THESIS

HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS

Hispanic Dropout Rates: A Multidimensional Analysis

Molly C. Haack

Senior Research Capstone

Lynchburg College

1


ABSTRACT

This research study reviews the social phenomenon of higher dropout rates among

Hispanic students enrolled in secondary education. It argues for the merits of multidimensional

analysis that accounts for the interaction of multiple social factors. This research study focuses

on both student specific and institutional factors; the individual perspective focuses more on the

individual, case-specific factors associated with dropping out, and the institutional perspective

emphasizes the contextual factors found in the students’ families, schools, and communities.

This research study also discusses the extent to which these frameworks can be used, by

explaining differences in dropout rates among social groups, particularly Hispanic students. The

analysis section of this study examines various strategies to help address the at risk student. This

is conducted by reviewing examples of both programmatic and systemic solutions, and the extent

to which a given policy can effectively address serious impediments to educational success.

INTRODUCTION

Higher dropout rates among Hispanic students in secondary education are a concern that

has plagued our nation. In light of this sustained decrease in academic enrollment,

multidimensional analyses are required that account for the interaction of multiple social factors.

Specifically, a more comprehensive approach to dropout rates should take account of both

student specific and institutional factors. The crucial question here becomes: what factors are

most essential to analyze collectively? There are social and financial pressures that have become

more imperative than one’s own right to (and desire for) an education. The multidimensional

framework for this study includes individual, case-specific and institutional perspectives. The

individual perspective focuses more on the individual factors associated with dropping out. The

2


institutional perspective emphasizes the contextual factors found in students’ families, schools,

communities, and peers. Both of these frameworks are necessary to understand this complex

social phenomenon that has not only influenced the Hispanic community, but the totality of our

nation as well.

METHODS

The purpose of this secondary research study is to analyze previous literature, theories,

and key factors, which may in fact, influence Hispanic students to drop out of high school.

Government reports, statistics, and varying research studies have been analyzed in order to make

an assertion of the leading cause for such a high percentage of dropout rates, pertaining

specifically to this ethnic group. A more comprehensive approach to dropout rates takes account

of both students, case-specific and institutional factors. The crucial question throughout the

entirety of this study: what factors are most essential to analyze together? The multidimensional

frameworks for this study included both individual and institutional perspectives. The individual

perspectives focused more on the individual factors associated with dropping out. The

institutional perspective emphasized the contextual factors found in students’ families, schools,

communities, and peers.

In order to operationalize the data provided, one must review the representation of needs

that are considered most important to the Hispanic student population, rather than the

achievement of graduating high school. The dependent variables collected, are the factors that

influence a Hispanic student (the independent variable) to drop out of school. Both individual

and institutional perspectives affect the lives of these students firsthand. Individual social (socio-

personal) factors include: race, ethnicity, values, attitudes, behaviors, relationships (peer and

3


adult), and English as a second language. Although, social factors are an imperative influence

towards the “at risk” students, institutional factors are essential as well. These institutional

perspectives include: school activities, exit exams, per pupil spending, late retention, and

demographics (low income areas). Both of these frameworks are essential to understand this

complex social phenomenon that has influenced the Hispanic community.

These reiterated variables truly reflect the concept of both qualitative and theoretical data.

Addressing the problem of low graduation rates among Hispanic students, allows one to fathom

the reasoning for choosing a synthesis of particular variables, i.e., the individual and institutional

perspectives as the greatest form of conceptualizing adequate data. Visual models can be

examined in tables 1 and 2, stated below. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate 2002-2009

(Table 1) documents the graduation rates between both White and Hispanic students. The

percentage among White students underwent a relative increase, while the percentage of

Hispanic students either remained stagnant, or decreased over the documented years. In terms of

dropout rates for 16 through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity, from 1990-2012 (Table 2), the status

dropout rate was lower for Whites than for Black and Hispanic students. The Hispanic rate was

significantly higher than both Black and White races, which was comprised as a similar outcome

between both tables.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Each year in the United States, five percent of all high school students drop out of school;

dropout rates vary widely among major racial and ethnic groups. “In 1998, the dropout rates

among persons 16 to 24 years old were 7.7 percent for White, non-Hispanics, 13.8 for Black,

non-Hispanics, and 29.5 for Hispanics” (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

4


Education Statistics, 2000, Table 108). The high capacity of dropout rates among Hispanic

students has become a particular concern for the federal government. Students who drop out of

high school are becoming a financial liability to our nation and more importantly, represent

considerable loss of potentially positive contributions to social wellbeing. “Research

demonstrates that dropouts are also more likely to have health problems, engage in criminal

activities, and become dependent on welfare and other government programs than high school

graduates” (Rumberger, 1987). All of these factors come at the nation’s expense. Through

government aid and spending, taxpayers are blindly supporting the lives of high school dropouts,

since they consist of 75 percent of those who are unemployed.

