout statistics include many students with disabilities. The dropout rate for students
with emotional/behavioral disabilities is considerably higher than that of general
education students despite the school’s legal obligation to provide students with
disabilities a free, appropriate education until they reach age 21 or receive a high school
diploma, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Students with specific learning disabilities and
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who drop out of school are more
socially alienated toward classmates and teachers than are similar students who
complete school. These young people have far to go to reach the goals of adult
adjustment.
Gifted students, who often demonstrate high ability and intelligence, high creativity, and
a strong drive to initiate and complete a task, drop out of school more often than one
would think. In fact, they drop out more often than their nongifted peers. All of these
exceptional students must be kept in mind when we discuss the scope of the dropout
problem.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Students
Another group of students who are particularly at risk of dropping out of school are gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) students. Many of the school problems of
these adolescents are related to the physical and verbal abuse they receive from peers.
Peer harassment contributes to poor school performance, truancy, and withdrawal from
school. School is a dangerous and punishing place for many GLBT students who often
experience threats, physical and psychological abuse from peers, and bias from teachers
and other school personnel (Glimps, 2005; Russell & McGuire, 2008).
Unfortunately, too many educators do little to support GLBT teenagers in a world that
reviles them and in a school environment that permits them to be called “dykes,”
“faggots,” and an assortment of other names (Glimps, 2005). Ironically, although
educators will challenge and correct other derogatory terms, the words dyke and faggot
often go unnoticed or at least unchallenged. Making school safe for GLBT youth is the
responsibility of all educators. GLBT youth are susceptible to depression and are at high
risk for suicide because of internal turmoil and environmental harassment
(see Chapter 11). They also consistently report significant stress associated with school
and related activities, no doubt contributing to their high dropout rate (Russell &
McGuire, 2008).
Adjudicated Youth
Adjudicated young people are less likely to graduate from high school. More than twothirds of juvenile offenders of high school age fail to return to school following their
release from custody. These adolescents are often alienated from school by below grade
level academic performance, a lack of necessary high school credits, school reenrollment
procedures, chronic truancy, and a need for special education services (U.S. Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2005). These young people present a
particularly thorny problem because in addition to their potential for dropping out of
school they present multiple problems. Eight in 10 incarcerated juveniles suffer from
learning disabilities. Nearly 4 out of 5 youth arrested for juvenile crimes in 2000 were
involved with drugs or alcohol, and 92% tested positive for marijuana. Unfortunately,
only a very low number of these youth receive substance abuse treatment once they
enter the juvenile justice system. Up to three quarters of all incarcerated juveniles had a
diagnosable mental health disorder. Most often educational programs fail to meet state
standards, and mental health services are scarce (National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse, 2005).
THE CONSEQUENCES OF DROPPING OUT
Dropping out of school has a significant impact on the life of the individual, but the costs
go far beyond individual consequences. School dropout rates have serious economic and
social repercussions for society as well.
Economic Consequences
Students who drop out of school are at an economic disadvantage and will be
throughout their lives: Unemployment and underemployment rates are high among
high school dropouts; they earn significantly less over their lifetimes than high school
graduates and less still than those graduates who attend some college. In 2008, a
student with a bachelor’s degree earned 28% more than one with an associate’s degree,
53% more than a high school completer, and 96% more than a young person without a
high school diploma (Aud & Hannes, 2010). In addition to lower income, the
unemployment rate of dropouts is considerably higher as well. Detachment from school
by teenagers puts youth at increased risk of having lower earnings and less stable
employment than peers who stay in school (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). A
high school diploma no longer ensures gainful employment as it did in the past; our
economy needs people to work at jobs that are not intellectually challenging.
Unfortunately, most of these jobs do not pay well.
The economic consequences of the dropout problem include loss of earnings and taxes,
loss of Social Security, and lack of qualified workers. A high school diploma is the
minimum qualification for participation in the U.S. economy. A worker without one can
find work in only the most menial occupations. The factory jobs that once allowed
workers to make a good income without a high school diploma are diminishing or are
being transferred out of the country; the educational requirements for jobs in general
are increasing. The high school dropout is not easily absorbed into the workforce due to
this ever-increasing demand for highly trained workers. Students who drop out of high
school will lack the necessary skills to participate in the high-tech job market and are
likely to be destined for marginal employment or outright dependence on society.
