Keeping Kids in School

8/9/2019 Keeping Kids in School

1/24

Keeping kids in school: What research tells us about preventing

dropouts

Exposés of low high school graduation rates have sparked renewed interest in the nation's dropoutproblem. Nearly every governor has signed a pledge to report more honest graduation data, and federalaccountability policies are putting greater pressure on schools and districts to improve graduation ratesthan ever before.

Even without pressure from above, there are compelling moral, social, and economic reasons for districtsto reduce dropout rates. First and foremost, students want to graduate Ninety!nine percent of high schoolsophomores expect to earn a high school diploma, and about three in four expect to earn a bachelor'sdegree "#ngels et al. $%%&. Far from being unreasonable, those aspirations are soundly logical. (hirtyyears ago most dropouts could still find )obs that paid enough to support a family, but young people wholeave school today face a lifetime of economic hardship. *etween +- and $%%, the annual earnings offamilies headed by a high school dropout declined by nearly one!third "/ostsecondary Education

0//01(2N#(3 $%%4.

5igh dropout rates beget social and economic woes for communities as well. 6ropouts are far more likelyto become unemployed, receive public assistance, commit crimes, and become incarcerated. 7t the sametime, they are less likely to receive )ob!based health insurance and pension plans, to stay healthy and livefull lives, and to vote and make other kinds of civic contributions. #n fact, the average dropout pays about84%,%%% less in taxes over his or her lifetime "1ouse $%%&, 9aldfogel et al. $%%&, :uennig, $%%&, :oretti$%%&, and ;unn $%%&. 1aising graduation rates would save taxpayers money, greatly expand taxrevenues, boost employment, reduce crime, and improve citionsiderations for implementation

Prediction: Identifying potential dropouts

7lthough effective interventions can be costly, many decision makers fail to use data that can help themtarget scarce dollars wisely. For example, a ma)or evaluation of federally funded dropout interventionsrevealed that programs fre?uently enroll the wrong students @6ropout prevention programs often servestudents who would not have dropped out, and do not serve students who would have dropped out@"Aleason and 6ynarski $%%$.


2/24

;ust as in medicine, improper diagnoses can lead to wasted money and wasted lives. 1educing @falsepositives@ is the key to saving money, because it means not spending dollars on students who wouldgraduate on their own without additional help. 1educing @false negatives@ is the key to raising graduationrates, because it means identifying more students who will drop out unless they receive additional help.Even the most effective intervention programs will fail to reduce dropout rates if they target the wrongstudents.

(he problem is not that educators simply make uninformed guesses about who is likely to drop out. #nfact, programs have long used checklists of risk factors that are generally correlated with dropping out=ways that the average dropout differs from the average graduate "9ells et al. +B. 6ecades of researchhave yielded a huge list of such characteristics, including "1umberger $%%, Aleason and 6ynarski $%%$

• 6emographic background Ctudents who are poor, who are members of certain minoritygroups, who are male, who have limited English proficiency, who have learning or emotionaldisabilities, who move more often, and who are overage for their grade are more likely todrop out.

• Family factors Ctudents who come from single parent families, have a mother who droppedout of high school, have parents who provide less oversight and support for learning, and

who have older siblings who did not complete school are more likely to drop out.

• 7dult responsibilities (eenagers who take on adult roles such as becoming a parent, gettingmarried, or holding down a )ob are more likely to drop out=although the last depends ongender, type of )ob, and number of working hours per week.

• Educational experiences 6ropouts are more likely to have struggled academically Dowgrades, low test scores, Fs in English or math, falling behind in course credits, and beingretained are associated with lower chances for graduation. 6ropouts also are more likely tohave shown signs of disengagement from school 5igh rates of absenteeism or truancy,poor classroom behavior, less participation in extracurricular activities, and bad relationshipswith teachers and peers all have been linked to lower chances for graduation.

(he problem is that many of those risk factors turn out to be poor predictors of precisely which individualstudents actually will drop out. Exhibiting a risk factor places a student in a group whose members are, ingeneral, more likely to drop out, but does not automatically mean that a particular student will drop out. #f% percent of the dropouts in a district exhibit a risk factor, compared with only +% percent of graduates,one might assume the risk factor is a good predictor because dropouts are four times more likely toexhibit it. 5owever, that also means the ma)ority of the district's dropouts "4% percent do not exhibit therisk factor. 7 district that used such a risk factor would target more students who would graduate anywaythan students who would drop out. /rediction re?uires more than simply knowing which personal andeducational characteristics dropouts are more likely to exhibit ";erald $%%4.

Fortunately, some research studies do show that it is possible to predict dropouts with greater accuracy.(hose studies follow individual students as they progress from grade to grade as members of a @cohort@=

a group of students who start out in the same grade at the same time. *y following cohorts, analysts candiscover patterns that precede dropping out and identify the @high!yield@ risk factors that are the bestpredictors of it.

1oderick "+ followed a cohort of students entering fourth grade in Fall 1iver, a small urban schooldistrict in Coutheastern :assachusetts. Che found that most dropouts follow predictable pathways on theway to dropping out and that educational experiences=academic performance and school engagement=are the best predictors of who will not graduate.


3/24

:oreover, 1oderick discovered that the district had two very distinct sub!groups of dropouts that followedsomewhat different tra)ectories=those who left school between seventh and ninth grades "whom shecalled @early dropouts@, and those who left during tenth through twelfth grades "@later dropouts@. Earlydropouts could be predicted by low grades all the way back in elementary school. *ut later dropouts=whose fourth grade attendance and marks looked no different from many graduates'=could not bepredicted until they entered middle or high school.

Che also found that so!called @transition years@ were a decisive turning point for many future dropouts.6uring the transition to middle school, academic performance and attendance declined somewhat formost students, but the deterioration was much steeper among future dropouts. (he same thing happenedlater during the transition to high school.