According to the United States Department of Education and the National Center for

Education Statistics (Table 1), White students have a much greater percentage of graduation rates

than Hispanic students. Documented from 2002-2009, the graduation rate for White students

continuously increases, while the percentage of Hispanic students either remains the same, or

decreases over the years, which initially leads to a higher percentage of dropout rates across the

nation.

Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) 2002-2009. (Table 1)

Year Hispanic WhiteTotal Total

2002-2003 65.9 78.72003-2004 66.7 79.82004-2005 62.2 80.42005-2006 61 80.32006-2007 60.8 80.42007-2008 63.4 812008-2009 67 81.8

5


The Condition of Education 2012. (Table 2)

As “The Condition of Education” (Table 2) data above conveys, racial inequality as

especially evident in terms of education and educational success. The national average high

school dropout rate is 7.4 percent. For Caucasians and Asians, this percentage decreases. On the

other hand, for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, this percentage increases,

and in the case of Hispanics more than doubles.

According to the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (Table 3), the status dropout rate represents the percentage of 16 through 24-year-olds

who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential, “(either a diploma

or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate).”

Based on data from the Current Population Survey, the status dropout rate decreased from 12

percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2012, with most of the decline occurring after 2000. However,

6


there was no measurable difference in the rate between 2011 and 2012. In each year from 1990

to 2012, the status dropout rate was lower for Whites than for Blacks and Hispanics. The rate for

Hispanics declined from 32 to 13 percent. “As a result, the gap between Whites and Hispanics

narrowed from 23 percentage points in 1990 to 8 percentage points in 2012.” However, the

Hispanic rate was significantly higher than both Black and White races.

Status dropout rates of 16 through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 1990-2012 (Table 3)

7


While the rates for both Whites and Blacks declined during this period, the gap between

the rates in 1990 was not measurably different from the gap between the rates in 2012. The

White-Black gap did narrow between 2000 and 2012 (from 6 percentage points to 3 percentage

points).

In Houston, Texas, a documentary titled “Dropout Nation,” piqued concern for the

public. Sharpstown High School, a school known for greater than average dropout rates, strained

to maintain a balance between graduating students, and students who are on the path of dropping

out. According to writer and produce Koughan, "Houston appealed to me because it was a place

that historically had a serious dropout problem, but they were taking steps to try and rectify the

concern” (2012). The documentary features several at-risk students who face a troubling journey

that may result in dropping out. Marco, a Hispanic student who rarely attends class, is one of the

few students interviewed. His father was deported two years prior to the documentary airing. In

fear of losing his mother to deportation, he continuously worked 40-hour weeks, in order to

support both him and his remaining family members. School attendance was not a prime concern

for Marco. Other factors influenced him, leaving dropping out as a more favorable solution.

Marco is viewed as a representation of all Hispanic students who are facing a challenging time

graduating. Although, Hispanic dropout rates are the highest among all other ethnicities, Marco

is the only student who was interviewed in the documentary who in essence, graduated high

school. He put in additional effort and time, in order to make his dreams of graduating a reality.

Understanding why Hispanic students drop out of high school is the key to addressing

this major educational issue. Demographic indicators point to a potential increase in dropout

rates among Hispanic students. The amount of students who are generally at a greater risk of

school failure are students from low-income households, racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities.

8


Unfortunately, the majority of Hispanic students meet all of these criteria. Public schools that are

present in low-income areas, are attempting to come up with a solution to lower the percentage

of dropout rates, in hopes of ultimately accomplishing a 90 percent graduation rate. Public

institutions have pushed for a greater number in school accountability. “That has produced social

promotion, and to institute high school exit exams, which could increase the number of students

who fail to complete high school” (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). The attempt to implement exit

exams for these students is only resulting in academic detriment, which in turn contributes to

dropout rates among Hispanic students.