The economic consequences of dropping out will continue to worsen as jobs for lowskilled workers dry up. And this affects the nation as well. Dropouts pay half as much in
taxes as do high school graduates. They receive larger government subsidies in the form
of food stamps, welfare payments, and housing assistance. They are more likely involved
in crime, which dramatically increases the probability of prison, and they have worse
health outcomes and lower life expectancies (Dynarski et al., 2008).
Not long ago, the Social Security checks of retirees were paid for by as many as 17
employed workers; people who retire in the next decade, however, will draw their Social
Security from the wages of only 3 workers (Sklar, 1995), one of whom will be a person of
color. As discussed in Chapter 2, projections indicate that the percentage of people of
color entering the labor force will continue to increase over the next 15 years. Schools,
communities, and legislators must ensure that adolescents of color graduate in
increasing numbers both to meet the needs of the national labor market and to provide
equal representation of people of color in society’s labor force.
Social Consequences
Students who leave school before completing their program of study are at a
disadvantage in other ways as well. Dropping out of school often has an impact on an
individual’s psychological well-being. Dissatisfaction with self, with the environment,
and with lack of opportunity is also associated with lower occupational aspirations
among young people. When high school dropouts are unemployed or earn less money
than their graduated peers, their children also experience negative consequences
because they live in lower socioeconomic conditions. Proportionately few of these homes
provide the study aids that children of graduates can expect to have. Parents who are
poor are less likely to provide non-school-related activities for their children than
parents of higher socioeconomic status. Further, low wages require parents who are
dropouts to work such long hours that it is difficult for them to monitor their children’s
activities. Because high school dropouts have lower occupational aspirations than their
graduated peers, they also have lower educational expectations for their own children.
The Andrews, Baker, and Diaz families (of Chapters 1, 2, and 5) are prime examples of
this situation. In each of these families, at least one of the parents did not complete high
school, and the children must face the consequences.
Dropping out of school truncates educational and vocational development in a manner
that dramatically increases the probability of a downward spiral into greater physical,
emotional, and economic problems. The average high school dropout costs the economy
approximately $240,000 over his or her lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions,
higher reliance on Medicaid and Medicare, higher reliance on welfare, and higher rates
of criminal activity. Dropouts are in worse health than other adults. Dropouts also make
up disproportionately higher percentages of the nation’s prison and death row inmates
(Chapman, Laird, & KewelRamani, 2010). Less-educated adolescents are more likely to
become pregnant outside of marriage and to abuse alcohol and drugs. In short, healthrisk behaviors—substance use, violence, physical inactivity—are consistently linked to
academic failure (CDCP, 2011). The idea that dropouts beget dropouts conveys an
unnecessary hopelessness. Not all dropouts have children who want to drop out, and not
all students at risk for school failure today are children of dropouts. Nevertheless, a
continuing cycle of leaving school early seems likely if schools do not take action.
Schools can break the cycle in a variety of ways.
PREDICTIVE INDICATORS AND TYPE OF
DROPOUTS
Effective implementation of dropout prevention programs requires identification of
students at risk. To facilitate this, we turn to research that teachers, counselors and
psychologists, and other human service professionals may find useful in their daily work
with students (Dynarski et al., 2008; Suh, Suh, & Houston, 2007; and especially,
Ekstrom et al., 1986).
Differences between Stayers and Leavers
More than 25 years ago, Ekstrom and her colleagues (1986) focused on a sample of high
school sophomores over a 2-year period. They found that those who stayed in school
(stayers) differed significantly from those who left (dropouts) across a variety of
dimensions: socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, parent support for education, family
structure, school behaviors, and attitudes/abilities toward schoolwork. Students who
left school were more likely to be poorer, older, male, and ethnic minorities. They
tended to come from homes with fewer study aids and fewer opportunities for nonschool-related learning than students who stayed in school. Dropouts were less likely to
have both birth parents living in the home, more likely to have employed mothers (who
had less education and lower educational expectations for their children), and had less
parental monitoring of their activities.