:ore recent cohort studies carried out in /hiladelphia and >hicago have confirmed and extended1oderick's findings. 1esearchers working with community groups in /hiladelphia have discovered thatthey can identify about &% percent of that city's eventual dropouts as early as sixth grade and a full B%percent of eventual dropouts by ninth grade "Neild and *alfan< $%%4. (hey also have uncovered @high!yield@ risk factors at different points along the educational pipeline

• Cixth graders with poor attendance "less than B% percent, a failing mark for classroom

behavior, a failing grade in math, or a failing grade in English had only a +% percent chanceof graduating within four years of entering high school and only a $% percent chance ofgraduating a year late "*alfan< and 5erhicago >onsortium on Cchool 1esearch combinedtwo highly predictive ninth grade risk factors to create an @0n!(rack #ndicator@ for highschool freshmen. 7 student is considered on!track at the end of ninth grade if he or she hasaccumulated enough course credits to earn promotion to tenth grade while receiving nomore than one F "based on semester marks in core academic sub)ects. (he indicator is B&percent successful in predicting which members of the freshmen class will not graduate ontime, and nearly as good at predicting who will not graduate within five years "7llensworthand Easton $%%&.$ "Cee (able +.

Table 1: Examples of Highly Predictive isk !actors for "ropping #ut from

"istrict $ohort %tudies

Type of Risk

Factor

Philadelphia Chicago Fall River, Mass.

Academic

Performance• Earning an • Lo grade point average in• !ery lo


4/24

"F" in English or

math d#ring $th or

%th grade

• Failing

co#rses and falling

&ehind in credits in

'th grade

• Failing to

earn a promotion

in 'th grade

'th grade

• Failing grades in 'th grade

• Lo credits earned d#ring

'th grade

• Falling "off track" d#ring

'th grade( i.e., either receiving

more than one semester F in core

academic co#rses or not earning

eno#gh credits to &e promoted to

)*th grade

grades or

attendance in +th

grade

• ignifican

t decline in

grades from -th

to $th grade

• ignifican

t decline in grade

point average

from %th to 'th

grade

• eing

retained in any

grade d#ring /0%

or in high school

Ed#cational

Engagement • Lo

attendance 1%*2

or loer3 d#ring

$th or %th or 'th

grade

• Receiving a

failing classroom

&ehavior mark

d#ring $th grade

Lo attendance d#ring 'th

grade

ignificant drop

in attendance

&eginning in $thgrade

Source4 adapted from 5erald, 6**$

(aken together, these studies offer five essential lessons that local districts should consider before they

invest in intervention or prevention programs

First, educational experiences are the best predictors of dropping out—better than race, poverty, age, gender, and personal circumstances

7lthough educators often believe dropping out to be driven by personal and family circumstancesunrelated to schooling "1oderick $%%4, most dropouts exhibit highly predictive educational warning signs.(hat finding supports results from surveys. For example, a federal survey revealed that dropouts are


5/24


6/24

co#nted as having left school itho#t a reg#lar diploma or certificate of attendance.

Source4 B.. 9epartment of Ed#cation, ational Center for Ed#cation tatistics,

Condition of Ed#cation Ta&le 6;07, from Ed#cation Longit#dinal t#dy of 6**6 1EL4

6**6:*+3, "First Follo0Bp, t#dent #rvey, 6**+," previo#sly #np#&lished talation15an#ary 6**$3.

Finn "+B, + argued that it would be a good thing if educational risk factors turned out to be betterpredictors because they are @alterable,@ as opposed to @status@ risk factors that educators have little or nocontrol over, such as poverty, gender, race, and family background. 7s we discuss below, one interventionprogram that heeded Finn's long!ago advice to monitor and address early educational warning signs hasachieved marked success keeping more students in school.

Cecond, for most dropouts, leaving school is not a sudden or surprising event. #ndeed, the vast ma)ority"B% to B& percent follows observable patterns through the education pipeline, exhibiting very clear signsof educational difficulty and disengagement well before tenth grade and often prior to high school. (hat

means schools and districts can identify most potential dropouts early enough to intervene.

(hird, transition years are critical gateways on the road to graduation, and many eventual dropouts firstdisplay warning signs during the year they enter middle or high school. (hat is not surprising #n additionto having to negotiate a new and often larger institutional setting, students often find that coursework ismore intellectually demanding while teachers are less supportive, peer relationships are morecomplicated, and they have more autonomy with less supervision "1oderick and >amburn +, Neild etal. $%%+. /roblems develop early, and reliable predictors of dropping out=such as declining grades orattendance=can be observed very early in the year.

Ctudents with a history of disengagement and academic difficulty are more likely to run into problemswhen they transition to middle or high school, but they are not alone. 7bout one in four students whoentered >hicago high schools with high eighth grade test scores "in the top ?uarter fell off track during

ninth grade, and only about one!third of those students recovered to graduate on time "7llensworth andEaston $%%&. Dikewise, nearly one!third of /hiladelphia dropouts exhibited no warning signs in eighthgrade but @hit the wall@ when they transitioned to high school "Neild and *alfan< $%%4.

Fourth, it appears that academics and engagement both matter for predicting who is in danger of notgraduating=a ?uestion about which there has been much recent confusion. Dast year a non!representative survey of dropouts found that most had received passing grades but were simply boredand unmotivated by school "*ridgeland et al. $%%4, prompting a spate of national news storiessuggesting that academic failure plays no significant role in the dropout problem. *alfan< and Degters"$%%4 countered that such findings conflict with evidence from cohort studies in places like /hiladelphiaand >hicago=where most dropouts leave school behind in credits after failing academic courses.

(he truth seems to be that academic performance and school engagement matter e?ually, and that they

are often, but not always, intertwined. Finn "+B, + argued that disengagement in the form ofabsences, misbehavior, and poor class participation can lead to failing grades. Cimply put, students whodo not @participate@ enough in school=show up, pay attention, and follow the rules=are more likely to failtheir classes. 0n the other hand, academic failure=caused either by low skills or low effort=can causestudents to feel alienated from school, leading to even greater withdrawal and lack of participation overtime.