TOWARD A MULTIDIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK

The multidimensional framework advocated here draws attention to the interaction of

numerous social factors. First, the framework takes up the individual student’s perspective,

which predictably consists in the social attributes of students, such as their values, attitudes,

social (including immigration) status, family income, and routine behaviors. Why is it the case

that these particular attributes contribute to the individual’s decision to quit school?

Conceptualized through such a framework are two subdivisions of engagement: academic

engagement and social engagement. “Engagement is reflected in students’ attitudes and

behaviors with respect to both the formal aspects of school (e.g., classrooms and school

activities) and the informal ones (e.g., peer and adult relationships” (Rumberger, 1987). Both of

these engagements can influence the decision to withdraw from school. Hispanic students may

drop out of school simply because they are not doing well (academic engagement), or because

they are not getting along with their peers (social engagement). Rumberger argues that either one

of these perspectives is sufficient as a potential cause of school withdrawal. With these factors in

9


mind, Hispanic students who either interrupt their schooling by dropping out or by changing

schools, or who have poor academic performances, are less likely to graduate from high school.

Meso-Level Social Factors: School Policies and Immigrant Status

Late retention is an additional indicator of prior school performance. A significant

amount of Hispanic students are held back in school each year. For example, Rumberger, “found

that students who were retained in grades 1 to 8 were four times more likely to drop out between

grades 8 and 10 than students who were not retained” (1995). Virtually all empirical studies to

date suggest that retention significantly increases the likelihood of dropping out of high school.

Some recent studies with more direct measures of family relationships have confirmed that

strong relationships between students and parents also reduce the odds of dropping out of school.

“Empirical studies have found that students whose parents monitor and regulate their activities,

provide emotional support, encourage independent decision making, and are generally more

involved in their schooling are less likely to drop out of school” (Astone & McLanahan, 1991).

With aid from parents, Hispanic students will be less likely to undergo late retention and also

develop a greater relationship with close family members within the home.

The overall influence of school practices, policies, wealth allocation, staff-student

interaction, and broader issues of school culture on Hispanic dropout rates is likewise quite

significant. A study was drawn from a 10th grade dropout sample of 247 urban and suburban high

schools in 1990. “The median dropout rate is 4.2 percent, which means about 4 out of every 100

10th grade students dropped out of the ‘average’ high school in the sample” (Rumberger, 1995).

However, the dropout rate for individual schools varies from less than 2 percent to over 40

percent. At least some of that variability, however, is due to differences in the background

10


characteristics of the Hispanic students. The adjusted dropout rates still show widespread

differences among schools. This suggests schools actually do influence dropout rates.

Four types of school characteristics have been linked to student performance: student

composition, resources, structural characteristics, and practices.

“The first three factors are sometimes considered as school inputs by economists and

others who study schools because they refer to the ‘inputs’ into the schooling process that

are largely ‘given’ to a school and therefore not alterable by the school itself”(Hanushek,

1989).

This is in reference to per pupil spending provided on the state level. The practices factor refers

to the school systems actual control over spending, which can ultimately be used to judge a

school’s effectiveness.

Through both retention and school resources provided at the state level, per pupil

spending has a significant impact on high school retention and dropout rates. Studies suggest that

resources do in fact have an influence on high school dropout rates, especially among Hispanic

students. “Two studies found that the pupil/teacher ratio had a positive and significant effect on

high school dropout rates even after controlling for a host of individual and contextual factors

that might also influence dropout rates” (McNeal, 1997). One of those studies concluded that the

higher the quality of the teacher as perceived by the principal, the higher the dropout rate.

Another study found that up to half of the observed differences in dropout rates between

Whites and minorities would be reduced significantly if racial groups attended schools with

similar racial and socioeconomic compositions. In particular, critics of the first approach argue

that it fails to explain why some minority groups with similar socioeconomic backgrounds

11


succeed, while other groups do not. “Instead, they argue that sociocultural factors particularly

cultural differences in values, attitudes, and behaviors help explain why some racial and ethnic

minorities are successful in American schools and others are not” (Mayer, 1991).

Socioeconomic and Immigrant Status

Minorities can be classified into two groups: voluntary minorities who came to the

United States by their own choosing, and involuntary minorities who were brought into the

United States against their will, either through immigration or domination (African-Americans

and early Mexican-Americans). Voluntary and involuntary minorities view school success very

differently.