The students who dropped out of school also differed from the stayers in a variety of
behaviors. The dropouts were less likely to be involved in extracurricular activities and
had lower grades and lower test scores than the stayers. Interestingly, the gap between
stayers’ and dropouts’ grades was greater than the gap between their scores on
achievement tests. Dropouts did less homework: an average of 2.2 hours a week as
opposed to the 3.4 hours reported by the stayers. The dropouts also had more discipline
problems in school, were absent and late more often, cut more classes, were suspended
from school more often, and had more trouble with the police.
Differences between dropouts and stayers also emerged in the affective domain. Many of
the dropouts reported feelings of alienation from school. Most were not involved in
clubs, sports, or student government. Not surprisingly, few dropouts reported feelings of
satisfaction with their academic work. Dropouts did not feel popular with other
students, and their friends were also alienated from school and had low educational
expectations. Finally, the dropouts worked more hours than the stayers, and their jobs
were more enjoyable and more important to them than school.
The question arose: what had happened to the students who had dropped out of school
between their sophomore and senior years. Ekstrom et al. (1986) found that 47% of
them were working either full or part time (more whites and males reported working for
pay than did minorities and females), 29% were looking for work, 16% were
homemakers, 10% were enrolled in job-training programs, and 3% were in military
service. Of these dropouts, 58% hoped to finish high school eventually, and 17%
reported that they had already enrolled in an educational institution. Fourteen percent
had already obtained a General Educational Development (GED) high school
equivalency certificate. Very little has changed since Ekstrom’s original report (see, for
example Dynarski et al., 2008 and Suh, Suh, & Houston, 2007), except poorer pay and
lack of jobs are more severe problems. It is probable that at least 50% of a similar cohort
today would not be employed or would be underemployed.
Predictive Variables and Dropout Types
Although the profile developed by Ekstrom et al. (1986) tells us some of the
characteristics of young people who drop out of school before graduation, it does not tell
us enough about the complex interaction of variables or about why younger students
leave. Indeed, dropping out of school is a culmination of a developmental process that
involves a complex ecology. Dropping out is a process that begins early in development,
typically before a child even enters school, and continues through the time a student
formally withdraws (Rumberger & Ah Lim, 2008). In one study, the quality of early care
giving, the early home environment, peer competence, and problem behaviors predicted
high school status 15 years later (Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). Early
experiences may affect a student’s sense of agency and self-concept. These may directly
influence school performance and later decisions to stay in school. Early experiences
also lay foundations for relationships with teachers and differential interactions with
peers that further propel the individual along the pathway toward dropping out. Success
in school requires numerous capacities for behavioral control and self-regulation that
are formed in earlier years.
In a study designed to test five theories of early dropout behavior, Battin-Pearson and
her colleagues (2000) identified poor academic achievement as assessed by
standardized achievement tests and grade point averages as consistently one of the
strongest predictors of dropping out of high school early. Engaging in deviant behavior
such as substance abuse or delinquency, having close connections to antisocial peers,
and coming from a poor family increased risks for leaving school by age 14, even when
the student had not experienced academic failure or difficulty. Clearly, dropout
prevention efforts should be focused directly on improving academic achievement at
early ages, but prevention programs should also focus on poor families, youth who
associate with deviant peers, and those who participate in aggressive behavior and drug
use.
Good dropout prevention programs have the ability to closely match their methods and
content to the specific strengths, vulnerabilities, and needs of the participants. One
helpful typology of dropouts comes from the work of Janosz and his colleagues (2000).
Combining three axes of school-related behavior—academic achievement, school
commitment, and behavioral maladjustment—Janosz and colleagues identified four
basic, reliable, and valid dropout types: disengaged dropouts, low-achiever dropouts,
quiet dropouts, and maladjusted dropouts. Each type has unique characteristics to
consider in designing interventions.