Finally, it is dangerous to assume that districts can guess precisely which measures of academicperformance and educational engagement will turn out to be the best predictors. @*ehavior marks@ given


7/24

by middle school teachers in /hiladelphia were much better than suspensions at predicting which sixthgraders would eventually drop out of high school. #n both /hiladelphia and >hicago, more @sub)ective@measures of academic performance like classroom grades turned out to be better predictors than@ob)ective@ measures like test scores. 7nd, while low attendance shows up as a strong predictor invirtually every study, the precise threshold for defining @low@ can vary across districts or even acrossgrade levels within the same district.

7lthough other districts can adopt the predictors identified in >hicago and /hiladelphia, ;erald "$%%4recommends that local education leaders strongly consider conducting their own cohort analyses todiscover the precise @high!yield@ predictors in their own school systems. Fortunately, conducting a cohortstudy is neither overly complicated nor prohibitively expensive. 6istricts can simply backtrack throughstudent records, collecting information on cohorts who have already graduated=a process that took the/hiladelphia researchers only a few months even though the district lacked an electronic student recordsystem at the time.

Interventions: Helping at-risk students

Co far research has told us much more about identifying potential dropouts than about how to keep themin school ">hristenson and (hurlow $%%. Nevertheless, several targeted intervention programs have

demonstrated very promising results, and important lessons are beginning to emerge. "Cee the sidebarcalled @>onsumer *eware@ to understand why some evaluation methods tell us much more than others.

$onsumer be(are: Kno(ing (hat (orks

Many programs, incl#ding some that are ell0knon and idely implemented, do not

have m#ch solid evidence at all to &ack #p their claims. efore adopting a program,districts sho#ld ask 1)3 hether the program has &een e@ternally eval#ated, and 163

hether those eval#ations #sed solid research methods. E@perimental methods are especially important for eval#ating the effectiveness of

targetedD interventions that aim to prod#ce &etter o#tcomes for individ#al st#dents.

The e@perimental method divides st#dents into to gro#psa gro#p hose mem&ersreceive the intervention and a demographically similar control gro#pD hose

mem&ers do not.

The most rigoro#s e@perimental eval#ations randomly assign st#dents to a st#dy gro#p

and a control gro#p from among a larger gro#p of st#dents in the same school ordistrict ho are all eligi&le for, and consent to receive, the intervention. That is the

only ay to ens#re that the gro#ps are as alike as possi&lenot only in concrete,o&serva&le characteristics like race and gender t also in #no&served characteristics

like parental s#pport and motivation. Random assignment helps ens#re that the program itself is act#ally responsi&le for any differences in o#tcomes &eteen the to

gro#ps, so that e can &e confident it ill deliver similar res#lts hen later

implemented in other places. 1Myers and 9ynarski 6**73.

For e@ample, Agodini and 9ynarski 16**+3 fo#nd that creating a demographically


8/24

similar control gro#p simply &y looking at st#dent records in a national data&ase can

yield misleading findings. ?hy The act of seeking o#t or agreeing to participate in a

program might mean st#dents have intangi&le characteristics that canGt &e o&served

only &y looking at demographic characteristics like race, poverty, or gender. t#dents

ho vol#nteer for a program might &e more motivated to grad#ate anyay, or programcoordinators might &e targeting st#dents ho have personality traits that give them an

edge.

The federal ?hat ?orks Clearingho#se recently &egan to identify dropo#t intervention programs that can sho evidence from e@perimental

eval#ations4 .hatorks.ed.gov. /eeping an eye on that site is a good idea, since

the Clearingho#se intends to contin#e revieing the research and listing additionaldropo#t intervention programs &acked &y eval#ations that meet its standards.

>oever, cons#mers sho#ld e@ercise ca#tion in #sing the Clearingho#se, taking time

to read the original research caref#lly &efore investing scarce dollars in a partic#lar program or strategy. Hn 9ecem&er the Clearingho#se listed College earcha programdesigned to increase college attendanceas having a positive impact on high school

completion rates. That seemed like good nes &eca#se the program is less e@pensive

than many others and &eca#se it also has positive impacts &eyond high schoolcompletion. #t a closer look at the p#&lished st#dy reveals that the researchers

themselves ere less than confident of the programGs #sef#lness for dropo#t

prevention4

Most Talent earch pro


9/24

were designed as schools!within!schools and two were alternative middle schools with their owncampuses. *oth of the alternative middle schools=one in 7tlanta and other in Flint, :ichigan=dramatically reduced dropout rates and accelerated students' progress @>ompared with control groupstudents, treatment group students admitted to these programs were half as likely to drop out andcompleted an average of half a grade more of school@ "6ynarski and Aleason +B.

1esults from another federal initiative during the +%s confirm that intensity matters but suggest thatservices need not be delivered on separate campuses in order to make a difference. #n +%, the 2.C.6epartment of Education's 0ffice of Cpecial Education /rograms funded three five!year pro)ects todevelop interventions for middle school students with learning or emotional abilities who were at high riskof dropping out. >ollectively known as the @7*> /ro)ects,@ all three interventions were designed not onlyto provide direct services to students but also to improve connections between homes, schools, andcommunities "(hornton +&. (wo of the pro)ects, 7D7C and >heck >onnect, yielded some of the bestresults seen for any intervention to date.

chievement for !atinos through cademic "uccess #!"$

7D7C was implemented from +% to +& in a Dos 7ngeles >ounty )unior high school serving apredominantly low!income Datino population. (he program employed counselors who provided a set of

comprehensive and coordinated supports to students and parents "Darson and 1umberger +&,AGndara et al. +B.

Ctudent attendance was monitored on a period!by!period basis every day, and parents were contacteddaily about truancy or cut classes. 7D7C counselors communicated a personal interest that studentsattend regularly, taking initiative to help families overcome obstacles that stood in the way, and expectingstudents to make up missed time. (hey also helped teachers establish a system of regular feedback toparents and students about behavior, class work, and homework=on a monthly, weekly, or even dailybasis as needed.