“Voluntary minorities do not perceive learning the attitudes and behaviors required for

school success as threatening their own culture, language, and identities, while

involuntary minorities do not seem to be able or willing to separate attitudes and

behaviors that result in academic success from those that may result in linear

acculturation or replacement of their cultural identity with White American cultural

identity” (Ogbu, 1992, pg. 9-10).

Aside from this empirical study, sociocultural perspectives suggest differences in attitudes and

behaviors of students, peers, and families, which help explain both racial and ethnic differences

in school achievement.

Despite limited empirical evidence, both socioeconomic and sociocultural perspectives

may help explain racial and ethnic differences in dropout rates by emphasizing varying casual

factors. “Socioeconomic perspectives focus on the fiscal, human, and social resources of

families, school, and communities and their similar influence on the development of students’

12


values and cognitive abilities across all racial and ethnic groups” (Rumberger, 1998).

Sociocultural perspectives focus on cultural differences in the attitudes and behaviors among

racial and ethnic groups that influence school success in both the social and academic factors.

Stated in this section on socio-cultural differences, in particular those associated with voluntary

and involuntary immigrant status are of extreme importance for the development of policy and

dropout prevention strategies.

THEORETICAL BASIS OF DROPOUT PREVENTION STRATEGY

As the concluding portion of the preceding section demonstrates, the framework of the

individual perspective provides ways to understand dropping out from individual attitudes and

behaviors, but the institutional perspective shapes these factors as well and thus cannot be

disregarded. Thus, it is important to conceive of a compelling synthesis of these two in

constructing a dropout prevention strategy. A child’s family, school, and community can all

shape the behavior based on the cross-pressures and social expectations that various social

settings or contexts may exert on students. The family is viewed as the most important of the

social factors that increase the risk of delinquency. Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory posits

four subcategories, attachment, belief, commitment, and involvement, all of which play a crucial

role in potential dropout rates among the Hispanic community. The social bond theory addresses

the idea of influence by those who you surround yourself with, and how they leave a detrimental

impact on one’s wellbeing. According to Professor Murphy (2015), “Schools are often viewed as

a source of juvenile delinquency, which conditions educational failure.” English as a second

13


language, truancy, and suspension, may all lead to dropping out of school, which in fact, can all

stem from social bond theory.

One’s own family background is widely recognized as the single most important

contributor to success in school. Much of the empirical research has focused on the structural

characteristics of the families, such as socioeconomic status and family structure. “Research has

consistently found that socioeconomic status, most commonly measured by parental education

and income, is a powerful predictor of school achievement and dropout behavior” (Bryk &

Thum, 1989). Research has also demonstrated that Hispanic students from single-parent and step

family homes are more likely to drop out of school than Hispanic students from two-parent

families (Bryk & Thum, 1989).

Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory states that delinquency is a subcultural group solution

to induce stress, by the inability to achieve middle class status, especially in the school context

According to Cloward and Ohlin, “This formulation, school is a source of frustration, primarily

for lower-class youth” (1960). In response to school-induced frustrations, students seek out

solutions. One of these is to commit delinquent acts, another is dropout. Therefore, if one leaves

the school context, strain should be reduced, and delinquency will consequently decrease. In

reference to the social bond theory, the effect of dropout on offending depends on how an

individual values education, the reason for his or her dropping out of school, and how he or she

values the post-school situation in its entirety.

In essence, Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory, states that a youth’s delinquency is

inversely proportional to his or her social bonds. Social bonds in school are characterized by

attachment to teachers, commitment to education, involvement in school-related activities and

14


belief in the legitimacy of school rules. Dropout from school entails a loss of all school-related

social connections. To the extent that school-related social bonds are present before dropout,

social bond theory predicts that dropout leads to decreased social bonds and increased

probability of offending.

The potent effects of parental education and income are generally thought to support

human capital theory, which states that, “Parents make choices about how much time and other

resources to invest in their children based on their objectives, resources, and constraints which,

in turn, affects their children’s tastes for education (preferences) and cognitive skills” (Haveman

& Wolfe, 1994). Parental income, for example, allows parents to provide more resources to

support their children’s education, including access to better quality schools, after school and

summer school programs, and more support for learning within the home.

Given the goal of building social capital, the criteria for a successful collaborative would

shift from delivering services more efficiently to success in fostering community. In building

social capital, successful collaborative will change the role of social service institutions. While

this approach may appear worthwhile as a way of more effectively challenging resources and

providing support to the institutions that serve at-risk youth. This approach still requires a

commitment of resources sufficient to substantially improve the lives of children and families.

ANALYSIS

Programmatic and Systemic Approaches

This preceding analysis of why Hispanic students drop out suggests various aspects about

what can be done to design effective dropout intervention strategies. Throughout this research

study it has become evident that dropping out is influenced by both individual and institutional

15


factors. Intervention strategies can initially begin to focus on either or both sets of stated

variables. In other words, intervention strategies can focus on addressing the individual values,

attitudes, and behaviors that are associated with dropping out without attempting to alter the

characteristics of families, schools, and Hispanic communities, which may contribute to those

individual factors. Systemic and programmatic strategies can be implemented by the institution,

in order to reduce the risk of higher dropout rates among the Hispanic race.

Many dropout prevention programs pursue such programmatic strategies by providing

potential dropouts with additional resources and supports to encourage them to stay in school.

Alternatively, intervention strategies can focus on attempting to improve the environmental

contexts of potential dropouts by providing resources and supports to strengthen or restructure

the Hispanic student’s families, schools, and communities. Such systemic strategies are often

part of larger efforts to improve the educational and social outcomes of at-risk students more

generally. Since dropping out is associated with both academic and social problems, effective

prevention strategies must focus on both arenas. That is, if dropout prevention strategies are

going to be effective, they must be comprehensive to the student, by providing resources and

support in all areas of the student’s life. Since dropouts leave school for a variety of reasons,

services provided to them must be flexible and tailored to their own individual needs.

One example of a supplemental programmatic approach to dropout prevention is the

“Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success,” or ALAS. ALAS was developed,

implemented and evaluated as a pilot intervention program to serve the most at-risk students in a

poor area in Los Angeles from 1990 to 1995. The program specifically targeted two groups of

high-risk students: special education students and other students, who, because of poor academic

performance, misbehavior, and low income, were at greater risk of school failure.

16


ALAS was founded on the premise that the youth, school, family, and community

contexts must be addressed simultaneously for dropout prevention efforts to succeed. According

to Rumberger, “The intervention strategies are designed to increase the effectiveness of actors in

each context as well as increase collaborative between them” (1998). One specific ALAS

intervention consists of remediation of the student’s ineffective problem-solving skills regarding

social interactions and task performance. This program consisted of ten weeks of problem-

solving instruction and two years of follow-up, problem solving, and counseling.

The ALAS dropout prevention program targeted students in middle school, and early

aged high school students who were at risk of dropping out. Although the program was

successful while the students were receiving the intervention, the effects were not sustained for

long after the program ended. According to Rumberger, “By the end of 12th grade, 27 percent of

the comparison students had completed high school” (1998). This suggests that, at the secondary

level, dropout prevention efforts need to be ongoing.

Prevention and Intervention Strategies

Higher dropout rates can influence both the school and the community climate; such

consequences for at-risk students may result in long-term detrimental effects. If a Hispanic

student withdraws from high school, it is easy for more conservative segments of society to fully

blame the student for his or her academic setbacks. In some instances, the student neglects

attendance, which in turn, can result in a student falling behind with assignments. Another

possible facet is the school’s lack of responsiveness to the individual’s educational needs. This

could include substantial frustration among the subpopulation of students with learning

disabilities in relation to which 504 plan teaching and testing accommodations are mostly

17


inadequate. Assigning blame for the unsuccessful student does not in fact address the most focal

issue: What strategies can be made to help retain a higher graduation rate for Hispanic students,

or what can be done to encourage these students to return to school?

Secondary level institutions have access to gather data in regards to student performance

and characteristics related to dropping out, in order to identify potential problems early on. This

will allow faculty to refer Hispanic students for specific prevention efforts. Tracking student

attendance, test scores, grades, and behavior referrals, can provide information to identify

students most at risk for potential dropout. According to the National Association of School

Psychologists, prevention activities might include: “Incentives and supports to improve

attendance; programs to encourage parent involvement; early intervention for academic

difficulties (such as peer tutoring programs); community and school-based mentorships; and

partnerships with community business to connect school to work” (1998). Development of high

school alternative programs that provide nontraditional approaches to vocational training and

high school completion will also offer options for students who have not been successful in

meeting the academic or social demands of the typical high school program.

RECOMMENDATION FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMING

The High School Graduation Initiative awards discretionary grants to State educational

agencies and local educational agencies to support the implementation of effective, sustainable,

and coordinated dropout prevention and re-entry programs in high schools, with annual dropout

rates that exceed their state average annual dropout rate. According to the U.S. Department of

Education, “Grants are awarded for up to 60 months to state education agencies and local

18


education agencies to support school dropout prevention and reentry efforts” (2014). These funds

may be used for such activities as:

“The early and continued identification of students at risk of not graduating; providing at-

risk students with services designed to keep them in school; identifying and encouraging

youth who have left school without graduating to reenter and graduate; implementing

other comprehensive approaches; and implementing transition programs that help

students successfully transition from middle school to high school” (2014).

Such implementations are necessary in order to solely focus on the dropout prevention and

recovery strategies for at-risk Hispanic students.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the leading causes as to why Hispanic students are considered the highest

risk of high school dropout is a challenging task to measure, because, as with other forms of

educational achievement, dropout is influenced by an array of individual and institutional factors.

Expressed through both theoretical and empirical literature, there is a yielding insight into the

nature of this leading concern. Dropping out is not simply a result of academic failure, but rather

often results from both social and academic problems within the school. These problems are

influenced by a lack of support and resources in families, schools, and communities.

Without eliminating disparities in the resources of families, schools, and communities, it

seems as though our nation is unlikely to ever remove inequalities in dropout rates among racial

and ethnic groups. “And those disparities may be more difficult to eliminate in the face of

increasing racial and ethnic segregation of America’s schools” (Orfield, Bachmeier, James, &

Eitle, 1997). This can be a result of the National Education Goals Panel, 1990, which monitors

19


the intergovernmental body of federal and state officials to assess and report state and national

progress toward achieving the National Education Goals. However, this does not monitor the

nation’s progress in eliminating the gap in graduation rates between minority and non-minority

high school students.

Works Cited

Astone, N.M. & McLanahan, S.S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school

completion. American Sociological Review, 56. 309-320.

Bryk, A.S. & Thum, Y.M. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: An

exploratory investigation. American Educational Research Journal. 26. 353-383.

Cameron, S.V. & Heckman, J.J. (1993). The nonequivalence of high school equivalents. Journal

of Labor Economics, 11. 1-47.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94. S95-S120.

Hanushek, E.A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.

Educational Researcher, 18. 45-51, 62.

Haveman, R. & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding generations: On the effects of investments in

children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Heubert, J.P. & Hauser, R.M., Eds. (1999). High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and

Graduation. Washing D.C.:National Academy Press.

Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings.

American Psychologist, 48. 117-126.

Kaufman, P., Kwon, J.Y., Klein,S., & Chapman, C.D. (1999). Dropout Rates in the United

20


States: 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Klerman, J.A. & Karloy, L.A. (1994). Young men and transition to stable employment. Monthly

Labor Review, 117. 31-48.

Mayers, S. (1991). How much does a high school’s racial and socioeconomic mix affect

graduation and teenage fertility rates? The Urban Underclass (pp.321-341). Washington,

D.C.: Brookings Institution.

McNeal, R.B. (1997a). Are students being pulled out of high school? The effect of adolescent

employment on dropping out. Sociology of Education, 70. 206-220.

McNeal, R.B. (1997b). High school dropouts: A closer examination of school effects. Social

Science Quarterly, 78. 209-222.

Murphy, D. (2015). Juvenile Delinquency Course. Lynchburg College.

National Center for Education Statistics, (2014). Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year

olds, by race/ethnicity: 1990 through 2012. Fast Facts.

National Research Council, Panel on High-Risk Youth. (1993). Losing generations: Adolescents

in high-risk settings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21. 5

14.

Riehl, C. (1999). Labeling and letting go: An Organizational analysis of how high school

students are discharged as dropouts. In A.M. Pallas (Ed). Research in Sociology of

Education and Socialization. (pp.231-268). New York: JAI Press.

Roderick, M. (1993). The Path to Dropping Out. Westport, CN: Auburn House.

Rumberger, R.W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of

Educational Research, 57. 101-121.

Rumberger, R.W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of students and

21


schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32. 583-625.

Rumberger, R.W. & Thomas, S.L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among

urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73. 39-67.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Workers with low earnings. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Goals 2000: Reforming Education to Improve Student

Achievement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of

Educational Statistics, 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Averaged

Freshman Graduation Rates (AFGR) by race/ethnicity. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

22

HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS 23

THESIS

Documents

Transcript of THESIS