Disengaged Dropouts
Although they believe that they are less competent than other students, disengaged
dropouts obtain surprisingly high achievement scores considering their lack of school
involvement. These young people care little about school grades and have few
educational aspirations, generally do not like school, do not recognize the importance of
education, and accord little value to both school and education in their lives.
Low-Achiever Dropouts
Although they have relatively few behavior problems, low-achiever dropouts have a very
weak commitment to education, experience poor grades, and learn little. Of all the
dropout types, low achievers are distinct in their lack of ability to fulfill minimal course
requirements.
Quiet Dropouts
Young people who fit this dropout category have few external problems, although they
exhibit poor school performance. They hold positive views about school attendance,
appear to be involved in school activities, and do not create disciplinary trouble. They do
not get very good grades but also do not misbehave much and do not react openly to
school difficulties. They generally go unnoticed until they drop out.
Maladjusted Dropouts
Dropouts in this category have high levels of misbehavior. They demonstrate a weak
commitment to education, have poor school performance, invest little in school life, and
frequently are in disciplinary trouble. Due to the variety and severity of difficulties, these
dropouts have the most negative school profile of the four types.
Knowing these dropout types will assist counselors and educators to identify potential
dropouts. Clustering variables that predict dropout types will improve interventions to
reduce dropouts because prevention efforts can target specific behaviors and attitudes.
We must also consider another contributing factor: the student’s instructional
environment. The instructional environment can seriously magnify a student’s dislike
for school, lack of motivation, and low self-concept. For example, at-risk, low-achieving
students are often treated differently from high-achieving students, and this kind of
differential treatment can literally “push” them out of school. Differential treatment of
at-risk students includes that they are called on less, given less wait time to answer
questions, given less praise, and given less eye contact and other nonverbal
communication of responsiveness. At-risk students sense the teacher’s lower regard for
their personal worth as learners, come to believe it, and then conform to those
expectations. Equally important is the need at the district level to deal with schools that
are not performing (Knudson, Shambaugh, & O’Day, 2011).
SPECIFIC INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
FOCUSED ON SCHOOL DROPOUTS
Students at greatest risk for dropping out of school are identifiable, although many
disengage from school and drop out for a variety of reasons for which there is no one
common solution. School districts and specific schools can improve their retention rates
by organizing programs that directly address the personal and idiosyncratic issues of
individual dropouts in their region. At a minimum, though, efforts to prevent pupils
from leaving school should include methods to reduce antisocial behaviors, increase
academic achievement, improve connection with other students and adults, and in other
ways encourage positive school commitment. Insufficient attention is paid to alienated,
lonely, and disliked students (Thomas & Smith, 2004). The teenager who speaks to us
in Box 7.1 (a possible quiet or disengaged dropout) expresses concerns that are
common to many high school dropouts: a lack of relevance between the school’s
curriculum and the circumstances of students’ lives and a lack of a sense of belonging.
This teen, however, at least has a goal: she is going to help her mother manage a
restaurant. Clearly she is interested in learning, but the school she attends is not where
most of her learning takes place. Because she seems to be so eager to learn science, to
read, and to use math skills, it is indeed a shame that she does not see the school
curriculum in these areas as relevant to her life. Curricula that highlight the connection
between learning and the “real world” should be selected whenever possible, with
support for teachers to promote those connections. She would also benefit from a
curriculum that encompasses goal-setting techniques. Identifying and writing down
long-term goals, developing a plan to implement those goals, and periodically reviewing
the actions taken to achieve the goals are useful skills. Tyrone Baker, for example, would
benefit from such a curriculum. (We discuss goal-setting techniques in Chapter 13.)
BOX 7.1: Reflections of a Future Dropout
I wish I could leave school. It’s so boring that I just daydream all day anyway.
Why can’t they just let me leave now, instead of waitin’ till I’m 16?