Ctudents received ten weeks of instruction in a ten!step problem!solving strategy created by one of 7D7C's developers, along with two years of follow!up coaching. 6uring those sessions, counselorsdiscussed teachers' feedback and coached students in how to use the strategy to think through problems

related to attendance, behavior, and academic progress. (hey also followed up with teachers to keepthem informed about how students and parents had decided to address problems.

#n addition, counselors provided parents with direct instruction and modeling on how to participate in theirchild's schooling and manage adolescent behavior, as well as helping them to connect with a wide rangeof community programs and social services. 7nd they provided students with fre?uent positivereinforcements and group bonding activities, striving to help them feel more connected to school byshowing them that caring adults were taking an interest in them.

7D7C was evaluated using an experimental study that randomly assigned students to treatment andcontrol groups. *y the end of ninth grade=the final year of the program=participating students were onlyhalf as likely to have logged excessive absences or received failing grades, less likely to have fallenbehind in credits "$B percent versus - percent, and less likely to have dropped out of school "$ percent

versus +- percent. Ctudents also were less likely to have dropped out by tenth grade and by eleventhgrade, but differences between the control and treatment groups were negligible by senior year=suggesting that interventions must be sustained to keep highly at!risk students in school "Darson and1umberger +&, AGndara et al. +B, 9hat 9orks >learinghouse $%%4a.

7D7C has not been implemented beyond the initial demonstration pro)ect. 5owever, >heck >onnect=an 7*> pro)ect that used similar strategies to garner impressive results=has been replicated in urbanand suburban settings and adapted for implementation in elementary schools and high schools.


10/24

%heck & %onnect

Dike 7D7C, >heck >onnect is a highly targeted, individuali


11/24

9hen students exhibit behavior that signals increased risk=as recorded on the monthly monitoring sheet=monitors act immediately to address the problem and reconnect students with school. #ntensiveinterventions generally fall into three categories 7cademic supports "e.g., homework assistance ortutoring, targeted problem!solving "e.g., conflict resolution, helping students overcome barriers to wakingup and getting to school on time, negotiating alternatives to out!of!school suspensions, and helpingstudents explore recreational or community service opportunities.

>heck >onnect has been evaluated in several experimental studies. 0ne tracked a group of ninety!four students with learning or emotional disabilities=a high percentage of whom were low!income 7frican

7merican males from single!parent families=from seventh through ninth grades "Cinclair et al. +B. 7llstudents participated in >heck >onnect during seventh and eighth grade. /rior to ninth grade,researchers randomly assigned students either to a treatment group whose members continued toparticipate in the program or to a control group whose members did not. 7t the end of ninth grade,students in the treatment group were significantly less likely to have dropped out " percent versus %percent, to have experienced excessive absences "+& percent versus 4 percent, and to have fallen offtrack to graduate within five years "$ percent versus -+ percent.

7 more recent study followed + students from ninth grade through twelfth grade in seven urban,:idwestern high schools "Cinclair et al. $%%&. (he ma)ority were male, 7frican!7merican, low!income

students from single parent families who had been diagnosed with behavioral or emotional disabilities. *ythe end of twelfth grade, students in the treatment group were only slightly more likely to have graduatedfrom high school "% percent versus $ percent. 5owever, students in >heck >onnect weresignificantly less likely to have dropped out altogether " percent versus &B percent, which translates intoa one!third reduction in the dropout rate. :oreover, among a subgroup tracked for a fifth year, >heck >onnect participants dropped out at less than half the rate of their peers in the control group "$ percentversus percent.

(aken together, those findings suggest that an intensive, sustained intervention like >heck >onnect cancut dropout rates by as much as half, but it will take additional efforts to help highly at!risk studentsactually complete high school in a timely manner. "Cee the sidebar called @2nderstanding 0utcomes@ formore information on the difference between low dropout rates and high graduation rates and why districtsmust address both outcomes. (herefore, the program's developers believe that >heck >onnect ideally

should be coupled with schoolwide reforms "such as those discussed in the next section designed tohelp students stay on track to graduate "Cinclair et al. $%%, Cinclair et al. $%%&. "Cee >hart + #mpact ofdrop out prevention programs.


12/24

7lthough the elementary!level version of >heck >onnect has not been evaluated using experimentalmethods, researchers tracked +- participants for two years to assess whether they became moreengaged in school "Dehr et al. $%%a. 7t the end of two years, the number of participants with fewer thantwo tardies per month had more than doubled, from $ percent to B4 percent. Dikewise, the number ofstudents absent less than two days per month had more than doubled, from +- percent to % percent.

Ceveral other targeted interventions have demonstrated results based on controlled studies, even if notas rigorously scientific.

(he >oca!>ola Jalued 3outh /rogram "J3/. 6eveloped by the Can 7ntonio!based #ntercultural6evelopment and 1esearch 7ssociation in +B, the Jalued 3outh /rogram has since been implementedin more than $&% schools in twenty!five 2.C. cities ":ontecel et al. $%%. (he J3/ seeks to curb dropout


13/24

rates by enlisting at!risk secondary students in a cross!age tutoring program. Ctudent tutors are paid aminimum!wage stipend to work with elementary!age children and are honored for their efforts at functionswhere they receive tokens of appreciation. (utoring is meant to build self!esteem, develop independenceand problem!solving skills, and encourage at risk students to attend school "#ntercultural 6evelopment1esearch 7ssociation $%%.

(he tutoring component also functions as a way to leverage other kinds of direct support for academicperformance and educational engagement. #n order to serve as tutors, participants must agree to attend aweekly class that bolsters their own basic academic skills in addition to teaching them tutoring strategies.:oreover, program coordinators closely monitor daily attendance and immediately follow up with phonecalls or home visits when student tutors miss school. #f absences develop into truancy, coordinatorsprovide additional counseling and can help link families with social services. Finally, they meet with eachparticipant's parents three times per year.

(he program was evaluated in four Can 7ntonio!area middle schools using a @?uasi!experimental@ designin which outcomes for J3/ tutors were compared with outcomes for a group of randomly!selectedcomparison students "Fashola and Clavin +B. 7fter two years, only one J3/ participant out of +%+ "+percent had dropped out of school compared with eleven of the ninety!three comparison group students"+$ percent. 7lthough that +B study remains the only rigorous evaluation of J3/, the program's

sponsor says that )ust $ percent of participants have dropped out of school since its inception "Dehr et al.$%%b.

5owever, evaluations of another widely known program demonstrate the value of systematicallyreplicating and evaluating dropout interventions, offering a cautionary tale districts should consider beforedeciding to invest large sums of money in one particular program or another.

Kuantum 0pportunities /rogram "K0/. 0riginally funded by the Ford Foundation as a four!yeardemonstration pro)ect in five cities from +B to +, K0/ provides interventions through community!based organiompared with their peers in the control group, K0/ participantswere only somewhat more likely to have earned a diploma "4 percent versus % percent, and they were


14/24

only somewhat more likely to have earned a diploma or AE6 or to still be enrolled in school or a AE6program "- percent versus -$ percent.

0ne obstacle might have been the voluntary nature of some aspects of the program /articipantsaveraged only +- hours per year on K0/ activities, well short of the -&%!hour target, and participationdeclined significantly each year students were in the program ":axfield et al. $%%. 7lso, members of a

debriefing session pointed out that the replication sites targeted students based on different risk factors9hile the original sites enrolled students based on economic disadvantage regardless of their educationalexperiences, the replication sites targeted students based on poor academic performance=a strongerpredictor of dropping out and one that some sites were not ready to handle "Eisenhower Foundation$%%&.

(he interventions discussed above are by no means the only formal programs available. #ndeed, literallydoonsumer *eware@ sidebar. Cofar it has listed one program, >heck >onnect, as having @positive effects@ on dropout rates and severalprograms as having @potentially positive effects@ on staying in school "including 7D7C and >areer

7cademies, described below. Dehr et al. "$%%b provide profiles of eleven evidence!based interventionand prevention programs, including five not discussed in this paper.&

Prevention: %hanging the factors that schools control

7s long as twenty years ago, some researchers became concerned that educators too often vieweddropping out as a problem unrelated to schools, a social phenomenon they could do nothing about

"9helage and 1utter +B4. 1esearcher :elissa 1oderick observed that tendency first!hand during hertenure as director of planning for the >hicago /ublic Cchools "1oderick et al. $%% @Educators arguedvehemently that differences in the dropout rate across high schools were simply a reflection of differencesin the students they served, and were not a result of any actual differences in the ?uality of a school'sprograms, teachers, or administrators.@

*ut research has now challenged that assumption. #nstitutional factors matter at least as much asindividual characteristics, and some schools have much greater @holding power@ than others. Forexample, 7llensworth and Easton "$%%& found that dropout rates varied widely across >hicago highschools=even after they controlled for a host of individual risk factors, including race, gender, prioracademic achievement, family socioeconomic status, and whether students are overage when they enterninth grade.

5olding power seems to have a lot to do with whether schools ameliorate or exacerbate the stress oftransition years. 1oderick and >amburn "+ found that rates of ninth grade course failure and recoveryfrom first semester failure varied widely across >hicago high schools=above and beyond what would beexpected based on individual risk factors. (heir analysis found that only % percent of the overall variationin ninth grade course failure across high schools could be explained by differences in their @intake,@ thatis, the characteristics of entering freshmen. 0ther researchers have begun to piece together exactly how schools affect graduation rates. #nterestingly,

)ust as with individual risk factors, certain school characteristics that are @alterable,@ such as curriculum


15/24

and teacher!student relationships, turn out to have a much bigger impact on school completion than other factors that educators would be unable to change, such as the demographic makeup of the student bodyand whether a school is public or private "Dee and *urkam $%%.

Aenerally speaking, the school characteristics that boost @holding power@ fall into two broad categories=supportive environments and academic challenge. :ore specifically, researchers have found that

students who attend high schools that have enrollments lower than +,&%%, better interpersonalrelationships among students and adults, teachers who are more supportive of students, and a morefocused, academically rigorous curriculum tend to drop out at lower rates "6eDuca and 1osenbaum $%%%,>roninger and Dee $%%+, Dee and *urkam $%%.

)he positive impact of attending a school *ith a more supportiveenvironment is especially big

>roninger and Dee "$%%+ found that, other things being e?ual, high schools whose teachers are highlysupportive of students manage to cut the probability of dropping out nearly in half. (he finding helde?ually true for students at low, medium, and high risk of dropping out.4 0n the other hand, academicchallenge also seems to play a big role, which might surprise many observers in! and outside of schools

who believe there is a


16/24

7s discussed above, students often have difficulty making a successful transition to high school, andmany eventual dropouts experience sharp declines in grades and engagement after they enter ninthgrade. 5igh schools tend to be larger, more bureaucratic institutions that are more academically andsocially demanding than students are used to. 1esearch has found that restructuring ninth grade to createa more supportive experience can help curb dropout rates. (he Cchool (ransitional Environmental /rogram "C(E/ assigns at!risk students to homerooms in whichall their classmates are program participants. Ctudents from the same homeroom take all of their coreacademic courses together in one part of the school. 5omeroom teachers take on the roll of guidancecounselors, administrators, and instructors, helping students handle the educational and personalchallenges of ninth grade. (he program was evaluated using several ?uasi!experimental studies thattracked C(E/ participants and a randomly selected comparison group over time. 7fter five years C(E/participants were much less likely to have dropped out compared with those in the control group "$+percent versus percent "7merican 3outh /olicy Forum +B.

Lerr and Degters "$%% found that :aryland high schools grouping ninth graders into interdisciplinaryteaching teams had significantly lower dropout rates, all else being e?ual.- 5igh schools that used smalllearning communities "or schools!within!schools or @freshman academies@ in ninth grade also had lowerdropout rates=especially if they combined that with other reforms, such as extra academic support.*etween + and $%%%, :aryland high schools making widespread and sustained use ofinterdisciplinary teams experienced a &% percent decline in dropout rates, and those using small learningcommunities cut their dropout rate by nearly two!thirds.

7 number of comprehensive schoolwide reform models combine those two strategies with other supports.(wo models that have been rigorously evaluated by the research firm :61> have shown promise forreducing dropout rates

%areer academies

0ne of the oldest high school reform models, career academies can take the form of small, stand!alonehigh schools or=in the version aimed most specifically at curbing dropout rates=of small learningcommunities contained within larger high schools. >areer 7cademies combine academic coursework with

career and technical coursework, and they give students the chance to work with local employers.

:61> evaluated the model's impact on dropout rates using an unusually sophisticated and rigorousexperimental study "Lemple and Cnipes $%%%. 1esearchers followed +,-4 students who applied to a>areer 7cademy, & of whom were accepted for admission and B%& of whom were not. (he admissionswere based on a random lottery, ensuring that the treatment group and the control group were alikedemographically, academically, and even motivationally. #n addition, the researchers tracked a subgroupat very high risk of dropping out based on signs of poor academic performance or educationalengagement.

*y the end of their expected senior year, high!risk members of the 7cademy group were less likely tohave dropped out than high!risk members of the control group "$+ percent versus $ percent, whichtranslates into a one!third reduction in the dropout rate. "Cee >hart $ (argeted interventions can reduce

drop out rates of high!risk students. 1esearchers also examined which components of the >areer 7cademy design helped explain the positive impact. (he clear winner was greater support. Ctudents whoreceived especially high levels of support from teachers and peers during ninth or tenth grade were muchless likely to exhibit chronic absenteeism or drop out of high school, and career academies that did a poor

)ob enhancing support actually increased dropout rates for some students.


17/24

)nderstanding outcomes: Ho( can lo( dropout rates not mean high grad rates*

Bnderstanding the research on interventions re=#ires knoing a little &it a&o#t the

different o#tcomes researchers e@amine, especially the difference &eteen dropo#trates and completion rates.

Hn practical terms, addressing the dropo#t pro&lem and raising grad#ation rates are

related t somehat different challenges. For e@ample, a s#stained intervention or

prevention program might make an entering ninth grader more likely to stay in schoolrather than dropping o#t over the ne@t fo#r or five years.


18/24

>oever, if that st#dent does not complete all of the formal re=#irements for a

diploma, incl#ding the co#rse credits re=#ired &y a state or district, he or she ill not

grad#ate from high school on time. The st#dent o#ld help loer the dropo#t rate t

not help raise the completion rate 1Think of the first as sticking poerD and the

second as completing poerD.3

That e@plains ho an eval#ation can find that an intervention greatly red#ces the fo#r0

year dropo#t rate t has no impact on the completion ratesomething that can &e

conf#sing hen looking at effectiveness reports on the ?hat ?orks Clearingho#se1??C3 ?e& site.

Consider to programs, Check Connect and Career Academies, &oth of hich have

&een eval#ated #sing e@perimental st#dies that tracked ninth graders over a fo#r0year period and &oth of hich have received effectiveness reports from the ??C. At the

end of fo#r years, st#dents in those programs ere a&o#t one0third less likely to drop

o#t compared to control0gro#p st#dents not enrolled in the programs. >oever, the??C reported that &oth programs shoed no discerna&le effectsD on schoolcompletion.D

That does not mean s#ch programs do not ork. A one0third red#ction in dropo#t rates

is a siNea&le impact of the kind rarely seen in rigoro#s eval#ations of ed#cation programs.

Moreover, getting st#dents to stay in school is a very necessarytho#gh not s#fficient

ingredient in any effort to raise grad#ation rates. t#dents cannot earn diplomas if

they drop o#t of high school as ninth or tenth graders. Providing interventions that help

st#dents stick ith school and implementing reforms that increase the holding poerDof schools are the essential first steps toard increasing grad#ation rates.

At the same time, districts m#st seek additional strategies to help st#dents keep #p

ith grad#ation re=#irements and stay on track to earn a diploma. And that is hyreforms s#ch as Talent 9evelopmenthich is #sing do#&le0dose periods of math

instr#ction to help many more freshmen earn alge&ra creditsare important to

e@amine. /eep in mind, hoever, that Talent 9evelopment ill not sho #p on the??C anytime soon &eca#se eval#ators have not yet meas#red its direct impact on

fo#r0year dropo#t and completion rates.

5owever, the >areer 7cademies had no differential impact on long!term completion rates. 9henresearchers checked in on the cohort four years later, high!risk members of the 7cademy group were nomore likely to have earned a diploma than members of the control group "4& percent versus 4 percent.(aken together, those findings imply that >areer 7cademies have stronger @holding power@ than regularhigh schools, but that their lower dropout rates do not necessarily translate into higher long!termcompletion rates. "Cee the sidebar called @2nderstanding 0utcomes@ for an explanation of the differencesbetween dropout rates and completion rates.


19/24

>hart $ (argeted interventions can reduce drop out rates of high!risk students

)alent evelopment high schools

6eveloped and supported by ;ohns 5opkins 2niversity, the (alent 6evelopment model was designed toimprove achievement and graduation rates in high!poverty urban high schools where many students enter

ninth grade one or more years behind grade level in math and reading. (alent 6evelopment reorganiareer 7cademies that blend career and technical coursework with a rigorous college!prep curriculum.B

(he model also incorporates intensive academic supports. 6uring the first semester, ninth graders takethree courses designed to enable them to overcome poor preparation and succeed academically=Ctrategic 1eading, (ransition to 7dvanced :athematics "(7:, and a Freshman Ceminar that developspersonal and educational survival skills. 2nlike traditional @remedial@ classes, Ctrategic 1eading and (7:use specially developed curricula designed to accelerate learning and get students caught upacademically. Ninth graders then take regular college!prep courses like 7lgebra # during the second

semester.

#n order to get students caught up and on track in one year, (alent 6evelopment uses block scheduling todouble the amount of time ninth graders spend in math and language arts. Ninety!minute math andreading classes during the first semester allow teachers to fit in a full year's worth of catch!up instruction,and @double!dosing@ on algebra and English during the second semester allows students to complete afull year's worth of credit!bearing coursework. #n this way, students do not fall off track to graduate. (oprevent students from becoming bored in ninety!minute classes, (alent 6evelopment developed curriculathat incorporate highly motivational materials and activities designed to appeal to teenagers.

(hat combination of intensive social and academic supports seems to be paying off. #n /hiladelphia, agroup of neighborhood high schools replicating (alent 6evelopment have seen substantial gains inattendance, academic credits earned, and promotion rates for several cohorts of ninth graders "Lemple et

al. $%%&. #n contrast, a group of matched comparison high schools showed little improvement inoutcomes over the same period. (he researchers are still measuring the model's impact on dropout andcompletion rates, but so far the impact seems positive.

7t the same time, even with such intensive supports, more than one!third of freshmen still fell off trackand did not earn promoting to tenth grade. Cuch results have led (alent 6evelopment officials to believethat districts "especially those in big cities must also focus attention on better preparing studentsacademically before they reach ninth grade "*alfan< and Degters $%%.

*etter preparation for high school. 1esearch suggests that improving the instruction students get duringkindergarten through eighth grade would prevent problems during transition years and have a positiveimpact on graduation rates "Finn et al. $%%&, /revatt and Lelly $%%.

1oderick "$%%4 contends that >hicago provides a good case study that shows improving basic skills prior to high school can help improve graduation rates. Eighth grade achievement began rising during the+%s due to a host of reform efforts being implemented by the >hicago /ublic Cchools, and high schooldropout rates began declining. 7lthough part of that reduction in dropout rates can be explained by otherfactors, most can be explained by improvements in the academic skills of students leaving middle schools"7llensworth $%%.

5owever, several cautions are in order


20/24

0ne policy meant to ensure students are prepared before they enter high school might have negativeeffects on graduation rates=that is, the policy to end @social promotion@ by holding back students who donot pass standardihicago and/hiladelphia. (hose students exhibit no early warning signs and tend to drop out in the upper gradesmany have earned the ma)ority of credits needed for a diploma. (he researchers speculate that manymembers of this group might be @life event@ dropouts who leave because of premature transitions toadulthood, such as work or child care responsibilities, and find it difficult to attend school full!time"1oderick $%%4, 7llensworth and Easton $%%&, Neild and *alfan< $%%4.

(he first step in considering whether and how to implement recovery programs is to analy


21/24

in school "New 3ork >ity 0ffice of :ultiple /athways to Araduation $%%4. Cuch students need moreintensive programs that can help them expeditiously earn credits toward a diploma.

/roponents of dropout!recovery strategies recommend that districts create @multiple pathways tograduation@ for such students. (he New 3ork >ity 6epartment of Education recently created an 0ffice of:ultiple /athways "0:/ to oversee an expanding portfolio of second!chance options, including 3oung

7dult *orough >enters for teenagers who have at least half the credits necessary to graduate and(ransfer 5igh Cchools, small, academically rigorous schools designed for teenagers who are overageand under!credited.

Co far, little to no formal research has been conducted on recovery programs like those )ust mentioned. 7n analysis conducted by New 3ork >ity's 0:/ found that (ransfer 5igh Cchools have a graduation rateof &4 percent, compared with a district wide rate of + percent for overage, under!credited youth inregular high schools "0ffice of :ultiple /atheways $%%4. (he district hopes to maintain such outcomesas it expands the number of (ransfer 5igh Cchools over the next few years.

5owever, some research studies on alternative schools elsewhere have shown mixed results. (heresearch firm :athematica conducted an experimental study of two alternative schools=one in >aliforniaand one in Lansas=using random assignment of applicants "6ynarski and 9ood +-. 7t the end of

four years, one school showed a positive impact on graduation rates for the treatment group comparedwith the control group "+- percent versus ++ percent, but the other school did not. (he researchersconcluded that alternative schools can help more students graduate at higher rates, but will notautomatically do so.

Implementation: )hings to consider

9hile the dropout problem is daunting, research conducted over the past decade should dispel the notionthat schools are powerless to do anything about dropping out and encourage optimism that districts canhelp many more young people stay in school. 9e now know it is possible to identify most dropouts byninth grade and many well before that. 9e have examples of interventions that can significantly reducedropout rates even for groups of students at very high risk of dropping out. 7nd we have seen howeducators in even the toughest urban neighborhoods can ease the transition to high school and keep

more students on track to graduate.

*ut that optimism should be tempered with caution when it comes to crafting specific strategies fortackling the problem. 6istricts should keep the following lessons in mind as they craft comprehensiveplans to raise graduation rates.

Intervention

Experimental studies have provided solid evidence that early interventions must be more intensive thanthe programs typically implemented by schools and districts. :oreover, the interventions that work bestincorporate multiple strategies rather than relying on one kind of support "for example, tutoring ormentoring. (he best!proven interventions tend to have many of the following elements "7nderson et al.

$%%, Dehr et al. $%%b, 6ynarksi $%%

• 5ighly personali


22/24

• Cubstantial communication with and support for parents.

• >onnections between schools, families, and community services=while managing to keepthe primary focus on educational progress.

:oreover, some effective interventions address low academic skills through highly structured @catch!up@instruction "6ynarski and Aleason +B, Fashola and Clavin +B. Finally, the research stronglysuggests that even the best available early interventions cannot inoculate students against academicproblems and disengagement as they move into and through high school, but rather must be sustaineduntil students graduate.

(he @relationships@ aspect of intensive intervention should not be underestimated. #n a study ofelementary and middle school participants in >heck >onnect, 7nderson et al. "$%% found thatstronger relationships between monitors and students produced bigger improvements in attendance andother forms of engagement, everything else being e?ual. (he researchers note that, @0ther than >heck >onnect, we are aware of only a handful of relationship!based interventions H. . .I. #t should also be notedthat while there are a number of mentoring programs targeted to youth, many of these are community! orpeer!based andOor do not have structured intervention components with a focus on educationaloutcomes.@

(his is a key point 2nlike many programs that use counselors or mentors merely to provide role modelsor enhance self!esteem, >heck >onnect uses them to leverage a more intensive set of targetedinterventions and supports. :onitors not only @bond@ with students but also take a relentlessly @data!driven@ approach to tracking their school performance and engagement. (his allows monitors to intervenerapidly at the very first sign of trouble rather than waiting for students to come to them after they land inserious hot water, as well as to tailor support to students' specific needs. #t also allows them to keepeveryone focused on student's educational progress toward graduation.

7s Darson and 1umberger "+& conclude, for students at high risk of dropping out, @interventions must

be intensive, comprehensive, coordinated, and sustained. 7nything less is naPve and will sow onlymarginal results.@

0f course, coordinated, comprehensive, and intensive interventions also are usually more expensive. 7program like 7D7C would cost about 8+,+B& per student per year in $%%& dollars "9hat 9orks>learinghouse $%%4. >heck >onnect costs about 8+,4%% per student per year "Cocial /rograms that9ork $%%4. 5owever, that does not mean intensive interventions @aren't cost!effective.@ #n fact, whilelow!intensity interventions that provide some mentoring, homework help, or occasional counseling arecheaper and easier to implement, they might not be cost!effective at all in the long run because they donot reduce dropout rates.

Prevention

9hile conserving scarce resources is always important, districts should try to avoid an all!in!one!basketapproach to addressing the dropout problem. ;ust as in dentistry, interventions are often necessary torepair teeth and fill cavities. *ut prevention in the form of good brushing and flossing, a healthy diet,fluorinated water, and regular check!ups can help prevent problems from developing in the first place.Leeping more teeth in your mouth to a ripe old age re?uires both prevention and intervention, and thesame is true when it comes to keeping more students in school and on track to graduate.

7 district's preventive measures should pay particular attention to transition years=especially ninth grade=and target high schools with weak holding power for comprehensive schoolwide reforms. (hose


23/24

reforms should balance rigorous and relevant coursework with high levels of social and academicsupport. 6istricts should work to boost academic achievement to better prepare students for high school,but at the same time keep in mind that better L!B achievement is no panacea.

Finally, districts should take a data!driven approach to tackling the problem. #nvesting in data up front willgarner a much bigger @bang for the buck@ from their intervention, prevention, and recovery efforts. *y no

longer targeting the wrong students with the wrong solutions, districts will avoid wasting dollars. *ytargeting the right students with the right interventions and the right schools for preventive reforms,districts will sow bigger increases in their high school graduation rates. 7nd by improving graduation ratesdistricts will reap a wide range of long!term social and economic benefits for their communities=savingtaxpayers money, expanding tax revenues, boosting employment, reducing crime, and improvingcitihicago /ublic Cchools adopted the indicator and now publicly reports each school's overall on!

track rate in its annual 5igh Cchool Ccorecards.

(hat is not to argue that educational factors are the only @ultimate causes@ of dropping out, which is avery different ?uestion from how educators can predict and intervene in the process "Neild *alfanheck >onnect manual provides suggested thresholds for considering a student at highrisk on each indicator the program tracks "e.g., three or more absences per month as well as ideas forsolving problems related to each risk factor "Evelo et al. +4.

nterpersonal 1elationsO/ersonal Arowth >lass, /reventing Cchool 6ropout *eginning in ElementaryArades "a behavior modification program, /ro)ect >0FFEE, Cupport >enter for 7dolescent :others"Family Arowth >enter, and (een 0utreach /rogram "(0/.

4(hose findings would not surprise 7D7C counselors or >heck >onnect monitors, who found thatschools can be inflexible and unsupportive, forcing program personnel to act as advocates on behalf offamilies and students. For example, administrators often preferred to assign out!of!school suspensions for misbehavior even though such forms of discipline tend to depress academic performance andengagement. Founders of both programs have argued that targeted interventions must be coupled withschoolwide reforms to create more supportive environments in order to substantially raise graduationrates "Darson and 1umberger +&, Cinclair et al. +B.

-Cuch teams are made up of teachers across different sub)ects who share a common group of students.

BCtudents who have special needs or who transfer in mid!year can take advantage of an after!school(wilight 7cademy.

;ohns 5opkins has developed and is currently testing a (alent 6evelopment :iddle Cchool model.


24/24

(his document was written by >raig ;erald, president of *reak the >urve >onsulting, located in9ashington, 6.>. ;erald was previously a principal partner at the Education (rust, an advocacy andresearch organienter for /ublic Education

5ome R Ctaffing and Ctudents R Leeping kids in school 7t a glance R Leeping kids in school /reventing dropouts

Chare(his >opy and /aste! Cee more at httpOOwww.centerforpubliceducation.orgO:ain!:enuOCtaffingstudentsOLeeping!kids!in!

school!7t!a!glanceOLeeping!kids!in!school!/reventing!dropouts.htmlScssTprintUsthash.smN*2J0/.dpuf
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/default.aspxhttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudentshttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudentshttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudentshttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glancehttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glancehttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glancehttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glance/Keeping-kids-in-school-Preventing-dropouts.htmlhttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/default.aspxhttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudentshttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glancehttp://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glance/Keeping-kids-in-school-Preventing-dropouts.html

Keeping Kids in School

Documents

Transcript of Keeping Kids in School