October 15, 2009 Solving the Dropout Crisis in California Russell W. Rumberger California Dropout...
-
Upload
tierra-wark -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of October 15, 2009 Solving the Dropout Crisis in California Russell W. Rumberger California Dropout...
October 15, 2009
Solving the Dropout Crisis in California
Russell W. RumbergerCalifornia Dropout Research Project
UC Santa Barbara
California Symposium on Poverty
Sacramento
October 15, 2009
Urgency
• “And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country -- and this country needs and values the talents of every American.”
--Barack Obama, February 24, 2009
October 15, 2009
• New research with a focus on California (15 studies)
• Policy recommendations from policy committee (policymakers, educators, researchers)
• Dissemination through publications (statistical briefs, research reports, policy briefs), website, media
California Dropout Research ProjectActivities
October 15, 2009
Dimensions of the Problem
1. Magnitude and trends
2. Consequences
3. Causes
4. Solutions
October 15, 2009
1. The problem is severe.
October 15, 2009
California graduation rate
83.3%
80.2%
67.3%
68.5%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
CDE official state rate (NCLB) CDE 9th grade cohort rate
California High School Exit Exam Required
October 15, 2009
Problem is concentrated
• English learners represent 15% of high school students, but account for 30% of the dropouts
• 1% (25) of the schools account for 21% of dropouts
• 10 districts account for 36% of dropouts
October 15, 2009
2. The economic costs are staggering.
October 15, 2009
The Consequences of Dropping Out
• INDIVIDUAL CONSEQUENCES– Lower wages– Higher unemployment– Increased crime– Poorer health– Reduced political
participation– Reduced
intergenerational mobility
• SOCIAL COSTS– Reduced national and
state income– Reduced tax revenues– Increased social services– Increased crime– Poorer health – Reduced political
participation– Reduced intergenerational
mobility
October 15, 2009
Economic Costs in California
Dropouts Costs
California 123,651 $24 Billion
Los Angeles 12,367 $2 Billion
Fresno 3,236 $555 Million
San Diego 3,115 $534 Million
October 15, 2009
3. The causes are complex—related to students, families, schools, and communities
October 15, 2009
Understanding Causes
• Causes vs. reasons and predictors• Individual vs. institutional factors• Individual and family factors
– Demographic vs. behavioral/attitudinal (alterable vs. unalterable)
– Proximal (high school) vs. distal (before h.s.)
• School and community factors– Resources vs. practices
• Dropout vs. achievement
October 15, 2009
28
35
28
34
32
37
38
41
44
82
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Got a job
ANY JOB REASON
Pregnant
ANY FAMILY REASON
Could not keep up with schoolwork
Did not like school
Failing in school
Thought it would be easier to get GED
Missed too many days of school
ANY SCHOOL REASON
Reasons for Dropping Out
October 15, 2009
8th Grade Predictors(Percent increase in odds of dropping out between grade 8 and 12)
30
54
72
75
150
150
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Misbehaved
Low grades (6-8)
Low test scores
Low educational expectations (<=12 years)
High absenteeism (>25%)
Retained (1-8)
SOURCE: Rumberger and Larson (1998).
October 15, 2009
Student and School Predictors(Predicted 10th grade graduation rates by student and school SES, 2002)
74
87
80
91
85
93
83
86
89
70
75
80
85
90
95
Low Middle High
Individual SES
Per
cent
School SES Low School SES Middle School SES High
SOURCE: Preliminary analysis of data from Education Longitudinal Study: 2002.
October 15, 2009
Implications of Research Findings for Policy and Practice• Address both academic and social needs of
students • Start before high school—more effective and
less costly • Focus on individual students and institutions that
support them (families, schools, and communities)
October 15, 2009
4. There are a range of possible solutions.
October 15, 2009
Interventions
• Programmatic—focus on students– Support programs– Alternative programs/schools
• Systemic—focus on system– Comprehensive school reform– School/community partnerships– School/district capacity building– State policies
October 15, 2009
Programmatic Solutions
• Advantages– Easier to design, fund, implement, evaluate
• Disadvantages– Limited impact--only appropriate where dropout
problem is small– Adds to programmatic “overload” at local level– Few proven programs—What Works Clearinghouse
has identified five proven programs
October 15, 2009
What Works Clearinghouse (US Department of Education)
• Reviewed 84 studies of 22 dropout interventions• Only 23 studies of 16 interventions had rigorous
evaluations– Seven effective in reducing dropout rates– Six effective in improving student progress toward graduation– Four effective in improving completion (inc. GED) rates– Zero effective in improving graduation rates
October 15, 2009
Systemic Solutions• Advantages
– Potential to impact more students—more appropriate in “dropout factories”
– Potential to impact multiple educational outcomes (test scores and dropout rates)
• Disadvantages– More difficult to alter families, schools, and communities– Few proven comprehensive school reform models—Comprehensive
School Reform Quality Center identified 3 out of 18 models that significantly improved graduation rates
– Unclear what incentives, resources, and support needed to improve school and district capacity
October 15, 2009
CDRP Policy Report(released February 27, 2008)
• Policy strategy—pressure and support• Pressure—modify accountability system, report more
useful data• Support—build capacity of schools, districts, state—
rather than implementing programs• Will improve achievement and other student outcomes• Improvement requires fiscal, human, and social
resources
October 15, 2009
What the State Should Do
1. Fix the accountability system in order to maintain pressure and to allow sufficient time to address the problem.
2. Collect and report more useful data on dropouts and the state’s progress in improving graduation rates.
3. Develop high school reform standards and create “lighthouse” districts to implement them in schools with high dropout rates.
4. Undertake middle school reform.
5. Make strategic investments in proven dropout prevention strategies targeting the most disadvantaged students and schools.
October 15, 2009
Proven InterventionsBenefit-Cost Ratio
Preschool 2.33
Preschool + Early Childhood 3.59
Class size reduction in grades K-3 (15 to 1)
--All students
--Low-income students
1.29
2.11
Raise teacher salaries 2.65
High school reform 4.47
October 15, 2009
What Districts Should Do
1. Marshal the will of the district and community to address the dropout problem.
2. Adopt proven strategies to keep students in school and support their successful graduation.
3. Develop a structured, participatory, and timed process for implementing these strategies in all targeted schools.
4. Develop and use data to monitor the implementation of the strategies and to modify the implementation plan
5. Partner with outside support organizations to identify strategies and to develop and monitor implementation .
October 15, 2009
What Schools Should Do
1. Create a personalized learning environment for both students and teachers.
2. Provide academic and social supports for students.
3. Provide rigorous and meaningful instruction.
4. Create connections to the real world.
October 15, 2009
Implementing Recommendations
• Choosing between strategies, targeted programs, schoolwide programs
• Selecting strategies and programs that are both effective and cost effective
• Matching programs and strategies with local context—populations, resources, capacity
• Evaluating outcomes of locally implemented programs
cdrp.ucsb.edu