When I leave, I’m gonna help Mama in her restaurant. It’s her own business and she
runs it, but she also has to take care of my little sisters. We have it all worked out. I
already help her every night when I get home from school. This week she let me work in
the kitchen. I figured out a new way to make salad dressing, and it’s really good. Mama
says it’s gonna be a house specialty. The first time we served it, I had to figure out how to
make a batch for 100 people without messing it up.
Mama also lets me do the books. She don’t have time for everything. If I didn’t have to
go to school, I could help her a lot more. Three weeks ago, we had a taxman in here
checking through the books. He said he was impressed with the figures. We couldn’t let
him know I did them cuz I’m too young to work. Mama brings ’em home for me, and I
do ’em at night. I’m usually right. I wish I could be like that in school. But man, those
questions in my homework just get me all confused. I mean, once I was s’pose to figure
out when two trains would meet if they was goin’ toward each other and leavin’ at
different times and stuff like that. I mean, who cares? Someone’s already got the train
schedule all figured out so they don’t run into each other, and I ain’t never gonna be a
train engineer, so why ask me? Usually, though, it don’t make much difference cuz I’m
so busy addin’ up customers’ bills that I don’t have time to set down and figure out what
some smart guy has already done. Mr. Larson is sorta gettin’ used to me not turning in
my homework. So is Mr. Poland. He says I better start thinkin’ about what I’m gonna do
for the science fair or I’m gonna flunk his class. Well, excuse me, but I just don’t have
time to figure out how to make an atom bomb. I wish he’d just get off my case and stick
to buggin’ the smart kids.
If I didn’t have to go to school, I could help Mama by takin’ the kids to the library. They
have story time, and my little sisters like to hear it sometimes. I just set and read the
encyclopedias. The other day I was readin’ that a kangaroo can have as many as three
babies suckin’ on her tits at once. There can be an embryo that attaches itself to the
nipple, a newborn inside the pouch, and an older baby (they’re called “joeys,” in case
you weren’t aware) that hops in for some chow. I really enjoy the library. Especially in
summer cuz the air conditioner works real good. Some of those librarians are real nice
to me. Mrs. Bishop is my favorite. She always asks me about the books I check out, if I
liked ’em, and then she says here’s another good one to read. One librarian there is
kinda mean, but she’s nothing like the one at the school library. Man, that lady won’t
even let you read the inside cover flaps cuz it’ll mess up her nice clean shelf. She looks at
me like I’m lookin’ to take something all the time. Mama says she must have a board up
her butt. I just hate goin’ in there. Anyway, it doesn’t matter much cuz we’re only
allowed to go to the library with our English class, and I never finish my work in that
class. I just can’t get into prepositions and garbage like that. I mean, who cares anyway?
In Mama’s restaurant, nobody says I’m not talkin’ right, and I know I never heard
anybody discussin’ conjugatin’ verbs while they was eatin’ a French dip roast beef
sandwich. I sure wish I could leave school so I could start learnin’ something.
© Cengage Learning 2013
Schools can also organize programs to bring truant students—disengaged, quiet, or
maladjusted potential dropouts—back to the classroom. For example, requiring a daily
after-school study group might enable truant students to catch up, work at their own
pace, and receive credit. These last-resort study sessions could be a key element in a
dropout prevention program.
Social interaction, especially with antisocial peers, influences the decision to leave
school; it can also help keep young people in school. An opportunity to get involved with
a social group and to work with the other members in a positive manner might be
beneficial to the quiet potential dropout. Perhaps if 9-year-old Tyrone Baker could get
involved in healthy social activities run by the school, he would not be so susceptible to
gang activities. School arts, music, and athletic programs provide support and
opportunities for disadvantaged students to participate in sports, clubs, and activities.
Most school arts programs provide valuable outlets for young people and give them a
sense of accomplishment, as does participation in the school band or choir. Too often,
when funding is tight, the prevention value (in human and economic terms) of school
arts programs is ignored.
Peer and cross-age tutoring, mediation, leadership, and facilitation (counseling)
programs can also help young people at risk for dropping out of school. Such programs
have great potential because they blend learning and responsibility with...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment