Study of school dropout factors in the secondary schools of North Carolina

Jill 5

STUDY OF SCHOOL DROPOUT FACTORS c ^
IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS
OF NORTH CAROLINA

ORAL PRESENTATION
POLICY ISSUES

July 14, 1988

PREPARED FOR

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PREPARED BY

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

0)Mv?ibll V| l 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 750

OCT 11

^ Washington, D.C. 20005

WB8 <202) 842-2200

100 Europa Drive, Suite 590
Utftt* Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

(919) 968-4961

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013

http://archive.org/details/studyofschooldro19rese

POLICY ISSUE #1
FUNDING OF IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS

Issue

More than half of the state's dropout prevention funds are
currently allocated for staffing in-school suspension programs.
Given the operations and impact of these programs, is this an
effective use for these funds?

Recommendations

(1) Funds allocated for in-school suspension programs are at
best playing a secondary role in reducing school dropout rates.
Schools should either be given more discretion in how these funds
are to be used for dropout prevention efforts or a different use
for mandated funds, such as counseling support or special reading
programs, should be considered.

(2) To the extent that in-school suspension programs are
supported through state funding, these need to be more closely
regulated to insure adherence to guidelines and intent. Such
regulation should include site visits and technical assistance, as
required.

POLICY ISSUE #2
PREPARATION OF DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION PLANS

Issue

District dropout prevention plans are being prepared in order
to qualify for state dropout prevention funds. They are not
stimulating building-level planning processes and related problem-
solving efforts aimed at reducing school dropouts. What can be
done to encourage more meaningful documents and processes?

Recommendations

(1) The district dropout prevention plan should be replaced
with a simplified form for use in applying for state dropout
prevention funds.

(2) The application for funds should be supported by school
plans, which in turn are based on compilations of personal
education plans and related needs of the students at the school.

POLICY ISSUE #3
READING AND MATHEMATICS SKILLS REMEDIATION

Issue

Students who drop out for academic reasons have major
problems with reading comprehension and basic mathematical
reasoning. These problems prevent them from actively
participating in many classes at the high school. What should be
done for these students to insure them a decent education?

Recommendations

(1) Comprehensive learning centers should be established, as
needed, at all schools and for all grade levels, to bring each
student to competence in reading and mathematical comprehension.
Placement into such centers would be triggered by results of a
state testing program; however, no student would be assigned to a
center without the consent of a parent and, for secondary school
students, the consent of the student. These would be total
immersion programs, with small student-teacher ratios, wherein all
subjects would be taught by one or more teachers trained to work
with these students in a variety of learning modes. The state
might wish to purchase or develop a program based on criterion
referenced testing to insure standardization across schools and
di stricts.

(2) Textbooks covering high school materials, but written
for middle school reading levels, should be made available to
teachers in special education, vocational education, and extended

POLICY ISSUE #4
ADEQUATE COUNSELING SERVICES FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS

Issue

School counselors spend considerable time performing
administrative and clerical tasks at the expense of meaningful
interaction with students. Too many students are dropping out of
school before counselors are aware of problems or have time to
offer viable alternatives. How can counseling time be found for
working with dropout prone students?

Recommendations

(1) As an alternative to staff for in-school suspension
programs, the state should offer an option of a full-time dropout
prevention counselor to work with dropout prone students and
interact with their parents. Schools should be permitted to
request alternative options for this funding, such as increased
clerical support for the guidance program or counselors and
reading teachers for extended day programs.

(2) Funds might also be provided for the purchase of
inexpensive computers or terminals for use by counselors for forms
processing and for accessing the SIMS database. A state-of-the-
art software package specifically developed to facilitate
administrative tasks required of school counselors might be made
available to the schools.

POLICY ISSUE #5
THE CRITICAL AGE OF 16

Issue

Students are required to attend school only until reaching

the age of 16. They can obtain a driver's license at 16. The

hours they may work is not limited once they reach age 16. The

convergence of these factors contributes to raising the dropout

rate in North Carolina. What can be done to improve the
situation?

Recommendations

(1) The state should investigate the impact and
repercussions of raising the mandatory attendance age.

(2) The state should investigate the impact and
repercussions of raising the legal driving age, as well as other
options for restricting car usage for 16 year olds.

(3) The state should consider placing restrictions on
working hours and conditions of employment for students, including
requiring that schools be notified and approve the terms of
employment beyond certain minimum levels.

STUDY OF SCHOOL DROPOUT FACTORS

IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

OF NORTH CAROLINA

VOLUME 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

MAY 31, 1988

PREPARED FOR

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PREPARED BY

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 750

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 842-2200

100 Europa Drive, Suite 590

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

(919) 968-4961

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Preface i

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 1

READINGS

1. Russell W. Rumberger, "High School Dropouts: A Review

of Issues and Evidence" 5

2. Larry W. Barber and Mary C. McClellan, "Looking at
America's Dropouts: Who Are They?" 9

3. Janice Earle, "Female Dropouts: A New Perspective" . . 12

4. The Interstate Migrant Education Council, "Migrant
Education: A Consolidated View" 17

5. Sally A. Ward, "Student Characteristics and
Precipitating Events in Relation to Dropping Out of

High School" 22

6. Gary G. Wehlage and Robert A. Rutter, "Dropping Out:

How Much Do Schools Contribute to the Problem?" .... 28

7. Byron N. Kunisawa, "A Nation in Crisis: The Dropout
Dilemma" 33

8. Robert L. Wolk, "The School Dropout: The View of an
Attendance Officer" 36

9. C. Gilbert Wrenn, "The Dropout and the School Counselor" 41

10. Andrew Hahn, "Reaching Out to America's Dropouts: What

to Do?" 44

11. Catherine Camp, Dropouts: A Discussion Paper 48

12. Nancy Paulu, Dealing with Dropouts: The Urban

Superintendents' Call to Action 55

13. Margaret Terry Orr, "What to do About Youth Dropouts?

A Summary of Solutions" 63

14. Sheppard Ranbom, "School Dropouts — Everybody's Problem" 68

15. Jacob Kaufman and Morgan V. Lewis, The School Environment
and Programs for Dropouts 74

16. James M. Weber, "Strengthening Vocational Education's

Role in Decreasing the Dropout Rate" 79

INDEX OF KEY WORDS 84

PREFACE

This collection of articles and papers constitutes the first
of three volumes prepared as part of the Study of School Dropout
Factors in the Secondary Schools of North Carolina. A second
volume contrasts eight high schools in the state, four of which
were among the schools with the highest dropout rates in the 1986-
87 school year and four of which, while matched in student
demographics and school size to the high dropout schools, were
among the schools with the lowest dropout rates in the state
during the same period. The third volume reviews current policies
and practices in North Carolina that address the secondary school
dropout problem, and offers suggestions for revising and extending
these policies and practices to favorably impact on statewide
dropout reduction experience.

More than one hundred articles, papers, and books were
screened as part of the preparation of this first volume. The
objective was to assemble a modest reader of condensed materials
to cover the range of issues, factors, strategies, and
interventions addressing secondary school aged students most prone
to drop out of school prior to graduation. Many excellent
materials were not included because they covered essentially the
same ground as the selected publications. Lists of key references
presented at the end of each selection will lead the interested
reader to these materials.

The sixteen articles and papers comprising this volume have
been abridged, condensed, and minimally edited for readability and
continuity; but, for the most part, are in the original language
of the authors. The editors of the compendium have attempted to
retain the integrity of the original publications, particularly as
they contribute to an understanding of secondary school dropout
factors. However, since most background research details have
been excluded here, those interested in basing policy or research
on specific entries are advised to first review the materials in
their entirety.

Barry M. Kibel, Ph.D., Project Director
Gary D. Gaddy, Ph.D.
Cynthia D. Williams

- i -

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

The sixteen articles and papers included here combine to
provide a realistic, action-focused orientation for confronting
the problems of the dropout prone secondary school student. There
are different types of dropouts and multiple factors and events
contributing to the dropout decisions of each type of dropout and
to the decision taken by each individual dropout. Hence, there
are no quick fixes and no singular cure-alls. What j_s required is
a comprehensive set of offerings and services, varied and flexible
enough to provide meaningful opportunities and responses to the
diverse needs of students who are prone to dropout.

There are school -related factors which seem to make a
difference with significant numbers of potential dropouts.
Included among these are early identification and responsive
intervention through counseling and curricula; administrators,
teachers, and staff who care about individual students and refuse
to give up on them; strong vocational programs which explore
career options, instill appropriate work habits, and provide
specific skill training; remedial reading and basic mathematics
offerings, in supportive environments, for those who still need to
master these essential abilities; and academic and extra-
curricular activities which afford opportunities to succeed and
cultivate positive self-images. Where required, a mix of
alternative programs can offer a bridge between school and work,
provide a support system for pregnant teens and students under
other life stresses, and present a second chance for students
needing credits to catch up with their classmates or to graduate.

Characteristics of the "classic dropout" are well documented.
The individual will likely be a member of a racial, ethnic, or
language minority group and from a family where education is not a
high priority; the individual will have academic difficulties,
including the possibility of being behind in grade level; the
individual will be bored or frustrated with school, and be
attracted to perceived opportunities outside of school. The
process of dropping out will often include a growing number of
tardies and absences, disruptive classroom behavior, and a decline
in academic performance. One day, the classic dropout simply
stops coming to school.

Schools and school systems that are effective in reducing the
numbers of dropouts do not permit this classic scenario to reach
fruition. Through early identification, the high risk student is
not permitted to become just another statistic. Absences or
behavior problems are not merely observed; action is taken to
understand the causes and to prevent unnecessary repetitions.
Where needed, the student is directed to the individual within the
school (a counselor, a teacher, or an administrator) who is best
prepared to understand the problem set of the student and work

with the student to address the problems. Students are not
allowed to "disappear." When the decision to leave school is not
reversible, the school points the student to alternative programs
and options for keeping the door to an education open while more
pressing needs are tackled. The student is made to feel that an
individual cares, and also that the school cares.

The decision to drop out is rarely impulsive, although a
single event may precipitate the decision for a student already
bordering near the decision point. Most often, a set of
interrelated factors will have been operating for many years and
moving the student closer to the decision to leave school. These
factors will likely be drawn from the following list:

o a history of failure in school

o being older than fellow students due to retention

o lacking credits to graduate

o having a low self-opinion as a student

o feeling like a "failure"

o disliking school

o being disinterested in school

o feeling alienated or unsafe at school

o not participating in extra-curricular activities

o lacking self-discipline

o having poor study skills and study habits

o being weak in reading and basic mathematics

o exhibiting disruptive classroom behaviors

o having a large number of absences and class cuts

o being in conflict with one or more teachers

o having a developed set of reasons for lack of school

success
o having a developed set of values to reinforce negative

position regarding school
o associating with peers who share these values

o being from a fragmented family

o having little encouragement at home to graduate

o feeling pressure from the family to work

o feeling pressure to leave home

o being married
o being pregnant

o finding work to be more rewarding than school

o getting involved with drugs or alcohol and finding it
difficult to study and attend classes

- 2 -

These factors can and do combine in multiple combinations and
with varied weights from student to student. Therefore a single
response, or even a small set of responses, is inappropriate.
Instead, the ability of the school to mobilize its resources and
customize a response to the individual's unique set of
circumstances is required. This is not unlike other areas of
intervention, such as working with students with physical
handicaps or learning disabilities, where individualized education
plans are developed and implemented to satisfy unique conditions
and needs. Some individual within the school, an administrator or
counselor or dropout coordinator, is required to assume
responsibility as the advocate for the potential dropout, to
insure that this resource response is mobilized in time and in
sufficient manner to make a difference to the student. However,
the burden cannot rest on one individual, no matter how well-
meaning and skilled that individual might be. A support network
of individuals, programs, and organizations must be in place to
provide meaningful remedies and alternatives.

The range of such remediations is as broad and varied as the
factors requiring this intervention. Included among the list of
special actions taken on behalf of the potential or actual dropout
are the following:

o programmed, self-paced instruction as an alternative to

the classroom
o in-school tutoring during and after school hours
o smaller classes and more individual attention for

students requiring this support
o vocational programs that offer opportunities for success

and improved self-image

o in-school suspension programs to keep the student at the
school, focused on schoolwork, and counseled on counter-
productive behaviors

o extended day programs to permit students who cannot

attend classes during normal hours to earn credits

toward graduation
o opportunities to work and to continue studies
o referrals to local community colleges where the high

school is no longer a viable option
o summer school programs that allow students to make up

credits and possibly also gain work experience

o drug education programs for students and parents as an

alternative to suspension
o teenage pregnancy counseling and services to keep

students in school as long as possible and to permit

their return to school

3 -

The articles and papers included in this volume cover many
of these options and provide insights concerning reasons for
success or lack of success. The Rumberger article (1) notes that
successful programs often mix academic and vocational studies,
provide more individualized instruction, and use teaching staff
that are sensitive to the special needs of the targeted students.
The importance of counseling is stressed. The Ward paper (5)
emphasizes the need for some form of "pull" by the school to
provide a reason for the frustrated student to remain there, be it
academic or extra-curricular. The Wehlage and Rutter article (6)
argues that it is not simply enough to keep educationally at-risk
youth from dropping out. It is more important to provide them
with educationally worthwhile experiences. The Kaufman and Lewis
paper (15) stresses the importance of administrators and teachers
who believe they can make a difference and who also feel the at-
risk student has the potential to succeed.

Some of the selections are general in scope. Others are
specific to a set of dropouts or to a set of interventions. For
example, the paper by Earle (3) focuses on the female dropout,
identifying a number of contributing factors stemming from
stereotypes and implicit biases. The fourth selection is a report
on children of migrant families, and the factors which compound
and exaggerate in their case to cause them to have the highest
dropout rates of any group in the nation. The Wolk article (8)
views the dropout problem through the eyes of an attendance
officer, while the Wrenn article (9) views it from the perspective
of the counselor.

Editors' notes have been placed at the beginning of each
article to provide a quick overview of the theme of that
selection. An index of key words at the end of the volume may
also be used to locate selections dealing with specific themes.
The editors hope that the volume will serve as a valued resource
for individuals concerned with high dropout rates and searching
for solutions that work.

(1) Russell W. Rumberger, "High School Dropouts: A Review of
Issues and Evidence," Review of Educational Research. Summer
1987, volume 57, number 2, pp. 101-121.

EDITORS' NOTE: This article provides a summary of a range of
factors contributing to a dropout decision. The author emphasizes
that there are varied and multiple causes for students dropping out
of school, requiring research and comprehensive model development.
Rumberger identifies some key elements of effective interventions:
timely identification of at-risk students, a mix of educational and
noneducational services, and different programs for different types
of dropouts.

KEY WORDS: Timely identification School -related factors

Comprehensive approach Differences across groups

KEY POINTS:

It is well-known that dropout rates vary widely among social groups.
Dropout rates are higher for members of racial, ethnic, and language
minorities, for men, and for persons from lower socioeconomic
status. Numerous studies have found that dropout rates are higher
for students from families of low socioeconomic status. Particular
family-related factors associated with dropping out include low
educational and occupational attainment levels of parents, low
family income, speaking a language other than English in the home,
single-parent families, and the absence of learning materials and
opportunities in the home.

Dropout rates vary widely among school systems as well as social
groups. Not only are there widespread variations in dropout rates
among state educational systems, but there are also widespread
variations among school districts and even among schools within the
same district.

No one really knows what causes students to drop out of high school.
Dropouts themselves report a number of different reasons for leaving
school, with marked differences reported by different social groups.
Almost one half of all dropouts and more than half of white and
black males cite school -related reasons for leaving school, such as
disliking school or being expelled or suspended. Twenty percent of
all dropouts, but almost 40% of Hispanic males, cite economic
reasons for leaving school. A third of all female dropouts report
personal reasons for leaving, such as pregnancy or marriage.

- 5 -

A large body of empirical research has identified a wide range of
factors that are associated with dropping out. The factors can be
grouped into several major categories: demographic, family-related,
peer, school -rel ated, economic, and individual. Within each of
these categories there can be a large number of specific factors.
Some are well-known and widely documented in numerous studies;
others have not been well -explored in relation to this particular
problem. Some of these factors can be manipulated through public
interventions within and outside of the schools; others cannot.

School -related factors associated with dropping out have received
considerable attention, particularly because many of these factors
are ones that can be manipulated through practice and policy. It is
fairly well -documented that poor academic achievement in school, as
measured by grades, test scores, and grade retention, is associated
with dropping out. It is also known that behavioral problems in
school are also associated with dropping out, including absenteeism,
truancy, and discipline problems.

Most research on school -related factors has focused on students'
behaviors and performance in school. Little attention has been
given to the influences of schools themsel ves--their organization,
leadership, teachers--on students' decisions to drop out. Yet many
dropouts attend schools with yery poor facilities and inadequate
teaching staffs, conditions that could affect their performance in
school and ultimately their decision to leave. School -level dropout
rates vary widely, even controlling for differences in student
populations; this further suggests that school -related factors exert
a powerful influence on students' decisions to leave school.
Understanding school processes deserves further attention. In fact
dropping out itself might better be viewed as a process of
disengagement from school, perhaps for either social or academic
reasons.

While previous research on the causes of dropping out has been
helpful in identifying the wide range of factors associated with
this behavior, the empirical literature is still lacking. Many
studies have focused on only a few of the many factors known to be
associated with this problem, and many are based on correlation
models that simply identify the direct relationship between one
factor and dropout behavior, sometimes controlling for the influence
of other factors. What is needed is a more comprehensive, causal
model of the dropout process. Such a model should successfully
identify the full range of proximal and distal influences, the
interrelationships among them, and their long-term, cumulative
effects. Research efforts need to explore the interrelationships
among the various factors associated with dropping out. This is
particularly important in trying to separate actual causes of this
problem from correlates such as attitude: and behaviors.

- 6

Researchers should attempt to measure the long-term, cumulative
effects of the various influences on dropping out. This is
particularly important given the influences of family background and
early school achievement. Family background can have a powerful,
cumulative influence on school achievement through its effects on
such things as kinds of schools children attend, their attitudes
about school, and learning that takes place in the home. These
influences affect a student's achievement at an early age, which, in
turn, influences subsequent attitudes and performance in school.

A comprehensive model of dropout behavior should address the notion
that there are different types of dropouts who leave school for
different reasons. That is, there is no "typical" dropout. A poor,
urban black may drop out of school because he is doing badly, his
school is understaffed, and he believes his economic prospects are
poor whether or not he finishes school. A suburban, middle-class
white may drop out of school because he is bored. Although doing
reasonably well in school, he wants to spend some time with his
friends, and he knows he can finish school later on at the community
college. The causes and the nature of dropping out are wery
different for these two types of teenagers. Such differences should
be explored further and used to develop separate models of dropping
out for different types of students.

Different kinds of students drop out for different reasons. Some
are related to problems in school, such as lack of interest or poor
performance; others are related to factors outside of the school,
such as the need to find work or having a child. A comprehensive
strategy toward effective intervention will need to address all of
these factors, providing programs for different children with
different needs.

Reviews of dropout prevention programs suggest that successful
programs often mix academic and vocational studies, provide more
individualized instruction, and use a teaching staff more sensitive
and responsive to the needs of the students. Besides these
educational elements, successful programs need to address other
needs of students. Perhaps the most important is their
psychological need for someone to care about them individually, a
need that is often met through the provision of counseling.

Schools must be able to successfully identify those students who are
most likely to drop out of school if they hope to do something about
it. A recent study of California dropouts found that half of the
dropouts interviewed did not discuss their decision with anyone at
school before they left. Timely identification is equally
important. The earlier a student with a high risk of dropping out
is identified, the more likely it is that a sustained effort at
dropout prevention will be successful. Successful identification of
high-risk students in elementary and junior high school would
provide more time to intervene and address the needs of these kids
at an early age.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Russell W. Rumberger is an Associate Professor of

Education in the Graduate School of Education at the University of

California, Santa Barbara. He specializes in economics of education
and education policy.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Catterall, J.S. "A Process Model of Dropping Out of School,"
unpublished paper, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986.

Ekstrom, R.B., Goertz, M.E., Pollack, J.M., and Rock, D.A. "Who
Drops Out of High School and Why? Findings from a National
Study," Teachers College Record, 1987: vol. 87, pp. 356-373.

Natriello, G., Pallas, A.M., and McDill, E.L. "Taking Stock:
Renewing Our Research Agenda on the Causes and Consequences of
Dropping Out," Teachers College Record, 1986: vol. 87, pp. 430-
440.

01 sen, L. and Edwards, R. "Push Out, Step Out: A Report on
California's Public School Dropouts," Citizens Policy Center,
Oakland, California (1982).

Stroup, A.L. and Robins, L.N. "Elementary School Predictors of High
School Dropout Among Black Males," Sociology of Education,
1972: vol. 45, pp. 212-222.

Toles, T., Schulz, E.M., and Rice, W.K. "A Study of Variation in
Dropout Rates Attributable to Effects of High Schools,"
Metropolitan Education, 1986: vol. 2, pp. 30-38.

8 -

(2) Larry W. Barber and Mary C. McClellan, "Looking at America's
Dropouts: Who Are They?," Phi Delta Kappan. December 1987, pp.
264-267.

EDITORS' NOTE: This article discusses the confusion in interpreting
dropout statistics caused by wide variations in reporting data and
utilizing withdrawal codes across districts and states. The authors
stress the need to achieve consensus about the definition of a
'school dropout' so that meaningful comparisons can be made within
and across districts and states.

KEY WORDS: Definition of dropouts

KEY POINTS:

Currently available statistics often make it difficult to compare
schools within a district. It is practically impossible to compare
districts to one another, to assess the factors that might be
related to dropping out, or to develop model programs of dropout
prevention. Consequently, many of the reported dropout statistics-
local, state, or national --are in error because they rely on widely
different definitions or divergent databases.

We undertook the study reported here to show just how discrepant the
reporting practices of school districts are, in the hope that the
information we gathered would demonstrate the need for a workable
definition of dropouts, as well as for standardized reporting
procedures for school districts. The study population included 17
large-city school districts that in 1984 voluntarily submitted their
dropout reports to Phi Delta Kappa's Center on Evaluation,
Development, and Research.

Our study isolated the following classification codes used to record
the movement of students both within and beyond a school district:
student transferred within the district from one school to another;
student transferred from the school district to another legitimate
educational setting; student was removed from the school district
rolls for cause or death; student dropped out.

Transfers within school districts are the least ambiguous.
Occasionally, students who transfer within districts are reported as
dropouts. At least one of the school districts we surveyed counted
as dropouts those students who enrolled in publicly supported,
district-managed, evening high school programs. We found the other
codes to be far less standard. There was little agreement among the

9 -

school districts we surveyed on how to handle transfers between
districts. Four school districts recorded students as dropouts if
they transferred from the district schools to a business school, a
beauticians' school, an occupational training center, a school for
the deaf, or to private instruction. One school district regarded a
student participating in an early-admission college program as a
dropout.

Tabulations of students removed for cause or for death were
similarly confusing. Approximately half of the districts counted
expelled students as dropouts. One district treated a student who
had died as a dropout. In another district, incarcerated students
were identified as dropouts, although the district ran a high school
program at the institution to which the students were sent. Other
school districts do not count as dropouts incarcerated students,
students attending occupational training centers, or students who
leave to earn a GED.

The codes identified as problems presented difficulties for
districts wherever they were used. Students who were married, who
were needed at home, or who were above the legal school -leaving age
were usually not recognized as dropouts. Students who became
employed in a field for which they had been trained were not
regarded as dropouts in some districts; in others, they were.
School districts were not consistent in their treatment of students
who entered the armed services, and it appears that there are no
accounting procedures for emancipated minors. Virtually none of the
districts had policies for dealing with students who were above the
legal age when they left school. After we had completed this study,
we turned up an additional problem code. It is a category called
"early leavers." Initially, it was set up to account for students
who left school but had definite plans. In some districts these
students have been excluded from dropout statistics.

The variability in record keeping and in reporting procedures that
we found in this review of reports from major metropolitan school
districts suggests that similar patterns exist nationwide. It is
possible that some students are counted more than once, swelling the
numbers in several categories, while others are totally overlooked
by the school system's data-collection procedures.

The problems that we found seem not to be the fault of researchers,
evaluators, principals, counselors, or attendance officers. Rather,
policy makers at the state and district levels have failed to
achieve consensus about the definition of a school dropout. The
technology and personnel for gathering and processing the necessary
information are currently available, but they will be of only
marginal benefit until such terms as "dropout," "withdrawn,"
removed," and "early leaver" acquire generally accepted meanings
that allow comparisons to be made within and across school districts
and state 1 ines.

10 -

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Larry W. Barber is director of the Phi Delta
Kappa Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research, where Mary C.
McClellan is a research associate. Both are members of the Indiana
University Chapter of Phi Delta Kappa.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Spencer, E.C. "An Analysis of the Dropout Problem in Norfolk
Secondary Schools." Norfolk, Va.: Norfolk Public Schools,
September (1977).

Bureau of Attendance, Register of Attendance, Albany, N.Y.: New
York State Department of Education, 1965.

Student/Pupil Accounting: Standard Terminology and Guide for
Managing Student Data in Elementary and Secondary School,
Community/Junior Colleges, and Adult Education, Handbook V.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1974: p. 117.

- 11 -

(3) Janice Earle, "Female Dropouts: A New Perspective," Women's
Education Equity Act Project Report, Commissioned by the Youth
Services Program of the National Association of State Boards of
Education, 1987.

EDITORS' NOTE: Despite the stereotype, the majority of female
dropouts are not pregnant or getting married. This study looks at
the similarities and the differences between male and female
dropouts. Specifically, it details the differences between females
and males in socialization, learning styles, teacher feedback and
curricular choices that put females at particular risk of dropping
out .

KEY WORDS: Female dropouts Learning styles

Pregnancy Differences across groups

KEY POINTS:

Girls and boys drop out of school at approximately the same rate.
Further, although forty percent of girls who drop out are pregnant
or getting married, the majority of girls who drop out are not.

Some background characteristics associated with dropping out apply
equally to girls and boys. These include low socio-economic status,
minority status, and low parental education levels. Another set of
background characteristics seem to influence more female than male
dropouts. These include having a large number of siblings, and the
mother's educational level. The factors which particularly impact
girls are early socialization experiences that teach girls to be
less assertive; cognitive differences in the ways that many girls
and boys learn; teacher interaction patterns that favor boys'
response patterns and learning styles; and curricular selections
that often leave girls without the prerequisite for higher-paying
jobs and careers. When these factors combine with the background
characteristics mentioned above, girls who are only marginally
involved in school may opt out completely.

Program designers who address the issue of female dropout need to be
aware that girls may need special attention: attention to enhance
their self-esteem, attention to remediation that takes into account
some of the differences between boys and girls, attention by
teachers to how they respond to students in the classroom, attention
by administrators to create school environments that are flexible
enough to meet student needs, and attention by the community so that
those in health, social services, and employment closely collaborate
with schools to assure students access to a variety of needed
services .

- 12 -

When researchers identify characteristics that place students at
risk or in danger of dropping out of school (characteristics such as
socio-economic status, ethnicity, and parental education level), few
mention gender. Yet we found that being female puts students at
risk in very specific ways. For example, although low achievement
and low self-esteem are associated with dropout for both sexes,
special factors hinder the academic accomplishments and confidence
of girls.

Because girls tend to be less assertive, and less involved in
serious disruptive behavior, their academic difficulties are often
ignored. Influenced by sex role stereotypes, girls choose not to
enroll in certain courses, higher level math and science, for
example, in favor of fields for which they are not necessarily best
suited, resulting in a lack of the prerequisite skills for a wide
range of jobs. Further, because girls are often channeled into
vocational training program for jobs with lower pay, less prestige,
and less opportunity for advancement, their chances for achieving
economic self-sufficiency are reduced.

Males and females (who dropped out for reasons unrelated to
pregnancy) gave similar reasons for dropping out. Thirty-six
percent of males and 30 percent of females cited poor grades as a
contributing factor. Thirty-five percent of males and 31 percent of
females cited a "school was not for me" reason. Yet reasons such as
"school was not for me" or "poor grades," which both boys and girls
report, do not describe how or why those attitudes were formed. If
some aspects of schooling harm girls' self-esteem and academic
achievement, dropout programs should include corrections for these
inequities.

Many girls are still socialized to think that they can safely expect
to spend the rest of their lives married and bringing up children
while someone else takes financial care of them. They are taught to
be polite, cooperative, and unassertive. Stereotypical male and
female roles, stressed during childhood, gain new importance during
adolescence, when both sexes begin to form the values and interests
that will define their identities as adults. Many adolescents cling
to rigid sex stereotypes as a way to cope with the pressure of this
process of self-identification. At a time in a young woman's life
when she must make decisions affecting her career and earning power,
she is often strongly motivated by the pressure to excel in personal
skills that do not include academic and career planning. Thus,
societal biases place a female at risk of limiting her options.

Not only are girls "pre-programmed" to excel in areas other than
academics, but schools cater to the cognitive orientation of white
males. Girls learn through cooperation with others, acknowledging
each other's ideas, and building upon them to find common meanings.
In contrast, boys are more competitive, working to contribute their
ideas independently of one another, defining themselves through
differences from their peers. Unfortunately, these differences may

- 13 -

influence students' academic performances, because of the way
middle, junior high school, and high school classes are structured.
Most secondary teachers rely on a lecture format which elicits
individual student responses rather than encouraging cooperative
group efforts. For boys, this model reinforces their method of
learning, but conflicts with a girl's tendency to collaborate, make
connections, and build relationships in problem solving. The
structure of classroom instruction can place girls at a
disadvantage.

Teachers' responses to students have also been found to favor male
academic development and independence. Teachers talk to girls less,
provide them with fewer directions, counsel them less, and give them
fewer rewards. In essence, girls and boys are experiencing
different academic environments. Teachers are generally unaware of
the presence or impact of their responses. In general, boys are
praised for the substance of their performance in the classroom, but
criticized for matters of form, e.g., sloppy handwriting or calling
out answers in class. In contrast, girls are praised for matters of
form, e.g., neat handwriting or speaking clearly, but are criticized
on the substance of their unacceptable performance. Encouraged by
teacher praise, boys attribute their success to the substance of
their innate abilities, and generally dismiss criticism on matters
of form as unimportant. Girls therefore tend to attribute failure
to their own lack of ability, and are less likely to develop
positive self-concepts and expectations for achievement.

Girls are not sufficiently encouraged to take traditionally "male"
math, science, and computer courses. In fact, both female and
minority students who are interested in science and engineering are
ignored, but more often dissuaded from their interests. Hence, not
only are four out of five female high school seniors already
precluded from taking college math, science, or engineering courses,
but they are also unable to train for a number of jobs, both
traditional and non-traditional. Despite laws such as Title IX
(1972) and federal funding programs such as the Women's Educational
Equity Act (1974), women of all racial and ethnic groups remain
seriously underrepresented in vocational training programs leading
to higher paying jobs. When young women are channeled into jobs
that offer low pay and little opportunity for advancement, the
chances of their achieving economic self-sufficiency are reduced.

A number of background characteristics correlate with dropping out
of school. Low socio-economic status is a factor. Yet a parent's
occupation affects the dropout rate of girls more than boys. The
relationship between dropping out and parents' education level is a
strong one. For young women, a mother's education level is
particularly significant. The more schooling a mother has
completed, the less likely her daughter is to drop out.

14 -

Dropout rates generally increase as the number of siblings increase,
with the pattern being strongest for white males and females.
Larger families tend to have lower socioeconomic status, a factor
clearly related to higher dropout rates. However, the number of
siblings is a particularly critical factor for young women, as they
may drop out of school in order to care for brothers and sisters at
home. The dropout rate accelerates faster for young women having
three to five siblings than for young men with the same number of
sibl ings.

Another characteristic affecting dropout is race. Black females are
more likely to drop out than black males.

For the approximately 40 percent of females who drop out of school
for reasons related to pregnancy and marriage, their dilemma can be
symptomatic of low self-esteem, low academic achievement, and a lack
of life options in general. Consider the following: Teens with
poor basic skills are five times as likely to become mothers before
age 16 as are those with average basic skills; and young women with
poor or fair basic skills are four times as likely as those with
average basic skills to have more than one child in their teens.
Age at first marriage has no significant effect on the educational
attainment of men, but has a strong effect on the educational
attainment of women.

Young women who are pregnant or parenting have particular
difficulties with the current school structure. Faced with the
standard six or seven period day, pregnant teens experiencing
physical discomfort may find it impossible to attend the number of
classes needed to pass a course, or they may have to drop out of
school for a semester. Once they have left school, teens are out of
sequence with their class. At that point, the teen has two choices:
either to take extra courses at night or in the summer, to catch up
with her class; or, to face the social humiliation of joining a
younger class (to be "left back" or retained). If the young woman
is "left back," she will, in many cases, eventually drop out of
school. Pregnant and parenting teens also have a greater need for
instruction in areas outside of the academic "basics," for example,
information about prenatal and infant care, access to social
services, day care, and family life education. This need conflicts
with the assumption that schools need only teach the basics.
Schools that actively counsel pregnant and parenting students show
increased retention rates for this population. To date, however,
schools have tended to play a relatively passive role, and generally
become involved in establishing special programs for pregnant and
parenting teens as a result of some external pressure.

Generally, comprehensive, multi -faceted programs have been the most
successful in helping a variety of youths who are at-risk for
various reasons. Successful programs involve local input at all
phases of planning and implementation. The state's role includes

- 15 -

helping to facilitate and encourage good programs, and removing the
barriers that impede their development. Effective programs involve
collaboration and coordination among government agencies, community
organizations, the home, and the business community.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Brophy, J. "Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis." Review of
Educational Research 51 (Spring, 1981): 5-32.

Children's Defense Fund. Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy: What
Schools Can Do. Washington, D.C.: The Adolescent Prevention
Clearinghouse, (1986).

Dweck, C, Goetz, T.E. and Strauss, N. "Sex Differences in Learned
Helplessness: IV. An Experimental and Naturalistic Study of
Failure Generalization and its Mediators." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 38 (1980): 441-452.

Ekstrom, R.B., Goertz, M.E., Pollack, J.M. and Rock, D.A. "Who
Drops Out of High School and Why? Findings From a National
Survey." Teachers College Record. Vol. 87, pp. 356-373,

Spring, 1986.

Fine, M. and Rosenberg, P. "Dropping Out of High School: The
Ideology of School and Work." Journal of Education. 165
(Summer, 1983): 257-272.

Gilligan, C. In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and
Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1982.

16

(4) The Interstate Migrant Education Council, "Migrant Education:
A Consolidated View," A Special Project of the Education
Commission of the States. Denver, Colorado: July 1987.

EDITORS' NOTE: This examination of the place of children of migrant
workers in the educational system has particular relevance to the
study of dropouts as these students have the highest dropout rate of
any identified group. While migrant students are like other "at
risk" students in many ways, they pose some of the most difficult
problems for the educational system. This paper provides background
on migrant education and offers some policy options and strategies
for dealing with their particular problems.

KEY WORDS: Migrant students Timely identification

Differences across groups Comprehensive approach

KEY POINTS:

Considering the circumstances of migrant students, it is not
surprising that they have more than their share of difficulties in
surviving the rigors of public education. Certainly their mobility
hampers a continuous pattern of growth, but other factors come into
play as well. Seldom is a problem a result of a single cause and
seldom is that problem diminished by simplistic solutions. The
perils facing migrant students are shared by many at-risk students.

Migrant students are minority students. Many are non-native English
speaking. As a result, migrant students have a generally lowered
success rate in schools where English fluency tends to be taken for
granted. The mobility of migrant students surely retards
educational progress. It takes time to adjust to a new educational
environment and even more time to learn to be successful within it.
This is time that migrant students do not have. Migrant students
are typically older than their classmates--another circumstance that
takes its toll. Their parents have less education than other
parents. Migrant students have ready access to work opportunities,
which, combined with a need to work, can interfere with school
activities. And the list goes on.

The educational disadvantages encountered by migrant students can
combine to create such formidable barriers to school completion that
quitting school becomes an attractive alternative. Dropping out of
school is a remedy for school failure all too often exercised by
minority students. And among minorities, dropping out is most
common for migrant students who face sometimes insurmountable

- 17 -

obstacles to staying in school. Migrant youth have the lowest
graduation rate of any population group identified in our public
school system and the rate of completion of post-secondary
educational programs is correspondingly grim.

Specific problems that up the dropout rate include: 1) When first
enrolling in school migrant students are frequently placed in a
lower grade than is appropriate for their age. In subsequent years,
migrant students are often retained for reasons such as size,
maturity or language limitations. Being overage is presently the
highest predictor of dropout behavior among migrant students. More
than 99% of all students who are one and a half to two years overage
drop out before graduation. 2) Credit deficiency is the second most
common reason for failure to graduate. Students who are severely
credit deficient often decide that they or their families cannot
afford the time it will take to complete graduate requirements. 3)
Senior year students are often surprised to discover that they do
not have all the pre-requisites to graduate. Migrant students
frequently encounter difficulties because of inadequate knowledge of
school requirements, which may vary from district to district.

4) State or district competency or proficiency exams become another
stumbling block for migrant students. These tests may vary in each
district, making mobility a severe handicap. Success on these tests
depends on high reading comprehension and writing skills, both
difficult areas for non-native English speaking students. 5) Lack
of acceptance of migrant students by non-migrant students is
widespread. Migrant students are less able to participate in a
school's social activities which further reduces, from a student's
point of view, the number of reasons to attend school. 6) There
exists a lack of education support of migrant students by their
parents. Undereducated parents frequently believe that their
children should be in the fields rather than in school.

Programs for migrant students have expanded in quantity and quality
in the past twenty years. This expansion has been abetted by
organizations who support improvement in health and educational
services for migrant children.

Certainly one of the most significant service mechanisms is the
Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS). This system, begun
in 1969, grew from a mounting national awareness that an urgent need
existed to provide for efficient and timely transmittal of essential
educational and health data from one host community to another.
Proper educational curricula and health care simply could not begin
to be offered to the migrant student until knowledge of what had
gone before was in hand.

The Migrant Dropout Reconnection Program's (MDRP's) goal is to
increase the number of migrant youth who resume secondary or
vocational education and/or pursue education beyond the secondary
level. This project has set about both to coordinate the efforts of

- 18 -

various agencies serving migrant youth and to provide services to
migrant youth. The MDRP identifies eight major activities to
support attainment of their goal: Identify, enroll and provide
direct counseling services to eligible migrant dropout youth (ages
16-21) through a network of regional facilitators; identify and
establish cooperative working agreements with service agencies to
provide services to the youth; refer migrant dropout youth to
existing educational and vocational agencies (these referral
agencies include but are not limited to High School Equivalency
Program (HEP), College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), Job Corps,
local ABE/GED Programs, and Adult Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
Programs); provide youth with access to a toll-free hotline to
receive counseling and referral services wherever they are in the
country; provide to youth and service agencies a monthly bilingual
newsletter, "Real Talk," which features educational -vocational
opportunities, health, personal and financial aid information, role
models, career opportunities and other topics of interest to the
youth; provide personalized correspondence with youth to encourage
them to reconnect with educational -vocational options; develop
special pilots, i.e., Peer Facilitator Project and Adopt-A-Migrant
Program; and provide technical assistance and training to state and
local educators in the implementation of the program.

Educators at state and local levels have responded to these
students' needs in a variety of ways over the last two decades.
Some of these important accomplishments include: Development and
implementation of a secondary credit exchange system; initiation of
Learn and Earn programs for students who are not college bound and
those who drop out of school; development of short-term units (6
weeks) of instruction to accommodate the short school attendance
span and individual student needs; development of a variety of
instructional materials and methodologies to address the needs of
limited English speaking students; use of a variety of models for
meaningful parental involvement; High School Equivalency Programs
(HEP) in operation for purposes of addressing the high incidence of
school dropouts within the migrant student community; operation of
College Assistance Migrant Programs (CAMP) for purposes of
identifying, recruiting and enrolling migrant high school graduates,
with the desire and academic potential, in post-secondary education;
summer school programs offering a complete gamut of instructional
courses and services to allow students to catch up or make up course
work missed as a result of migration (these programs run from 8
weeks to 3 months in duration and some include evening classes to
accommodate older students who must work in the fields during the
day); and individualized instruction is now the rule as a result of
smaller pupil/teacher ratios and additional human resources (aides)
in the classroom in addition to supplies and equipment necessary for
development and implementation of new materials and approaches
(innovation). These accomplishments have occurred in a context of
cooperation and mutual support.

- 19

A California-based program, commonly known as PASS (Portable
Assisted Study Sequence), is a program that has proven successful on
a local level, then expanded to a broader application. The greatest
impediment to graduation for the migrant student is lack of credits.
Migrant programs need to provide or assist the school to provide a
means by which migrant secondary students can make up or earn extra
credits to graduate. Presently the most effective means of doing
this is the PASS Program. The program consists of prepared
curriculum material which is packaged to be portable and designed
for independent study. Most required courses are available through
PASS as well as some challenging electives and some courses in
Spanish and Punjabi. PASS material can be used by the migrant
student independently at home during the school year or with
supervision during study periods, in extended programs and in summer
school. School districts generally approve the use of PASS and
award credits for satisfactory completion of the coursework:
however, PASS credit also can be awarded through the PASS
administration site which serves the entire state. Although some
districts have devised their own credit make up programs (such as
night schools and extended day), few have the scope and flexibility
and rate of use and success that the PASS program offers.

While there is reason for concern about the migrant student dropout
rate, there is a responsibility at the other end of the school -age
spectrum to provide for early childhood education. Early
intervention has been shown beyond any doubt to make an enormous
difference in later years. High quality early childhood education
enables families and communities to improve the life chances of
their children. Long-term research shows that young adults, now 19
years old, who attended a high quality preschool program made
greater gains in education, employment, and social responsibility
than similar young adults who did not attend preschool.

Nationally, each successful migrant program has a common
characteristic: it addresses the need to cross state lines. Each
is implemented and supported by states and local agencies addressing
common problems. Each is contributing to enhanced continuity in the
services provided to migrant students. Seeing the education of
migrant youth as a national priority requiring a synthesis of
approaches rather than fragmentation is important progress. The
extent to which such a geographically dispersed group of educators
has come to join together across state boundaries is testimony to
the dedication that exists for improving opportunities for migrant
youth. It is this availability of consistent, continuous and
cooperative programmatic effort that helps create promise in the
migrant student's future.

20

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Hodgkinson, H.L. All One System: Demographics of Education
Kindergarten through Graduate School. Washington, D.C.:
Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., 1985.

Mann, D. "Can We Help Dropouts: Thinking About the Undoable,"
Teachers College Record. Vol. 87, no. 3, 1986.

Weikart, D.P. "Changed Lives: A Twenty-Year Perspective on Early
Education," American Educator. Winter 1984.

21 -

(5) Sally A. Ward, "Student Characteristics and Precipitating

Events in Relation to Dropping Out of High School." Doctoral
Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
1982.

EDITORS' NOTE: .In this doctoral dissertation, Ward studied dropouts
from a rural North Carolina county. She found dropouts to be lower
in achievement, more likely to have discipline problems and to have
fewer friends in school. In her search for events which led to
students' dropping out, she found few precipitating "pushes" but
also found few school -related "pulls" to keep them in school.
Dropping out was seen to be a gradual process, with many factors and
events leading up to the decision to drop out, frequently after an
absence from school.

KEY WORDS:

KEY POINTS:

School -related factors
Dropout decision process

Absences from school
Participation in extra-
curricular activity

The current study focuses on school -related factors that may
influence the decision to drop out. School -related factors were
selected for study over variables such as home environment,
personality characteristics, and ability for two reasons: a)
because school -related factors are often evident and readily
apparent to school personnel; and b) because school -related factors
are likely to be the most suitable targets for intervention or
modification by the school to reduce the dropout rate.

Conceptually, school -related factors are broadly defined as the
variety of influences that determine what the school experience is
like for an individual student. Situations and events occurring in
the high school setting are assumed to contribute to dropping out in
two possible ways: a) they may precipitate immediate withdrawal
from school ; and b) they may be one of several factors that
contribute to the likelihood that a student will drop out. In the
current study school -related events and situations include such
things as the content and level of difficulty of courses taken;
participation in a variety of curricular and extra-curricular school
activities; whether the student experiences difficulty conforming to
school rules and expectations, as evidenced by disciplinary
contacts; and how and where the student fits into the student social
milieu. Presumably a student who receives gratification in the form
of peer social reinforcement or popularity in high school is less
likely to drop out than one who does not receive such rewards, even
in the absence of academic success.

22 -

The vast literature available on dropouts indicates that whether a
student drops out is influenced by many factors, from different
sources, occurring at various times in a student's educational
career. The literature cites evidence of home, school, peer, and
community influences. Some influences such as some family
characteristics, handicaps, or ability may exist from birth, while
others may develop gradually or exert effects only immediately prior
to dropping out. One basic assumption of this paper is that
dropping out is multiply-caused or multiply-influenced. It is
helpful to make the conceptual distinction between potentiating
versus precipitating factors contributing to the act of dropping
out. Potentiating factors are background and situational factors
that increase the likelihood that a student will drop out, but can
not be said to be the immediate cause of dropping out; they may
occur at any point in a student's life up until the time of dropping
out. Precipitating factors are recognizable events that result in
more or less immediate dropping out. It is assumed that a
precipitating event will not be identifiable for all dropouts;
however, for most dropouts it is expected that some combination of
potentiating and precipitating events contribute to the eventual
decision to drop out.

Potentiating and precipitating events or situations evident in high
school, that lead to eventual dropping out, can be differentiated by
their source and valence. Events or situations can occur in or
outside of school and can constitute a pressure to stay in school or
a pressure to leave. School characteristics can "pull" a student to
stay in school, or "push" him or her to drop out, as can community
or family influence.

Being out of school for any reason appears to be a major factor
contributing to the likelihood that a student will drop out within a
period of weeks. Dropping out is most likely to occur within two to
four weeks after major holidays, after periods of frequent absence,
or after a period of suspension. Missing school, for any reason,
may tend to disrupt habits, routines, or inertia that make school -
attendance relatively easy or effortless. The student who attends
because he or she has nothing better to do may discover other ways
of spending his or her time, or other activities that are more
rewarding than school during a period of enforced absence. Missing
days when school is in session has the added disadvantage of the
student missing academic and social activities and becoming behind
and left out. Academically this may result in backlogs of work to
be made up and confusion or inability to comprehend instruction
because of missed background instruction or skills. These effects
seem likely to increase discomfort and alienation at school. When
this discomfort and alienation is contrasted with increasingly
positive, rewarding or comfortable activities out of school the
chances of dropping out are likely to be increased.

- 23 -

When lengthy suspensions or absences occur, high-risk students might
benefit from pro-active help to readjust to school, plan and
organize to identify and make up missed work, and re-enter missed
activities or groups. Participation in re-entry counseling might be
a mandatory part of disciplinary suspensions of a week or more.
Students missing school frequently because of personal or family
illness or crisis should be considered high-risk, and efforts made
by staff or peers to maintain contact and involvement during their
absence. Planning school -related group activities or projects
during the Christmas holidays or developing a network of
communication and contact among students for that period might help
to maintain involvement with school during this period of absence.
Counseling to help students anticipate post-Christmas depression,
developing concrete plans and expectations for returning to school
in January, and planning positive school activities for the post-
Christmas period are also options that might merit further study.

The absence of identifiable precipitating factors, combined with a
common pattern of characteristics among students just prior to
dropping out suggests that for many students dropping out is likely
to be a gradual process, occurring over a period of four to six
months, during which a number of potentially contributory factors or
events are evident. This gradual dropping out process is
characterized by decreased attendance, unsatisfactory academic
performance, and lack of involvement with peers or school
activities.

It is unclear whether this pattern of characteristics develops as a
result of changes in a student's attitude or behavior caused by a
prior decision to leave school, or whether the final decision to
leave school is stimulated by the development of this non-rewarding
pattern of characteristics. If an earlier decision to drop out
precipitates the changes or conditions that characterize this
gradual dropping out process, then it is possible that the gradual
dropping out may serve to fulfill needs for gradual termination and
psychological withdrawal, or appeasement of pressures to remain in
school. If, however, the decision to drop out is a function of
increasing dissatisfaction and alienation with school that is in
part a result of, and in part causes, decreased attendance and lack
of involvement, then there exists the possibility of intervening to
disrupt this self-enhancing circle of factors that may lead to
dropping out.

Either of the above conclusions lead to the question of whether some
event or situation precipitated the beginning of the gradual
dropping out process. Future investigations of situations or events
that precipitate dropping out probably need to focus on or include
data on events occurring six months or more prior to a student's
final departure from school. Identification of these possible
precipitating events is made difficult by uncertainty about exactly
when the dropping out process can be said to have started. This
would be critical because attempts to identify precipitating events,

- 24 -

from the standpoint of an outside observer, have relied on close
temporal continuity between the precipitating event and dropping
out. Subjective interview methods for determining what prompts
students to drop out have resulted in answers such as "lack of
interest in school" and "academic failure," situations which in the
current formulation are symptoms of the drop out process itself, not
precipitators of it. Modified interview techniques or approaches
might yield different results. Student interviews might focus on
the questions of "Have you always been uninterested in school?" if
not, "When did you lose interest?" If a student has always been
uninterested: "Why did you drop out now?" and "Why did you not drop
out before now?" It is as important to focus on why students
remained in school up until this point, as their current reasons for
leaving.

Various writers in the literature have suggested that a student who
receives gratification or reinforcement in the high school setting
in the form of status rewards, peer social reinforcement, or
popularity is less likely to drop out than one who does not receive
such rewards. Several writers on dropouts have suggested that
students are unlikely to stay in school unless they are receiving
gratification or reinforcement for school attendance in at least one
facet of school life, be it academic, athletic, or social. This
formulation supports the speculation that lack of success or
involvement in academic, social or athletic realms would result in
little gratification and thus little "pull" to remain in school.
Further, there are likely to be correlations between academic,
social, and athletic success.

It is possible that having a friend drop out does not precipitate
dropping out, but rather is a contributing factor that increases the
likelihood that a student will drop out eventually. It is also
possible that having a friend drop out precipitates or exacerbates
the gradual development of the pattern of reduced involvement,
attendance and success characteristic of many students just prior to
dropping out. If this is the case, effects of having a friend or
friends drop out might only be evident over a period of a year or
more. Participation in sports activities exerts some pull that
increases the likelihood that a student will remain in school.
Characteristics related to a student's desire or eligibility for
sports tend to be negatively correlated with dropping out.
Apparently simple involvement (membership) in school activities does
not lower the dropout rate; the characteristics of the activity in
which the student is involved appear to be of importance. Sports
participation seems a likely source of peer involvement and social
visibility and recognition, factors suggested by the sociometric
data to be negatively correlated with dropping out. Sports
participation also involves a greater commitment of time and effort,
and requires a greater degree of minimum competence than most other
extra-curricular activities. Sports has, in effect, an entrance

25

requirement in the form of both minimal academic standing and
athletic ability. Sports are also likely to generate and require a
greater degree of interpersonal cohesiveness and mutual support than
other types of school clubs or activities.

Results of the current study indicate that dropouts are less
involved with both peers and school activities than non-dropouts.
However, the pattern of participation in sports and other extra-
curricular activities does not suggest that just any type of program
to increase school involvement or participation is necessarily
likely to be effective. It is hypothesized that characteristics
such as status, visibility, recognition, membership requirements,
and group cohesiveness may be critical factors in the effectiveness
of non-academic activities in exerting a "pull" to remain in school.
This suggests the need to develop and test the dropout-preventive
effectiveness of such programs as school -supervised recreational
sports leagues, school -sponsored scouts, or other service
organizations that require commitments of time and effort on the
part of students, and which result in shared effort and involvement
among members, and in community and school recognition and status.
Entrance requirements related to school -enrollment and in some cases
personal abilities or talents might be a positive factor; however,
requirements related to academic standing may limit the
participation of some high-risk students. Such programs might serve
a preventive function as well as providing a pre-established network
of students and activities with which identified high-risk students
might be encouraged to become involved.

Increasing demands for performance coupled with low perceived
benefit from remaining in school appears credible as a potentiating
situation that may contribute to dropping out. This interpretation
suggests several possible strategies that might reduce dropping out:
a) make career exploration, counseling, and training available at a
younger age, preferably before a student reaches high school; b)
reduce or remove barriers that keep academically disadvantaged
students out of vocational courses; and c) strive not only to make
vocational and other course content logically relevant to student
needs and future plans, but also actively work to see that the
student recognizes the personal relevance of the material presented.

Another factor likely to influence grades, especially in preferred
placement classes, as well as influencing the attitudes of school
personnel toward the student, is the student's apparent effort in
class. Students who appear to be working up to their ability are
likely to receive higher grades for similar work than students who
appear to be unmotivated, uninterested, or exerting little effort.
It may not be simple lack of interest in school, but the appearance
of lack of interest or effort, or the teacher's perception or
expectation that a student is putting forth little effort that
increases the likelihood that a student will earn poor grades. A
student who adopts an "I don't care" attitude to cover failure,
disappointment, or frustration may receive poorer grades than a

- 26 -

student who reacts to failure with an outward show of anxiety or
frustration. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that among
certain peer groups it is socially taboo to appear concerned about
grades or teacher opinion. Within these groups, the attempt to
maintain social status or exhibit socially desirable attitudes may
actively interfere with school success. This is one mechanism by
which peer subgroups or subcultural values may increase a student's
chances of school failure.

The current study identified few precipitating "pushes" for students
to withdraw from school. What was evident, however, was a relative
lack of school -related "pulls" for dropouts to remain in school.
The data indicate that students who drop out tend to be less
successful and less involved than non-dropouts in the three spheres
of academic, social, and athletic activity. A gradual dropping out
process is identified, which consists of a pattern of decreasing
attendance, and school involvement, beginning four to six months
prior to final school withdrawal.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Bell, J.W. "A Comparison of Dropouts and Non-dropouts on
Participation in School Activities." Journal of Educational
Research, 1967, 60(6), 248-251.

Elliott, D.W., Voss, H.L., & Wendling, A. "Capable Dropouts and the
Social Milieu of the High School." Journal of Educational
Research. 1966, 60(4), 180-186.

Reich, C, and Young, V. "Patterns of Dropping Out." Interchange,
1975, 6(4), 6-15.

Voss, H.L., Wendling, A., & Elliott, D.S. "Some Types of High
School Dropouts." Journal of Educational Research, 1966, 59,
363-368.

27

(6) Gary G. Wehlage and Robert A. Rutter, "Dropping Out: How Much
Do Schools Contribute to the Problem?" Teachers College Record,
Vol. 87(3), Spring 1986.

EDITORS' NOTE: This article focuses attention not on the

characteristics of students who are prone to drop out, but rather on
the characteristics of schools which catalyze this decision. The
authors argue for more attention to educationally worthwhile
experiences to meet the varied needs of students.

KEY WORDS: School -related factors Dropout decision process
Differences across groups Opportunities for success
Absences from school

KEY POINTS:

Implicit in much research on school dropouts is the assumption that
a better understanding of the characteristics of dropouts will
permit educators to develop policies and provide practices that will
reduce the number of adolescents who fail to graduate. The intent
is noble, but the results have been negligible because the focus on
social, family, and personal characteristics does not carry any
obvious implications for shaping school policy and practice.
Moreover, if the research on dropouts continues to focus on the
relatively fixed attributes of students, the effect of such research
may well be to give schools an excuse for their lack of success with
the dropout. Institutional thinking may go something like this:
After all, it is not the school's fault that some of its students
are from poor homes and not very talented academically, and since we
cannot do anything about these things that interfere with school
success, the school is absolved of responsibility for the fact that
a sizable portion of its clients find good reasons to leave before
graduation.

The problem is not simply to keep educationally at-risk youth from
dropping out, but more importantly to provide them with
educationally worthwhile experiences. Those who lack basic skills,
career skills, and the social presence to be successful in the
workplace will encounter unemployment and welfare, with the
frustration and indignity this status confers on them. Previously
the labor market was able to absorb most of those with a limited
education, but increasingly the lack of a high school diploma is
tantamount to a denial of employment. In order to be employable in
other than the most menial work, those entering the labor market
will certainly have to master the core competencies that should be
acquired in high school.

28 -

Researchers need now to ask why these youth are educationally at
risk and, further, what policies and practices of public schools can
be constructive in reducing the chances that these students will
drop out. It is important to conceive this new research in a way
that looks for the cause of dropping out not only in the
characteristics of the dropout, but also in relation to those
institutional characteristics that affect the marginal student in a
negative manner. Presumably the school is obligated to create an
environment in which these youth can experience some kind of
success, find institutional participation rewarding, and develop
aspirations for additional schooling that can lead to satisfying
employment. Although schools can do nothing about students' SES or
innate ability, important contributing factors to dropout that are
under the control of the school may be modified to change the school
conditions of marginal students.

There is a serious problem with the holding power of school for some
youth. Dropouts do not expect to get as much schooling as their
peers and this is quite understandable. They do not perform as well
as their peers on school tests, their grades are lower than those of
their peers, they are more often truant both in and out of school,
and generally they get into more disciplinary trouble than other
students. Given this rather negative set of experiences, it should
not be surprising that these students leave school for a different
environment. For most the intent is to enter the world of work,
which must look more rewarding than the situation they find in
school .

It is crucial to view the dropout problem as growing out of conflict
with and estrangement from institutional norms and rules that are
represented in various discipline problems. If the intent of social
policy is to reduce the number of dropouts, then policies and
practices of schools will need to respond to this conflict with and
estrangement from the institution arising out of the social and
family background of students. Certainly public schooling in a
democratic society is obligated to respond constructively to
children from all backgrounds and social conditions. It may be that
some kinds of children are more difficult to teach than others, but
the school has no less of a mandate to do its best to provide all
the schooling such children can profitably use. This is precisely
the mandate that has been accepted by the schools for educating
handicapped children.

The picture of high school that emerges for most students is a place
where teachers are not particularly interested in students, and the
discipline system is perceived as neither effective nor fair.
Dropouts are not satisfied with their schooling. For the dropout,
school is a place where one gets into trouble; suspension,
probation, and cutting classes are much more frequent for this

- 29 -

group. Almost all of the youth who eventually drop out see
themselves finishing high school, suggesting that dropping out is
not a conscious decision already made that can be identified in the
early years of high school.

Taken as a whole these data suggest that school factors related to
discipline are significant in developing a tendency to drop out. If
one comes from a low SES background, which may signify various forms
of family stress or instability, and if one is consistently
discouraged by the school because of signals about academic
inadequacies and failures, and if one perceives little interest or
caring on the part of teachers, and if one sees the institution's
discipline system as both ineffective and unfair but one has serious
encounters with that discipline system, then it is not unreasonable
to expect such individuals to become alienated and lose their
commitment to the goals of graduating from high school and pursuing
more education.

The process of becoming a dropout is complex because the act of
rejecting an institution as fundamental to the society as school
must also be accompanied by the belief that the institution has
rejected the person. The process is probably cumulative for most
youth. It begins with negative messages from the school concerning
academic and discipline problems. As these messages accumulate into
concrete problems — failing courses and thereby lacking credits
required for graduation—the choice is between continuing an extra
year or more in a setting that offers increasingly negative
experiences and dropping out. Some do elect to stay to graduation,
but as many as 50 percent of the youth in some schools elect to
escape to the perceived opportunities and experiences outside.

For the adolescent who has dropped out of high school, the
psychological effect is to drop out of all formal schooling.
Although there are several routes a dropout can use to reenter the
system of formal education, these youth generally believe that
school is not for them--a decision that precludes many opportunities
for personal and economic advancement in the future.

While most of the literature on dropouts is directed only at the
deficiencies found in the marginal student, we see those same
characteristics as a reflection on the institution. More precisely,
we consider the possibility that certain student characteristics in
combination with certain school conditions are responsible for
students' decisions to leave school early. We do not want to
minimize the fact that students differ markedly on a range of
personal and social characteristics; how could it be otherwise?
However, schools are obliged to accept these differences as a fact
of life and respond in a constructive manner.

All youth must be given an opportunity to receive some reasonably
attractive benefits from a publicly financed school system.
Educators must be responsible for those students who are not ideal

- 30 -

academic performers as well as for those who are talented. There is
evidence now that many students do not believe teachers are very
interested in them. To the extent that those who come from
disadvantaged backgrounds perceive a less than firm commitment by
the institution to educate them, their school effort is not likely
to be sincere. Professional accountability to those who are least
advantaged is the only responsible stance educators can take. The
profession must work to establish a variety of mechanisms to ensure
that such students receive all the personal and social benefits
possible. Professional accountability must begin with a general
belief on the part of educators that such a commitment is important
and a social responsibility. In addition, specific institutional
mechanisms must be developed to define this accountability and make
it a matter of both policy and practice.

It may be that the impersonal bureaucratic structure of large high
schools has created a sense of alienation among students who feel
that the adults do not care for them and that they are likely to be
treated in an unfair or arbitrary manner. The comprehensive high
school of today may create adult/student relationships that result
in skepticism and cynicism in both parties. More personal and
authentic relationships are probably necessary to reestablish
widespread belief in the legitimacy of the institution.

Some reforms in the discipline system are necessary if schools are
to avoid creating a sizable group of deviants who can see no
alternative to resisting the school's authority if they are to
retain their own dignity. At minimum schools must find ways of
preventing the widespread truancy that has become a norm in many
schools. The very students most at risk must not be allowed to
undermine their own chances of success through either misguided
permissivism or outright neglect on the part of educators. If the
marginal academic student is to benefit from formal schooling, he or
she must be in class. Part of the route to professional
accountability is through the establishment of legitimate authority
in the educational process for those who are to benefit from
educators' efforts. The evidence from case studies of effective
alternative programs for marginal students indicates that such
students respond positively to an environment that combines a caring
relationship and personalized teaching with a high degree of program
structure characterized by clear, demanding, but attainable
expectations.

A central problem with schools today is that success is narrowly
defined and restricted to the few at the top of their class ranking
who are destined for college. Such a restricted notion of
competence and success for youth is indefensible in terms of both
the individuals involved and society as a whole. While proficiency
in traditional academic subjects is important and serves to
stimulate some youth, there are many more who should be encouraged
to develop proficiency in other domains. We have examples of
schools focused on the performing arts, health care and medicine,

- 31 -

and human services. There are excellent programs that have youth
developing and managing small businesses. There are also exemplary
vocational programs that involve youth in the building trades or
other skilled fields where the curriculum is based on an
"experiential" conception of learning. Such diverse opportunities
for success and development can change the view that many youth now
have that "school is not for me."

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Ford Foundation Letter 15, No. 3 (1984): 1.

Camp, C. School Dropouts. Sacramento: California Legislature:
Assembly Office of Research, May 1980.

Combs, J. and Cooley, W. "Dropouts: In High School and After High
School," American Educational Research Journal, 5, no. 3
(1968): 343-63.

The Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, "Skills for
Tomorrow: High School and the Changing Workplace" (draft
report, National Academy of Science, Engineering and Institute
of Medicine, n.d.).

Wehlage, G. Effective Programs for the Marginal High School
Student, Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1983.

Wehlage, G. "The Marginal High School Student: Defining the
Problem and Searching for Policy," Children and Youth Services
Review, 5 (1983): 321-42.

32 -

(7) Byron N. Kunisawa, "A Nation in Crisis: The Dropout Dilemma.
National Education Association, January 1988, pp. 61-65.

EDITORS' NOTE: While many analyze the problem of dropping out in
terms of the problems of dropouts, Kunisawa argues that the problem
is in the monocultural approach to it. He argues the need for
schools and school systems designed to prepare students for
tomorrow's diverse technology and multi -cultural values.

KEY WORDS: Differences across groups Multicultural needs

KEY POINTS:

In less than 50 years, America has virtually abandoned the work
ethic that was a cornerstone of this society and accepted a
hedonistic philosophy of "if it feels good, do it... if not, why
bother?" Many of us have dropped out from everything- -marriage,
parenting, voting, church-going, paying taxes, saving for the
future, employment, and now education. Why should we be surprised
that our young people drop out?

We have failed to teach many of today's youth the critical
importance of honesty, integrity, responsibility, respect, trust,
and commitment. Many youngsters, regardless of gender, color, or
income, come to school woefully unprepared for the rigors of
learning and the frustrations of accompanying setbacks.

Youth, especially ethnic minority youth, have little confidence in
the deferred gratification that education promises, or the mythical
guarantee that a diploma translates into equitable career/employment
opportunities. The commitment to struggle and sacrifice for the
future requires a belief that such a future holds some value. How
can schools be solely responsible for reducing the dropout rate when
the incentives they are selling seem to be mere illusions--"pie in
the sky?" Educators cannot motivate the oppressed, excluded, and
disenfranchised with hope and illusions of prosperity. It is too
late for the simplistic "role-model" theory to deter dropouts. The
question for many students today is not why drop out, but why not?

Supporters of the current "back to the basics" movement have the
right idea but the wrong blueprint. The current educational system
uses a monocultural design to educate multicultural and multilingual
students. This design is culturally incompatible with students and
forces teachers to work in a structurally inappropriate format. The
right back-to-basics blueprint requires a return to the drawing
board to redesign the educational system for a multicultural,

- 33 -

multilingual student population. At the same time an effort needs
to be made to redesign education to meet the needs of a changing and
highly technological society.

Systematic change of this magnitude is a long-term venture, but to
do anything less is futile. After all, the problem is not dropouts;
the problem is a dysfunctional education system that produces
dropouts. To move in a direction of resolution rather than mere
accommodation will require a multi-dimensional approach.

There are programs throughout the country designed to prevent
dropping out and increase academic skills. These programs are
exceptional and often produce extraordinary results because they do
not place the entire responsibility for motivating potential
dropouts with the schools. They involve the school and business
communities in this critical effort. But it is essential that we
not simply label these successes as model programs and attempt to
duplicate or clone them in every school district. School systems
must begin a building process, utilizing the core components of
model school programs to build more model schools, which will
ultimately lead to the building of model school systems.

This process of establishing a technological and multicultural
educational system should include, but not be limited to, the
following steps: Ensuring equity in per-pupil expenditures for all
schools regardless of location and student population; teaching with
accurate sources that put in proper perspective the contributions of
non-Europeans and women to cultural and historical developments;
specifying what the functions of the schools should be; identifying
the academic, social-cultural, business, and economic skills
required for full participation in a quickly changing, technological
society; utilizing ethnic and cultural demographic statistics to
ensure a cultural compatibility between education programs and
student populations; establishing specific and legitimate
professional requirements for teachers and administrators, with
commensurate salaries and benefits; ensuring that the cultural make-
up of teaching and administrative staffs is congruent with that of
student populations; establishing programs to identify sources of
funds to pay for higher education for all qualified and aspiring
students; creating proactive alternative programs for the future,
rather than reactive alternative programs for the past/present.

We need to redesign our current educational system to accommodate
the personal, cultural, and economic needs of students and to help
them with their higher education and career aspirations. To do this
requires advice from professionals—economists, computer scientists,
environmentalists, cultural sociologists, financial planners, and
futurists — formerly on the periphery of the educational system. To
make such a comprehensive transition involves field-testing model
school designs that incorporate exemplary programs--curriculums,
instructional methods, support services — and encourage cultural
diversity among students and staff.

- 34 -

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Byron Kunisawa is director of the Multicultural
Prevention Resource Center in San Francisco. The Center specializes
in providing training and technical assistance to educators and
counselors. Kunisawa's classroom credits include stints with Canada
College's Multicultural Institute and, as a reading specialist, with
Stanford University's Right to Read program.

REFERENCES CITED:

Hodgkinson, H. "All One System: Demographics of Education-
Kindergarten Through Graduate School," Institute for Education
Leadership, Inc., 1985.

Task Force on the New York State Dropout Problem "Dropping Out of
School in New York State: The Invisible People of Color."
Report commissioned by the New York State African American
Institute of the State University of New York (1986).

Fine, M. and Rosenberg, P. (1984), "Dropping Out: The Ideology of
School and Work," Educational Digest. April, 1984, pp. 26-29.

Kozol , J. Illiterate America, New American Library, 1985.

Stern, D. Reducing the High School Dropout Rate in California: Why
We Should and How We May, Report commissioned by the University
of California Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies,
1986.

Bowen, J. and Kipkowitz, D. "Staying in School: The Dropout
Challenge," A position paper. New York State School Boards
Association, 1985.

35

(8) Robert L. Wolk, "The School Dropout: The View of an Attendance

Officer," from Antiachievement: Perspectives on School

Dropouts. Emanuel F. Hammer (ed.)- Western Psychological

Services, Los Angeles, CA: 1970

EDITORS' NOTE: This reflective essay by a former "Truant Officer,"
emphasizes the individualized problems and needs of students in
danger of dropping out of school. While somewhat dated, the article
clearly lays out the argument for alternative curricula, schools,
and certificates.

KEY WORDS: Alternative programs Absences from school

Differences across groups

KEY POINTS:

School dropouts leave their educational endeavors for many reasons,
some sane and some inappropriate, some harmful to themselves and
destructive to others. Sometimes the reasons have a rhyme,
sometimes only a discord. It is the writer's view that many persons
contribute to the school dropout's disenchantment with academia, to
his formal and significant decision, and to what takes place
thereafter. What next takes place usually consists of a halfhearted
attempt on society's part to have the student return, and usually by
seduction. Sometimes, as the alternative, no concern or effort at
all is exerted to induce him to resume his education.

Who is responsible? First, although not necessarily most
importantly, there is the student himself. After him we must
consider the family (the ubiquitous villains, mother and father),
the teacher, the dropout's peer group, the principal, the school
administrator, the curriculum advisers, the school mental health
personnel and, of course, the person in the school system
responsible for getting the beginning dropout to school bodily, the
attendance teacher--or, if you will, use the term greeted with
smiles and remembered myths--the truant officer.

A school dropout does not achieve that designation until, legally,
the school designates him as such. If he does not attend school he
is a truant. The school system tends to place greater negative
emphasis upon the truant than the dropout, and so the truant is
encouraged to drop out as soon as he is of age. In spite of
programs, a staggering number of school dropouts occur. In some
urban areas the school dropout rate is as high as 80 to 90 percent.

36 -

The youngster who considers dropping out of school desires to leave
because of many interrelated reasons. He is not doing well in
school or is an outright failure; he is not getting educational
satisfaction; he is frustrated by the school processes, feels that
school is not meaningful to him and does not provide the possibility
of immediate returns; he has become a disciplinary problem and the
school is eager to have him leave; and generally his ego, perhaps
battered in other encounters with life, suffers further insult by
lack of scholastic achievement.

The potential dropout, as we well know, is considerably more prone
to asocial behavior. Being a truant allows considerable free time
with little incentive for constructive direction of energies. In
the absence of the structure and restraints imposed by the school,
the youngster can and frequently does act out his anger against
authority. He may turn to crime. At the same time, he recognizes
that he will never be an achiever as measured by society's
standards: money, prestige, and material possessions.
Consequently, he decides to achieve by asocial behavior what he
cannot achieve by socially acceptable methods. So he steals the big
car which helps salve his somewhat battered ego. He may "mug" or
steal in an effort to obtain money and at least a synthetic feeling
of "achieving."

All too often the school itself determines which students will be
induced to remain. The youngster who causes difficulty in the
classroom is usually the first to leave school as soon as he is
sixteen years of age. The quiet youngster, although likewise not
learning and perhaps just as angry--but better able to repress these
feelings--is encouraged to stay. Such a child may be placed in an
"opportunity class"; receive remedial work; be given a part-time
after-school job, referred to the school psychologist for therapy,
subjected to a tailored-to-order class program or included in some
new program specifically geared (and expensively priced) for the
potential school dropout. Such youngsters undeniably require
assistance.

The noisy, rude, acting-out youngster, however, also needs help. He
is the one who is often ignored, or worse, rejected. He is
upsetting to his teacher, to the school and to the other children.
Few school authorities recognize that the noise generated by such
children is often a cry for help, a bid for some attention, or a
plea to be recognized as a human being. Even when such cries are
heard and understood, the overwhelmed teacher tells herself that the
other children need her attention; that a child has to want to learn
in order to be taught; that the distraction generated is stronger
than the obligation to help one child; or that the other children
will suffer if so "much" attention is given to one. Then, the
disruptive child becomes yet another school dropout with the urging
and "blessings" of the school system itself.

37 -

Schools that excel academically point with pride to their large
numbers of scholarship winners, holders of awards from science fairs
and spelling bees, entrants into the "best" colleges, and alumni who
have risen to exceptional heights. If, within such an educational
milieu, there is a student who cannot achieve academically, he
inevitably stands an excellent chance of joining the ranks of the
school dropouts.

The potential school dropout stands a better chance of discontinuing
his education if he attends a "good" school. Such institutions, in
order to preserve whatever it is that "good" schools must preserve,
are more likely to drop the ambivalent student than are schools less
defensive about their reputations.

Many students who do graduate may have no opportunity to use their
education, or actually may be yery poorly equipped. A number of
high school graduates who come before the Criminal Court had
difficulty in reading and in performing simple calculations. One
might wonder about the burden placed upon the shoulders of such
youths, possessing the badge of literacy, who when called upon to
reveal what they should know, show only ineptitude. Many of these
undereducated non-dropouts can function only at the same level as
students who left school at sixteen, although their level of
aspiration frequently is somewhat higher than that of the dropout.

Forcing a child, who is neither motivated nor adequately equipped,
through school can produce the backlash that stultifies or
immobilizes an otherwise still curious mind. Unless learned
material is meaningful or useful, basic learning theory tells us, it
is much more difficult to retain. Poverty, even in large
metropolitan areas, is still on the rampage. Lack of shoes, even in
winter, is a frequent problem and children stay home because of
embarrassment over lack of appropriate wearing apparel. Scratching
for survival tends to tarnish the glow of education. Hunger negates
even a large amount of scholastic motivation.

A hungry child in a class of well-fed peers is apt to become angry
and distraught. There is the shame of the family's failure to
provide enough food, the loss of status, the actual hunger, and the
resentment that others have more than he. The poorly clad
youngster, particularly if a girl, also has difficulty in feeling
part of the educational process and fitting in with the others.
Schools must assume responsibility for understanding the truant or
the youngster who is not learning; it must provide such children
with realistic, pragmatic help. The "failure" must be given a
chance at success somewhere and on his own terms.

Family Court, the court responsible for legal matters concerning all
children in New York under the age of sixteen (younger in some other
states), also makes its contribution to pushing the potential
dropout over the edge. Court is often used as a threat when a child
has been truanting. If a truant is sixteen, he is given the choice

- 38 -

of dropping out of school or having the court place him either on
probation or in a correctional institution. The choice is no choice
at all, and so another youngster has his education terminated.

What, now, can be done to keep children in school? First, perhaps,
we must shift our philosophy by about ninety degrees. We must
decide if every youngster should necessarily finish high school. We
must determine what to do with youngsters who do not, or cannot,
benefit from a formal education. We must take another look at the
values we hold precious in an education.

A fresh look at curricula is essential. Should we mold our children
to fit a set course of study, with only mild alteration now and
then, or should we individualize the curriculum to satisfy the
individual needs of the student? Is it appropriate to brand a child
delinquent if he rejects school? What is the best remedial program
once it is decided to keep a child in school? Is there one master
plan, several master plans, or should each child be offered an
individualized approach? Who is to decide which children should
remain in school? How are we to identify more accurately which,
among the youngsters who remain in school, should be encouraged to
drop out when, for them, such educational processes prove a waste?

Not every child needs to achieve that much-lauded distinction of
being a high-school graduate. Emphasis upon the diploma tends to
widen the schism between those who have and those who have not. The
quantity of learned material retained is also important, but often
overlooked. Numerous youngsters without high-school diplomas are
brighter or more articulate than many graduates; they also possess a
greater fund of knowledge, have a high capacity to retain new and
learned materials, and manifest better judgment. Through
circumstances, such people are denied many jobs which they could
fulfill better than the "orthodox" high-school graduate. What a
waste of manpower and what an example of individual unfairness!

Education, on the secondary level, should be divided into two major
categories, academic and vocational. The academic program should be
designed to suit those students who either plan to continue their
education beyond high school or who are interested not in learning a
specific trade but in acquiring a broader learning in general
content areas. The vocational program should be geared to teaching
specific trades or skills based upon the needs of unions and
industry. A youngster who wishes training in auto mechanics, for
example, should be offered--but not forced to study—subjects such
as geometry, French, or economics.

Another designation, a certificate rather than a diploma, could be
awarded to those students who successfully learned a trade. If the
student should choose later to return to school, he can then earn
the diploma. The diploma itself might represent the pursuit of a
more vigorous academic course of study, involving higher standards,
than is currently the case. There would then be a clearer

- 39 -

distinction between the vocational trainee and the academic
graduate. By means of this division, we would no longer have to
hold to the rigid, overformal ized, four-year curriculum. In this
fashion, school might offer children more of what they really need.
All the children in one grade are expected to learn the same
material, despite their widely varying interests, motivation,
aspirations, and future plans. The concept of individual
differences is, by and large, ignored in our current educational
system. Many students have difficulty because the class is either
too fast, too slow, too hard, or too easy. Children are easily
frustrated, and frustration, as we know, leads to apathy. The next
step may be actual physical withdrawal from the classroom, i.e.,
truancy. The student then is on his way to becoming a prime
candidate for the next step, dropout.

Perhaps special schools should be established for dropouts. These
schools, actually, would be diagnostic and planning centers in which
the youngster who is ready to leave school could be studied to
uncover the real reasons for the termination of his education. When
necessary, remedial work could be furnished. When it is deemed best
for a youngster to leave school, on the other hand, plans for his
future in the community could be made with him. Legal, social,
economic, educational, and familial aspects of the problems could be
evaluated and "treated." The important philosophy behind such a
school would be one of planning for the child and his future in a
comprehensive, goal -oriented fashion.

Many problems contribute to the making of a school dropout and no
easy solutions to the multidetermined causation can be proposed.
The dropout, however, must be treated primarily as an individual and
must be planned for--not by means of mass-oriented formulae—but in
terms of a personalized, specific approach.

- 40

(9) C. Gilbert Wrenn, "The Dropout and the School Counselor," from
The School Dropout, Daniel Schreiber (ed), National Educational
Association, Washington, D.C., 1964.

EDITORS' NOTE: This 1964 essay outlines the tasks and challenges
facing the counselor in dealing with potential dropouts. The
primary goal is seen as modifying the future dropout's negative
self-perception and elementary school is seen as the place to begin
this transformation.

KEY WORDS: Differences across groups Counseling

KEY POINTS:

What can be done for the school dropout by the school counselor
might be broadly categorized into three areas: (a) influencing
others to provide a more meaningful environment, both school and
non-school; (b) modifying others' perceptions of the dropout in the
direction of better identification and understanding; and (c)
modifying the self-perception of the dropout so that he may be able
to relate better to others and also to know how to make more
adequate use of whatever environmental resources are available to
him.

The counselor should be familiar with the various minority groups
which contribute disproportionate numbers of potential dropouts.
Sometimes broadly called "the alienated," they embody economic,
cultural, and racial alienations. They may be the newcomers of a
school, they may be members of migrant families. Their sense of
isolation is often so crippling as to breed resentment and
hostility. At best it reduces the likelihood that they will easily
respond to school opportunities. It is important that the counselor
understand some of the values and strengths of a culture that is
different from his own, that he study the family and community mores
of different groups for what he can learn from them, not only for
what he can do for them. As he learns, he can transmit his
knowledge to teachers and staff, little by little. He can, together
with other pupil personnel specialists, examine the school's program
and services to see what could be done that is not now being done
for the discouraged and the disenchanted. Most of all he can
examine squarely whether he thinks he is focusing adequately on the
disadvantaged groups in the face of the pressure on him to spend
most of his time with students who plan on college. This sort of
pressure is very real, and there is seldom any balancing pressure in
the interests of the potential dropout.

41 -

In general, the environment of the elementary school is more
favorable for treatment of symptoms of dropout than is that of the
high school. The structure is looser, there is more ungraded
instruction, more focus on the individual pupil, more time per day
with one or two teachers, more informed concern of the teacher with
the pupil. The elementary school teacher is generally better
equipped professionally to deal with the developmental and
adjustment needs of pupils than is the high school teacher. Whereas
high school counselors developed in order to help students with
needs that were not seen or met by high school teachers, school
psychologists and counselors in the elementary schools focus on
helping teachers who saw pupil needs and wanted to do more about
them. Elementary school counselors work more with teachers than
with pupils. If high school dropout behavior patterns have their
origins in the elementary school, and they do, there is much good
will and intelligence there to sense the problem and grapple with
it.

The poor academic achievement found in secondary schools is part of
a continuing pattern that may go back to the fourth and fifth
grades. If hostility toward school and adults is evidenced in high
school, this is not necessarily directed specifically toward the
high school teacher. Because underachievement is often the result
of basic psychological patterns, it is a great waste of time to
channel all underachievers routinely to a counselor for brief
interviews in the vain hope that the counselor can do something with
them. This generally is understood to mean that the counselor can
successfully admonish them to become better students--and when this
doesn't succeed the student is said to be uncooperative!

Potential dropouts represent a wide range of academic aptitude. It
is true that over-all estimates suggest that something in excess of
one-third of the dropouts have academic aptitudes below the so-
called average range. It is also true that from one-half to two-
thirds are in the normal range and that a respectable percentage
have ability levels equal to those of students who enter college.
The counselor has tasks to do in breaking down the tendency of
adults to type students. The pernicious influence of such
stereotyping is at its worst when applied to students who fail to
conform to the school's expectations of them.

Modifying the dropout's perception of himself is without doubt the
counselor's most unique role with the dropout. The counselor is in
the best position of all school personnel to see the world from the
dropout's point of view, i.e., he is concerned with the over-all
life of the student, not his English only or his school life only;
he is interested in the student's future as well as his present; he
has contact with many kinds of deviant student behaviors so that he
is not easily shocked; he, by virtue of certain emphases in his
professional education, is moderately capable of understanding the
psychological dynamics of the academically or socially deviant
student.

- 42 -

The dropout is not always a lovable person--he may be aggressive or
sullen and withdrawn; he sees little sense in school, and has little
respect for himself or most others. He is different; he has had his
differences criticized; and he may therefore cherish his differences
as the only weapon he has with which to fight back. He is certain
that the school is against him--there is some evidence for this in
that the dropout is likely to have been "failed" in one or two
grades, and in that teachers have been critical of him over the
years.

The counselor must somehow convince the student that he, the
counselor, does not react to the student as he, the student, thinks
everyone else has reacted to him. The counselor then must help the
dropout to restore a little of his confidence in himself before a
rational examination can be made of the alternatives open to him.
The counselor must respect the potential dropout as a person, even
though he may be unlovely and in a state of academic rebellion. He
must show an earnest concern in him. He will need to "look up" this
person and ask him in, for the potential dropout may never come
voluntarily until it is too late.

The average middle-class-oriented American, and this includes most
counselors, still believes that work is virtuous and an occupation
is a channel to self-realization and a sense of personal
significance. These aphorisms are time-bound; they are no longer
true for a large portion of the American population. Work for them
no longer provides a sense of achievement, and an occupation (a job
or succession of jobs) may not contribute greatly to one's self-
real ization.

No one feels these limitations more keenly than the potential
dropout. For some, this results from seeing what work and
occupation mean and do not mean to their family. The counselor must
not assume that the value structure of the student is the same as
his own. Conventional vocational guidance will not work well here.
The counseling done must be based upon work and occupational
concepts which start from the potential dropout's frame of reference
about work.

43

(10) Andrew Hahn, "Reaching Out to America's Dropouts: What to Do?1
Phi Delta Kappan, December 1987, pp. 256-263.

EDITORS' NOTE: In this article, the author calls for action,
learning from experience and continually redesigning programs to
meet comprehensive sets of requirements. The characteristics of
successful alternative programs are seen to mirror the attributes
associated with effective schools.

KEY WORDS: Comprehensive approach Alternative programs

KEY POINTS:

Our review of the dropout phenomenon shows it to be a multifaceted
problem. It starts early, has many causes, and grows incrementally
worse with each successive year. Moreover, it is a problem that has
both supply-side causes (school children suffering from a host of
messy problems) and institutional aspects (encompassing the schools,
the school boards, and state and federal policies). Our research
leads us to conclude that the story-behind-the-story in effective
dropout programs lies in implementation, casework, and long-term
follow-up activities. The studies that we reviewed only
occasionally addressed these essential program practices.

Is scarcity of resources related to a higher dropout rate? The
answer to this question is a qualified yes. Some researchers
contend that, where dropout rates are concerned, expenditures are
less important than a school's organization, the quality of its
teaching and administration, and its innovations in curriculum.
Harold Hodgkinson examined retention rates nationwide in 1985 and
found that teacher salary and per-pupil expenditure were not related
to dropout rates, while student/teacher ratios did correlate with
the incidence of dropping out. I should emphasize, however, that
improving the student/teacher ratio may require employing additional
teachers, and that takes money. Preventing students from dropping
out may also involve retraining and increasing the number of
counselors, implementing a comprehensive health and family planning
program, providing infant care facilities for teenage mothers,
developing a cooperative work/education project, offering remedial
instruction, and establishing connections between the school and
social service agencies in the community. All of this takes money,
too.

Students report many reasons for dropping out: poor grades, dislike
for school, alienation from peers, marriage or pregnancy, and
employment. The "good" son or daughter may leave school to help

- 44 -

parents and siblings through a financial crisis. Many respondents
who cite "poor grades" may really mean "school wasn't for me." When
disadvantaged youths in New York City were asked why they had
difficulty in school, a little more than one-third blamed
themselves, another third pegged the problem to their home life or
other factors beyond their control, and the remaining third faulted
the schools. Dropouts themselves are divided in their explanations
of their problems with school, but this much is clear: there is no
single essential factor. We do know that young people at risk of
dropping out resist the social control, competition, and order that
characterize classrooms.

Our review of the research leads to one major conclusion. An
effective dropout prevention program at the high school level cannot
be based on one single element, such as remedial instruction or the
provision of social services. To succeed, dropout prevention for
older youths requires a cohesive, integrated effort that combines
the following components and perhaps others: Mentorships and
intensive, sustained counseling for troubled youngsters; an array of
social services, including health care, family planning education,
and infant care facilities for adolescent mothers; concentrated
remediation using individualized instruction and competency-based
curricula; an effective school/business collaboration that provides
ongoing access to the mainstream economy; improved incentives,
including financial rewards, for completing high school; year-round
schools and alternative schools; heightened accountability for
dropout rates at all levels of the system of public education; and
involvement of parents and community organizations in dropout
prevention are all required.

Hundreds of alternative secondary schools throughout the U.S. offer
dropouts and potential dropouts a last opportunity to continue or
resume their education. Alternative schools work well for highly
motivated former dropouts; they do not always work so well for
others. The most successful alternative schools were those that
challenged students academically and that provided personal
counseling and were staffed by caring adults. Such alternative
schools share some of the characteristics documented in the
effective schools literature: highly targeted services for a
relatively homogeneous school population, strong principals, small
school size, teachers who actively participate in counseling
students, student involvement in school governance and classroom
activity, opportunities for learning by doing, and clear standards,
rules, and regulations.

Alternative schools are often the best available option for both
potential and actual dropouts, especially if the programs employ
reasonable criteria for eligibility, teach real skills, and
accommodate working students. Once again, however, alternative
schools in and of themselves are no guarantee of success for all
dropouts.

- 45 -

There is solid evidence that the Job Corps, the nation's largest
training program for dropouts, does help participants find
employment. Certainly, the intensity of services, the mix of
remedial education and skills training, and the direct federal
oversight with contracts given to private management combine to
produce an effective program. In addition, the participants live
away from home, which frees staff members and participants from
distracting influences and allows them to take seriously the
challenge of upgrading skills. Another contributing factor is the
experience in program planning and design gained by the Job Corps
during its nearly 25-year history. Throughout this period, the
program has experimented with learning methods suitable for
disadvantaged dropouts, including its own approach to competency-
based, individualized instruction. The approach is now used in many
centers and has, in fact, become something of a model for regular
school and training systems.

Project Redirection offered disadvantaged teenage mothers a variety
of individualized services, including day care, work experience,
skills training, basic education, personal counseling, referrals to
other agencies, and the guidance of an adult mentor. The first-year
evaluation demonstrated that, at the end of one year, twice as many
program participants had returned to school as had members of a
comparison group of teenage mothers. Subsequent evaluations,
however, were far less positive. The evaluators believe that the
reasons for failure lie not so much with the program model but with
its implementation. All the right pieces were present, but they
were not delivered with enough intensity nor in the correct fashion.
A new effort, Project New Chance, will test whether a vigorously
implemented, comprehensive model can work for teenage parents.

The most vital lesson educators and trainers can derive from this
review of "second chance" programs is the importance of integrating
and relating the critical components of a comprehensive effort.
Conventional education and remediation are not by themselves
effective for the at-risk population. Isolated work experience will
not reclaim impoverished and troubled youths. What will work is a
comprehensive, integrated approach in which each element is
strengthened and reinforced by the other components of the program.

The following are among the important lessons to be learned about
designing programs to prevent students from dropping out and to help
those who already have dropped out. Isolated work experience
programs have little value in increasing the employabil ity of
dropouts. Dropouts should work, but the experience from the work
sites should be used as pedagogical reinforcement in a classroom
component that is clearly connected to the job. Dropouts should
learn, but the curriculum should relate to the "functional" skills
needed in the workplace. Dropouts should acquire vocational skills,
but first they need to learn to read. Dropouts should learn to
read, but the learning environment should not resemble a traditional
classroom. Dropouts should be taught by caring teachers, but the

- 46 -

individuality of each student should be reflected in the teaching
technology used. Dropouts should be prepared for the labor market
through pre-employment/work-maturity services — but not until they
are genuinely ready to conduct a job search. Writing resumes and
practicing job interview skills should be "exit" services — not the
centerpiece of dropout prevention or remediation. Above all,
program services must to some degree be intensive; in the jargon of
professional educators, there must be sufficient "time-on-task."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew Hahn is an assistant dean of the Heller
School for Advanced Studies, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.,
where he teaches human resources policy.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Hahn, A., Danzberger, J., and Lefkowitz, B. Dropouts in America:
Enough is Known for Action, Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Educational Leadership, 1987.

Lefkowitz, B. Tough Change: Growing Up on Your Own in America, New
York: Free Press, 1987.

Featherstone, H. "Repeating a Grade: Does It Help?," Harvard
Education Letter, March 1986.

47 -

(11) Catherine Camp, Dropouts: A Discussion Paper. California
Legislative Assembly, Office of Research, May 1980.

EDITORS' NOTE: In this paper prepared for the California

Legislature, Camp discusses some of the issues relating to dropouts,
then reviews some apparently successful programs in California high
schools. Based on this review, the author offers several general
policy recommendations with special attention to alternative
programs.

KEY WORDS: Comprehensive approach Absences from school

Alternative programs Counseling

Vocational education

KEY POINTS:

Quitting school can be the result of a complex set of factors which
can be reduced to two common themes: 1) those forces within the
school which create student dissatisfaction and alienation leading
to a feeling of being "pushed out"; and 2) those forces outside the
school which attract students away from school, such as jobs,
marriage and child bearing. The factors leading to a decision to
leave school are not limited to simply being pushed out or
conversely being pulled out, but obviously involve a complex
interplay between the two. The conclusion from this analysis,
however, is that the more dominant force is the failure of the
educational system to adequately gauge and provide early
intervention for those students whose growing dissatisfaction with
school culminates in their dropping out.

Dropping out of school is frequently preceded by irregular
attendance and truancy. For many young people, the connections with
school may be so minimal that it is no longer their major activity,
although they remain technically enrolled in school. The reasons
cited for absenteeism by school administrators, attendance
personnel, counselors, teachers and students are also virtually
identical to national summaries of reasons why children drop out of
school. Students are absent because of illness, dislike or boredom
with school, social adjustment problems, family or personal matters,
influence of friends, and academic problems.

Academic problems also are a cause for children dropping out of
school. Many school dropouts have been retained in a grade at least
once. Many have had behavioral problems, with suspension and
expulsion histories. In many cases, dropouts have felt unable,
emotionally or economically, to participate in extra-curricular
activities such as athletics, school newspaper, yearbooks and class

- 48 -

dances. Dropouts frequently have problems in reading and
mathematics. Few of these children have had positive relationships
with teachers, nor are they perceived favorably by most of their
teachers.

The chances of work as an alternative to school are not good. The
very factors describing young people who are out of school are the
same factors for those young people whose participation in the work
force is smallest, and whose unemployment rate in the work force is
highest. These factors are minority status, lack of a high school
diploma, low-income families, central cities, and sex (a significant
number are women). A review of the labor force material coupled
with a review of school dropout information leads us to the stark
conclusion that it is not the attraction of the labor force that is
pulling them out of school, but rather it is the school, or their
perception of the school, that is pushing them out or causing them
to leave.

Pregnancy and marriage are significant factors when teens drop out
of school. Pregnancy is associated with significant school dropout
rates, and the prognosis for stable family building or economic
stability for teenage parents is poor. It is not clear whether
pregnancy and marriage cause teens to drop out of school, or whether
certain teens are motivated to leave school and begin their own
families sooner, and do so through pregnancy. It is clear that a
large number of the out-of -school young people are parents and/or
married, or soon will be.

Several programs designed to serve young people in their transition
to adulthood were explored. General themes common to all programs
and which appear to be critical to the success of any program aimed
at reducing dropouts and improving attendance are as follows:

o Schools need to provide diverse learning opportunities and
teaching styles and formats.

o Students need credentials reflecting diverse achievement. The
credentials would require development of competency testing
that reflects the differing backgrounds and diverse achievement
of young people. Current testing and credential! ing tend to
focus on too narrow a range of academic competencies.

o Local agencies are the appropriate place to determine what
programs suit local needs, and to assume responsibility for
carrying out programs to meet those needs.

o State administrative and legislative bodies are the appropriate
place to set goals, define state and local roles, and provide
technical assistance and coordination among programs.

49 -

o Specific goals to reduce dropouts and increase attendance need
to be assigned to local schools and such goals should be
established and monitored at the state level.

o Most local agencies do not need more laws, regulations, new
programs, or even more money; existing programs must focus on
goals that identify an intent to promote diverse ways of
serving young people and specify ways to monitor the
achievement of those goals.

o Closer cooperation and coordination is needed in virtually all
programs between the educational system and the community,
particularly involving private sector business in shared
programs to train and assist young people with their transition
into employment.

Imposing legal punishment for truancy raises a basic question
regarding the purpose of school. Enforced attendance cannot
contribute much to the acquisition of proficiency skills for adult
work and living, which are among the goals of education. Programs
to provide skills which are relevant to the adult world in an
environment that values the personalities and various learning
styles of all young people do bring school dropouts and nonattenders
back into the school system. We believe these types of programs are
a more appropriate and desirable public policy alternative than
jailing nonviolent, nondestructive young people who have already
suffered the stigma of school failure.

Most sources who discuss absenteeism or dropouts in the context of
attendance and truancy programs suggest that expansion of
educational options to provide relevant learning experiences for all
students is successful. Such expansion is a positive option, rather
than punitive, and recognizes that the responsibility for failure to
educate belongs to the school and community, as well as to the
parent and student. Options would include continuation schools,
independent study, work experience, vocational education and other
nontraditional learning experiences.

All the successful attendance and truancy programs we reviewed or
visited had common themes: 1) expectations and outcomes are clearly
defined; 2) policies are consistently enforced; and 3) programs are
developed with broad participation, including parents and students.

Continuation high schools provide an alternative to full-time
comprehensive high school, and have become an integral part of the
secondary system. Continuation schools provide part-time schooling
for young people with employment or other needs in a setting that
focuses on individualized instruction, preparation for work, and
basic skill acquisition. Continuation high schools were established
in 1919, the same time compulsory education was extended to 16- and
17-year-olds, primarily to serve the needs of working students. The
target group has been expanded to include dropouts and potential

- 50 -

dropouts, truants, young people involved in juvenile court

proceedings, children with behavioral problems, children with health

and disability conditions that limit full-time schooling, and young
parents.

Students at continuation high schools must meet district graduation
requirements and stringent attendance requirements, but the hours
are flexible depending on the students' work schedules. Students
are required to meet district proficiency standards. Continuation
schools operate with a 20 to 1 student-teacher ratio, and state
level administrators stress that a small, individualized setting is
necessary to serve the needs of the nontraditional learners who are
attracted to such schools. Counseling is a critical element to such
schools, providing support for student achievement goals and
employment, and follow-up counseling for truants and those youth
with absence and discipline problems. The individualized curriculum
stresses diagnosis of individual learning styles and goals,
flexibility in hours and work assignments, and student
responsibility for achievement based on negotiated contracts for
learning goals.

Continuation high schools have been the primary program for dropouts
in California secondary schools. Our interviews and on-site visits
discovered several strengths and weaknesses in this alternative
education setting. Strong points in the continuation model are:
small class and school size; flexible curricula, with individualized
learning processes; strong counseling component; commitment to
general education or the acquisition of basic skills in the context
of a transition to work or further education and training; and newly
established monitoring and technical assistance by the State
Department of Education to support quality programming.

Problems raised in our review of continuation high schools are as
follows: 1) Low esteem and status in the secondary education
system, because continuation schools are sometimes seen as a dumping
ground for "bad kids." Some districts view continuation high
schools as a treatment program, rather than an alternative to the
regular system, with the goal being the return of the students to
comprehensive high school. This suggests, continuation high schools
may need increased recognition as a responsive and credible
alternative learning environment; 2) Unclear enrollment policies in
some schools, with students who voluntarily enroll, who are referred
by juvenile courts or SARB's, or younger students with problems who
have been referred from disciplinary treatment programs.
Continuation schools need better defined goals and enrollment
policies which set priorities and identify the types of students
they can best serve; and 3) Lack of state level monitoring to
determine how many continuation high school students finish school.
There is also a lack of information on how continuation high school
curricula fit into proficiency exams established by districts.

- 51

Continuation high schools have established a learning mode that
closes many of the gaps our research identified in the formal,
academically focussed comprehensive high schools. The most needed
component is education and leadership at the state administrative
and legislative levels to encourage individualized alternative
education for students whose future in comprehensive high schools
will likely be failure. Close attention to the use of continuation
schools for disciplinary treatment, which may reduce the
effectiveness of providing an education for young people who are
ready for transition to work or more specific training, is also
needed.

Counseling services can help identify and treat young people who
have low attendance records or are potential school dropouts. Many
of these young people have a poor self-image, and there is a strong
correlation between self-concept and achievement. In fact, the
literature on dropouts finds a stronger correlation between self-
concept and achievement than between ability and academic
achievement.

In spite of increased public support and staff resources for
counseling and guidance programs, students in secondary schools,
particularly in urban areas, express the need for better planned,
more confidential, and more comprehensive guidance services. There
are gaps in the areas of information and guidance for realistic job
placement and career planning, including future education; direction
to appropriate courses for graduation; and assistance in
understanding themselves and relating to others. Students speak of
a lack of coordination between in-school and out-of-school
resources, and the isolation of the secondary school from "real
life." They also feel a lack of regular and timely input to
planning and evaluating counseling services, and that there is
persistent sexist and racist stereotyping in career counseling, job
placement, class assignments and access to college information.

The predominant opinion among the district staff we visited was that
the statutory goal of secondary vocational education should be to
provide eyery student with the basic skills necessary to assume an
entry level position of employment upon high school graduation and
to instill the work attitudes, work habits, career planning and job
seeking skills necessary to find and keep employment related to
their career goals. It is good if a student leaves high school with
specific occupational skills beyond the entry level, but it is more
important for high schools to concentrate on teaching basic
employability skills. Specific occupational skills can be developed
later, either on the job or through adult schools or community
colleges. Staff felt there was a particular need for this kind of
policy direction for high schools.

All districts expressed concern that the "back to basics" movement
was harming vocational and career education programs. In response
to public pressure, district governing boards have adopted

- 52 -

additional academic course requirements for graduation. Students
are often forced to drop vocational education courses in order to
take the additional academic courses necessary for graduation. Many
students were placed in vocational education programs because they
failed in the mainstream college preparatory program. To take these
students out of vocational programs, which are more relevant to
their needs than most academic courses, in order to place them in an
environment in which they are bound to fail, is counterproductive.
In addition, basic proficiency requirements established by districts
are usually defined in terms of academic skills rather than work
related and basic employment skills. As a result, vocationally
oriented students are ill -equipped to pass proficiency exams, and,
often must drop vocational education courses to take remedial
academic courses.

It is difficult not to conclude that these young people have in
effect been pushed out of school because of the lack of appropriate
programs. In human terms, the future for these young people is not
bright, and leaving school is not a reasonable choice among
alternative paths to the future. The consequences of leaving school
are sufficiently negative to doubt it is done by informed choice.
We have reviewed programs established to treat dropouts or potential
dropouts, and have found that it is possible to create successful
programs for divergent learners. Diverse educational settings are
rarely more costly than academic training for college-bound young
people, and many examples exist of local programs which work to
serve diverse student needs.

The standard comprehensive high school too often teaches and
credentials a limited set of cognitive skills appropriate for
further education, but not immediately transferable to the world of
work. Some young people need jobs or an alternative to high
education. Failure of the schools to effectively address the needs
of these students by assisting them with the transition from school
to work, or providing them with an education consistent with the
transition, has made school of little use to such students. The
goal of establishing a more formal and recognized array of
alternatives should not be to "hold" young people in school, but to
appropriately link young adults to jobs and careers. For example,
such a linkage may involve the school's provision of limited basic
skill training prior to placement in existing community or workplace
job training programs. The state, administratively and
legislatively, must provide the necessary leadership to assure local
development of educational alternatives and competency
credential! ing. Our review indicates that alternative education
programs that succeed in credential! ing skills for a broad range of
futures are not more costly than the core programs in most
comprehensive high schools. In general, neither new authority nor
new money are needed.

53

We found that the characteristics of programs that achieve a
reduction in dropouts and provide a broad range of students with
proficiencies are similar, whether the program is based in a
continuation school, is an independent study program, a vocational
education or a pregnancy and parenting model. Successful programs
include: Development of relevant, tangible skills, connected with
income earning jobs; development of self-esteem, intimacy,
recognition and self-preservation skills that many young people
lack; strong student input so that young people participate in
decisions to assure that programs meet their individual needs;
formulation of effective networks with community groups and
agencies, including medical personnel, employers, unions and
community youth workers; committed staff who seek the assignment;
public information designed to improve community understanding of
the problem and develop public commitment to serving the diversity
of young people; larger program networks that support, strengthen
and expand the impact of individual programs; appropriate
accountability and monitoring systems that provide incentives to
achieve program goals.

Students should be referred to alternative educational models before
a pattern of repeated failure is established. Present practice
frequently provides intervention and treatment only when poor
student attendance has become a pattern, and school failure is a
reality for the student. New guidelines should include
responsibility for community education about available alternatives,
and elicit community involvement in developing a network of
educational alternatives that prepare students for existing jobs.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Kaplan, J. and Luck, E. "The Dropout Phenomenon as a Social
Problem," The Educational Forum, November 1977.

Knoeppel , J. "The Students Served in Continuation Education," in
Journal of Secondary Education, November 1969.

Reed, D. "The Nature and Function of Continuation Education," in
Journal of Secondary Education, November 1969.

- 54 -

(12) Nancy Paulu, Dealing with Dropouts: The Urban Superintendents '
Call to Action, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
November 1987.

EDITORS' NOTE: This report by a group of urban school

superintendents outlines six strategies being used to lower dropout
rates in some of the nation's largest school districts. They
recommend that schools intervene early, create positive school
climates, set high expectations, select and develop strong teachers,
provide a broad range of instructional programs and initiate
collaborative efforts with parents and the community. For each
strategy they define specific tactics and offer specific examples of
where these programs have been put in place and appear to be
working.

KEY WORDS: Comprehensive approach Timely identification

Role of principals and teachers Alternative programs

KEY POINTS:

From their many years of experience in educating at-risk students,
members of the Urban Superintendents Network have learned an
important lesson: No single, magical formula exists to hold
potential dropouts in school or lure those who leave back to the
classroom. Different communities, schools, and students have
varying needs; what works for a bored but gifted youngster from the
Bronx may be inappropriate for a chronically truant adolescent from
Portland, Oregon. Students leave school for many reasons and under
different conditions. Therefore, programs to hold them there must
be imaginative, comprehensive, and tailored to meet individual
differences. The best prevention plans serve youngsters from
preschool through high school and address the many factors that
cause students to drop out.

Recognize that without special help early in their development,
underprivileged youngsters may never compete on equal terms with
privileged ones. Research shows that students who drop out display
academic problems as early as the third grade. The superintendents
also recognize that the earlier they intervene—preferably in the
preschool years and with the involvement of parents—the greater the
dividends. Because a large percent of those who drop out do so in
high school, a tendency exists to view the dropout problem as
falling solely within the high schools' domain. This attitude is

55

changing, however, as educators develop more sophisticated ways to
identify behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive problems--not just
in junior high or grade school, but even before a child starts
formal schooling.

The urban public school superintendents believe that early
intervention makes great sense in light of current knowledge about
the cumulative process that leads to dropping out. The downward
spiral often begins with early family experiences. Children who
grow up in stressful, indifferent, or hostile environments are more
apt to become insecure, anxious about learning, and distrustful of
adults. Children from healthy home environments enter school with
their natural curiosity, their interest in learning, and their sense
of well-being intact. An at-risk youth's background can be the
precursor of school experiences that add to his alienation and poor
self-image. Without self-confidence, these children will never
become avid learners or fulfill their potential. Special attention
from educators or a non-school source may be needed to make this
happen.

Preschool and early childhood programs head the urban
superintendents' list of ways to help at-risk youngsters succeed.
Evaluations of top-quality preschool programs suggest that early
intervention can have long-term effects on disadvantaged children by
decreasing their need for special programs and lowering delinquency,
pregnancy, and dropout rates. These programs are also thought to
improve the academic and social behavior of their enrol lees when
they reach high school .

Monitoring the academic and social progress of children carefully is
the best way to make sure students receive suitable special services
throughout their years in school. It enables educators to determine
which students need help, what type of help they need, and how they
are progressing.

Fortunately, it is easier to monitor students today than it once was
because computers are available to store and retrieve information
rapidly. Furthermore, better tests are available (some nationally
and some locally developed) to gauge a child's readiness for school
and to track his or her progress. While monitoring should begin
early, to affect the dropout rate it must continue throughout a
youngster's years in school.

Strong principals can create a vision for their schools and empower
their staffs to move toward it in a collaboration with the
community. They can ensure that human and material resources are
properly managed and coordinated. They can provide teachers with
the time needed to instruct and motivate their students. They can
help teachers to develop a challenging and appropriate curriculum.
With the administration's approval, principals can select their own

56

staff members to assure that each possesses qualities suitable for
their school. They can set high expectations. Finally, principals
can encourage their staffs to believe that all students, including
at-risk ones, are educable.

Principals can also help assure that at-risk students receive
adequate personal attention. Students who drop out invariably
complain that they left because they felt that the principal and
teachers weren't interested in them. Principals in many of the best
schools know the name of eyery student, and teachers go out of their
way to make all students feel welcome and to serve as mentors.

Many superintendents, teachers, parents, and school board members
believe classes must be small for at-risk students to receive
personal attention. Research on the impact of class size on student
achievement is mixed. However, many educators believe that students
learn more in small classes, providing the teacher takes advantage
of the opportunities that small classes offer. Common sense
suggests that small classes may make a difference for some students
with special needs because they increase the time and attention a
teacher has to give each student. Small classes also increase the
time a teacher has to plan the curriculum and decrease record
keeping. But for small classes to benefit students, teachers must
change their instructional practices.

Counseling can provide at-risk students with individual attention.
These students often need more support than a regular school
counselor has the time to provide. Therefore all of the staff must
share counseling responsibilities—not only the regular counselors,
but social workers, attendance clerks, assistant principals,
secretaries, custodians, and especially teachers.

To provide potential dropouts with the necessary support, many
districts have expanded their counseling services. For instance,
some now place counselors in elementary schools, counsel the entire
families of potential dropouts, and link at-risk students with
mentors in business and industry. Other districts assign fewer
students to counselors of at-risk students so that each youngster
receives more attention, and many districts make a special effort to
select counselors for at-risk students who have shown they work
particularly well with them.

A report by the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy
underscores the vital importance of involving teachers in decisions
that affect them. A rich source of creative innovation and
cumulative knowledge is lost when teachers are excluded, the report
concludes. Over time, failing to involve teachers demoralizes them,
increases their alienation, and saps their energy, which could be
productively used to bring about change.

- 57

The urban superintendents believe that students from whom much is
expected can learn more — providing they receive the support they
need to meet the standards. If educators consistently communicate
that students must attend class regularly, behave once they get
there, and strive toward excellence, they will be more likely to do
so. Attendance standards are a major concern to urban school
districts because a child who is not in class clearly cannot develop
the skills required for school success. When a student regularly
cuts one class or fails to show up for the entire day, this should
alert educators that the student might not view the school as a
friendly place to learn and socialize. When a school's overall
attendance rate if low, this may signal that some of its practices
and policies do not respond to the students' needs.

Students who drop out nearly always have attendance problems
beginning in elementary school, which is why policies to monitor and
improve attendance are central to many urban schools' dropout
prevention plans. Nationally, about 94 percent of all students
attend class on any single day, but in some inner-city schools the
attendance rates are far lower.

The superintendents have found several policies and practices that
can contribute to poor attendance. Failure to inform parents heads
the list. Parents need to be told when their children are absent so
parents can urge them to attend. Second, some educators fail to
acknowledge a student's return to school after a prolonged absence.
Many truant students do not want to give up on school, but returning
youngsters often find that no one helps them to reenter. Third,
many districts have inappropriate suspension policies for truant or
tardy students. These policies often fail to improve attendance
because they do not address the reasons students are absent.
Tardiness is often a symptom of school alienation, and turning late
students away can feed their alienation. Some districts also refer
truant students to court in hopes of "scaring" them back to school.
This is not apt to work unless these students receive the services
they need to change the factors contributing to the truancy.

Many school districts have raised academic performance standards.
Critics contend that requiring students to complete more academic
subjects and vigorously testing students to make certain subjects
are mastered will drive at-risk students out of school. However,
the superintendents favor keeping high standards — as long as low-
achieving students are given the academic support they need to meet
the standards.

Unfortunately, not many States have provided more money for students
requiring additional help to meet the standards. Nevertheless, some
districts have achieved success with several strategies. These
include longer school days and school years; evening, after-school,
and weekend classes; summer school; tutoring; transitional programs;
remedial teachers; and incentive and motivational programs. All of
these help at-risk students improve academically. They also provide

- 58 -

an alternative to grade retention, a practice most districts use for
students who have not developed enough academically or socially to
succeed in the next grade. Although holding students back a grade
may not cause them to drop out, the superintendents have found that
a large proportion of those who drop out have been retained at some
point during their school years.

Retention by itself generally does not help at-risk students to make
significant academic strides. However, the practice can be
beneficial if students who repeat a grade are taught the material
they previously failed to master in a new way. Unfortunately, this
often does not occur, which fuels a youngster's low self-esteem and
causes his or her motivation to wane. If students must be retained,
it usually is best to do so early in their education to minimize the
social stigma.

Longer school days and school years are high on the superintendents'
list of alternatives to retention. Research, documenting logic,
consistently shows that students who spend more time on academic
activities learn more. Some superintendents worry that longer
school days and school years will push out at-risk students who
already feel alienated from school. But most believe that needy
students can gain from the extra time. Summer school has many
benefits. It can provide students with extra hours to master their
coursework, and it can help them retain some of what they would
normally forget during the summer vacation. In California, the high
school dropout rate increased between 1978 and 1979 when summer
school offerings were drastically cut. Remedial summer programs can
save the district money by reducing the number of students who must
repeat a grade. They can also provide language instruction for
students who speak little or no English.

Programs to ease the transition into high school provide support for
potential dropouts, who often have a hard time adjusting to high
school. Ninth and tenth grade students are at a critical stage of
adolescence. Just as they are struggling to come to terms with
physical and emotional changes, they are entering new schools that
may seem large and impersonal. Moreover, they are required to take
many new courses, and no one teacher is responsible for their
instruction.

Some districts have trained their administrators and staffs in how
to manage conflict with hopes of improving their ability to prevent
discipline problems. Many districts have tried reducing
suspensions. Educators recognize that it may be necessary to
suspend some students in order to provide others with a climate in
which they can learn. However, when students are asked to leave
school, they are deprived of time for instruction, which further
distances them from school. Alternatives to suspension include
conferences with the student and his or her parents (particularly
important because they improve communication with families, a
critical first step to changing students' behavior); "Time out" or

- 59 -

in-school suspension and truancy centers; and intensive counseling.
Principals exert a major influence on a school's entire climate and
culture. But few educators are in a better position to affect the
lives of students than teachers, who mold attitudes toward school
and play a powerful role in what youngsters learn. All students
need teachers who know their subject and the techniques required to
communicate it. They also need teachers who respect and support
them and who maintain high expectations. Teachers of at-risk
students must be especially committed to each one. They must be
able to counsel students and tailor instruction to individual and
group differences. And they must encourage even the most troubled
and academically disabled to succeed.

Districts must also have sound hiring procedures to assure that
those selected will work well with a range of students, including
youngsters most apt to drop out. Schools and students may benefit
when educators in each building can select staffs suited to student
needs. However, the urban school superintendents recognize that
contractual agreements and other legal considerations may make this
difficult. The superintendents believe that all teachers, even the
best ones, need periodic professional nourishment and constant
support. Therefore, they believe districts should regularly provide
the entire teaching force with in-service training appropriate for
teachers with varying skills, experience, and work situations. Not
surprisingly, teachers may resist instruction when it is mandated
for all but is appropriate for only a few. Teachers should help
design the training so it is closely tied to a school's
instructional program and environment.

It is essential that school officials hire the best teachers and
provide them with opportunities to fine-tune their skills. But
school officials must also allow teachers to do their best work.
This is most apt to happen when teachers are treated as
professionals. They must be given autonomy, in exchange for which
they should be held accountable for their work. They must also be
given encouragement and the resources they need. Teachers work best
in pleasant and safe environments and when not overburdened by
disciplinary or administrative tasks. When teachers feel
unsupported, they are more likely to pass their discouragement along
to their students. When teachers work in a collegial atmosphere,
their effectiveness and their attendance often improves.

Youngsters whose families start them off on the right foot, who
attend good schools, who have caring and committed teachers, and
from whom much is expected are most apt to do well in school.
Youngsters who lack these advantages — even some who possess them--
may need special programs in order to do well. Some students
require more time than others, or special treatment, to master their
coursework. Youngsters raised in non-English speaking families may
need special language instruction. Students who arrive at school
hungry may need help from community agencies and the schools to see
that they receive a nutritional breakfast. Emotionally bruised

- 60 -

students may need counseling. Pregnant girls may require a helping
hand to face the challenges of motherhood. Many potential dropouts
are at risk in more than one way. For instance, they may have poor
grades, be chronically truant, come from disadvantaged homes, and be
in trouble with the law. Therefore, many of the most effective
programs attack the dropout problem on several fronts
simultaneously.

Work experience programs motivate some students to remain in school
until they graduate. By providing them with entry-level job skills
and paid employment, these programs enable at-risk students to see
the tangible rewards of a high school education at the same time
they are trained for an occupation. These programs also provide
academic instruction. Work experience and compensatory programs, as
well as magnet and alternative schools and programs for non-English
speaking students, can all help to address the dropout problem.

A growing number of people, organizations, and institutions together
are developing strategies to hold youngsters in school until they
graduate. Many of their efforts greatly enhance the chance for at-
risk students to stay in school. Parents, the juvenile justice
system, religious organizations, social service agencies, youth
employment and training programs, policymakers, businesses, and
industry can each offer invaluable expertise and resources. A
creative summer school program for dropout-prone youngsters may be
easy enough for a school district, working alone, to plan and to
administer. But health professionals and the juvenile justice
system may also need to get into the act with a dropout prevention
program aimed at chemically dependent teens, and support from
businesses is essential when a work study program is created.

Schools, communities, and businesses have forged partnerships to
reduce the dropout rate in many major American cities. Schools and
businesses have formed compacts; businesses have "adopted" schools;
businessmen and businesswomen serve as mentors to students and
provide them with scholarships. Specifics of the programs vary, but
they accomplish many of the same goals. They provide at-risk
students with emotional and financial support, they offer incentives
to attend school, and they introduce youngsters to the world of
work.

Urban superintendents agree that involving parents is crucial to
keeping students in school. Parents who encourage their children to
succeed in school beginning in the early years exert a powerful
influence over who stays and who leaves. Unfortunately, the bond
between school and home is characteristically weak for potential
dropouts. The urban superintendents believe the link between home
and school must be forged early--preferably in preschool, before the
high-risk students' problems have enlarged. The superintendents
recognize that the parent is the child's first and most influential
teacher. Many school districts have designed ways to reach parents
and involve them directly in keeping students in school. Some

- 61 -

schedule conferences before work or conduct telephone conferences in
the evening. Some offer classes to teach parents to read. Some use
electronic telephone calling systems to let parents know when their
children are absent.

A joint effort is also required to cope with teen pregnancy. In the
past, schools viewed this problem as falling within the domain of
home and the community. Some educators continue to believe that
schools should not become involved in this issue. However, most
districts believe they must address it, since such an overwhelming
percentage of teenage mothers leave school before graduating.

Today, most districts provide human development programs to help
students learn about their physical and emotional growth. These
classes may start in the early grades and continue through high
school. Schools also serve teens who are about to become or are
parents. This area is controversial, and varied approaches are
being tried in different districts. Some districts, together with
city health departments or other agencies, run school clinics, most
of which operate with non-school funds. Information from Hartford
and Philadelphia indicate that pregnant students who receive support
and services are less apt to drop out. Most districts also offer
programs within the regular schools or have established separate
schools for pregnant students. Some provide both.

Many urban superintendents believe media campaigns may help reduce
the dropout rate, although no research exists on their impact.
Nevertheless, several school districts have used radio spots and
poster campaigns to lower the dropout rate. Chicago hired an
advertising agency to develop more positive images of the city's
public schools. The agency produced a televised public service
announcement, which invites community residents to volunteer in
their neighborhood schools and urges all Chicagoans to take an
interest in the public schools. The mayor of Miami is writing ewery
high school student a personal note saying how important it is to
stay in school --the same message he conveys in school visits.

These strategies cannot provide a complete solution to the dropout
problem, but they offer an important start. The national dropout
rate will not decrease overnight. The complex problems that give
rise to it defy simple solutions and quick fixes. The droves of
students that leave our schools demand our attention. Nothing less
than a full commitment of our energy, time, and resources will
enable us to eradicate this problem. Only a united and
comprehensive effort will allow America's children to look forward
to a brighter future.

62 -

(13) Margaret Terry Orr, "What to do About Youth Dropouts? A
Summary of Solutions." Structured Employment/Economic
Development Corporation (SEEDCO), New York: 1987.

EDITORS' NOTE: This report summarizes fourteen in-depth case
studies of programs addressing the dropout problem. Extracted from
the book Keeping Students In School, the paper outlines six
components of a comprehensive strategy aimed at potential dropouts:
Supplementary in- school programs, external support services,
comprehensive school -affiliated programs, programs for dropouts,
school system-wide approaches, and city-wide, community-based
approaches.

KEY WORDS: Comprehensive approach Alternative programs

KEY POINTS:

Through extensive consultation with educators, trainers, and policy
and program specialists, we developed a framework for designing
programs and appropriate service strategies aimed at the youth
dropout problem. Fourteen programs were selected to represent a
range of approaches and were identified through a wide search of
education and employment and training programs and projects. Each
program was visited by a team of researchers who interviewed
directors, staff, and students and observed classes and other
program activities.

The causes of dropping out are numerous and stem from many of the
economic and social circumstances that are closely related to other
youth problems, including adolescent parenthood, unemployment, drug
abuse, and crime. The solution is not simply to make existing
schools and programs more attractive to encourage dropout-prone
students to stay. The interrelated causes and problems of dropping
out call for comprehensive multiservice approaches to prevent
students from leaving school too early and to help those who have
left to complete their education and obtain employment.

In an attempt to intervene more effectively, states and local
communities have begun to explore how to serve their youth dropout
population. The most common approach is to add new funding--
generally or specifically for programs directed to preventing
students from dropping out. Increasingly, too, state and local
agencies are initiating collaborative projects, such as combining
education and employment and training resources and services to
serve these youth comprehensively.

63 -

From a review of the nature and context of the youth dropout
problem, several program planning principles become clear. Because
dropping out is a complex problem that stems from numerous causes
and because it exists in varying degrees, several kinds of
programmatic solutions are needed. And because the problem is the
responsibility of many service sectors, these solutions ought to
come from many sources. But the solutions are not limited to
designing and adding new programs. Indeed, it seems that resolving
the youth dropout problem requires a systematic change in our
schools and our accountability as communities, states, and a nation.

Until recently, only three general approaches existed to serve
potential dropouts or those who have left school: Compensatory
education, alternative education, and employment and training
programs.

Compensatory education encompasses primarily reading and mathematics
assistance for poorly performing students. It has been established
in local schools through substantial federal, state, and local
funding directed to serving economically disadvantaged students
experiencing academic problems, most of them in elementary school.
Limited evaluations have demonstrated the effectiveness of
compensatory education in improving achievement in reading and math
among participants in comparison to other students. And to the
extent that educational performance reduces the chances of dropping
out, compensatory education is a useful strategy. Public schools
also commonly offer many kinds of alternative programs for special -
needs students, including those likely to drop out. While no large-
scale evaluation has been done of such programs, there is some
limited evidence of their effectiveness in serving potential
dropouts.

The third primary approach to serving youth dropouts is through the
highly decentralized and diverse public employment and training
programs. In these programs, which are usually funded through
federal and other public and private sources, economically
disadvantaged youth and adults receive training, employment
preparation, and job placement. Reviews of the outcomes of
demonstration youth employment and training programs implemented
during the late 1970s show that work experience is not enough to
address the employment needs of these youth or to encourage them to
return to school long enough to graduate. Youth dropouts may need
more job readiness training and support services as part of an
overall program. Finally, youth dropouts need an educational
program that addresses their basic-skill deficiencies while
preparing them for employment.

The lessons learned from the existing approaches to serving dropout-
prone youth demonstrate necessary program features of service
delivery, instructional content, and staff and organization. The
following features are recommended: 1) Programs should be kept
small to facilitate an intimate and supportive environment for

- 64 -

students and a collegial relationship among the staff. 2)
Instruction should include basic-skill remediation, employment
preparation, and job training to assist students both in graduating
from high school and in preparing for post-high school employment.
3) Academic instruction and experiential learning, such as
employment training, should be mixed to reinforce each other. 4)
Programs should be structured to help students cope with social,
economic, and other problems that are barriers to their continued
education, either directly or through referral.

Based on our review of the nature of the youth dropout problem, the
kinds of services available, and recommendations on what is needed,
we have devised a program planning framework of a range of
approaches. The framework has six components. The first type of
program provides supportive counseling and job readiness preparation
to marginally performing students who are still in school. Creation
of support groups or part-time employment is a low-cost means of
assisting these youth. These programs can be easily sponsored by
organizations external to the schools, but they can be integrated
with an existing educational program.

The second group of programs is designed for youth whose economic,
family, or personal responsibilities keep them out of school. These
programs are structured in ways that help students cope with their
competing responsibilities and provide a means for them to complete
high school. Such programs, because of their attention to external
problems, can often be funded through state and federal sources
specifically designed for these support service needs.

The third group is made up of comprehensive programs for students
who are likely to drop out because of serious academic and
attendance problems. These programs often combine an array of
education, employment preparation, and counseling services for
potential dropouts in a comprehensive, multiservice approach to
encourage students to remain in school. They are designed to
address early manifestations of academic and attendance problems
intensively. These programs can easily make use of private-sector
resources for program content and funding.

The fourth category includes comprehensive programs for students who
have already dropped out. Their main focus is on helping young
people to achieve basic-skill performance levels and to pass the
GED, while helping them to prepare for employment.

The fifth type of program illustrates how school systems can combine
targeted and general strategies to increase the number of students
who stay in school and graduate. This is done by combining
alternative programs for students at risk of dropping out with
consideration of ways to restructure the schools to respond better
to students' varied educational needs.

65

The sixth type goes beyond the school system-wide approach to
encompass the larger community or city. It is a strategy that draws
upon resources of businesses, universities, and other social
agencies. It assumes that dropping out is more than a school system
problem.

The 14 programs considered in the study vary widely in design, but
all reflect common short- and long-term goals. In the short term,
the program staff have tried to keep youth engaged academically: to
give them basic reading and computation skills; to expose them to
the world of work; and to prepare them for employment. The long-
term goals of the 14 programs are to see that the young people
graduate from high school or pass the GED, and to see that the youth
become employed or go on to advanced training.

Most of the 14 programs have addressed the major flaws of earlier
approaches by putting a strong emphasis on basic-skills improvement
and on assistance with personal and family problems. The strong
emphasis on employment preparation and work experience serves a dual
function. It makes it clear to youth that without a diploma their
options are limited, and it helps them to make the transition into a
good job after graduation. All programs reflect an awareness that
different incentives are needed to encourage young people to return
to school and to motivate students to complete school.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Barro, S.M. "The Incidence of Dropping Out: A Descriptive
Analysis," SMB Economic Research, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Berlin, G. "Towards a System of Youth Development: Replacing Work,
Service and Learning Deficits with Opportunities," statement
before Congressional Hearing, Subcommittee on Employment
Opportunities, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington,
D.C., March 1984.

Betsey, R.G., Hollister, R.G., Jr. and Papageorgiou, M.R. (eds.)
Youth Employment and Training Programs, the YEDPA Years,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1985.

Catterall, J. and Stern, D. "The Effects of Alternative School
Programs on High School Completion and Labor Market Outcomes,"
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8:77-86, 1986.

Ekstom, R. and others, "Who Drops Out of High School and Why?
Findings from a National Study," Teachers College Record, 1987.

- 66 -

Kolstad, A.J. and Owings, J. A. "High School Dropouts Who Change
Their Minds About School." Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.,
1986.

Peng, S. "High School Dropouts: A National Concern," paper
prepared for the Business Advisory Commission of the Education
Commission of the States, National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.,
1985.

- 67

(14) Sheppard Ranbom, "School Dropouts- -Everybody's Problem," final
report of a conference hosted by the Institute for Educational
Leadership, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1986.

EDITORS' NOTE: This report was the product of a conference intended
to brief congressional staff on what we know about dropping out:
Mho drops out, what programs are working and why, and what
policymakers need to think about in considering the problem. A
number of model programs are described.

KEY WORDS: Alternative programs School -rel ated factors

KEY POINTS:

Youth drop out of high school for a variety of reasons which have
changed very little over the past 20 years. To at-risk students,
school is often a hostile environment where they feel alienated and
bored, and where they perceive themselves as chronic failures. By
far, the most common reason for leaving high school is poor academic
performance. Poor performance is often accompanied by expressed
reasons for leaving such as, "I dislike school," or "school was not
for me."

Bud Hodgkinson argues that schools have an "underlying agenda
stressing silence, order, control, and competition," or modes of
behavior that are often anathema to at-risk students. Thus,
rebellion against that agenda, marked by frequent expulsion,
suspension, truancy, and in-school delinquency, is one major reason
why students, particularly males, drop out.

Large schools and classes lead students to feel anonymous,
unimportant, and disassociated with the activities and goals of
school. In large schools, teachers do not know students by name and
can offer little individualized instruction to remediate learning
problems. Moreover, there is little opportunity for students to
take leadership responsibilities and participate significantly in
extracurricular activities. Small schools of 300 to 400 students
with a low student-adult ratio have fewer disorders, higher
achievement levels, higher rates of student participation, and
stronger feelings of satisfaction with school life. Their ability
to "engage" students often can be replicated in larger schools
through special programs and counseling.

The ways schools track students has a profound effect on student
motivation and achievement. It is not uncommon for students tracked
in the most advanced learning group to progress five times faster

- 68 -

than students in the least advanced groups. Students placed in
slower groups not only advance more slowly, but develop problems of
lower self-esteem, misconduct, and higher delinquency and dropout
rates. By contrast, when students are placed in groups of mixed
ability and achievement they seem to be exposed to more effective
instructional practices, and they like their experiences more than
students in lower tracks.

Increasingly, schools are reversing efforts of the late 1960s and
early 1970s that broadened course offerings to meet the needs of
individual students. Instead, they are imposing new requirements
for more courses in a core of academic subjects. But some observers
say that the movement back to a standard core limits the type of
individualized curriculum and instructional approach crucial to
students with substantial deficits in aptitude and achievement who
have a sense of academic failure. Clearly, higher standards without
additional assistance pose serious risks to students who are not
doing well with the standard curriculum and whose school experiences
are negative from the start.

The criticisms and fears about the impact of the school reform
efforts have focused attention on what works and does not work with
school dropouts. Some observers are concerned that the movement to
adopt a stronger academic core curriculum overemphasizes academic
abilities and talents to the exclusion of others. They also are
worried that a return to the "new basics" will subject students who
are chronic failures to demands that afford them little chance of
success. Similarly, some educators expressed concern that statewide
requirements that limit participation in extracurricular activities
to students with at least 'C averages in academic courses will
encourage ineligible students to drop out because they have lost one
of their few incentives to stay in school.

We do know enough about why students drop out of school to help
educators understand and deal with the connection between schooling
and a student's decision to leave. The early signs include low test
scores, particularly in reading; low grades; no feeling of
competence in any subject; low attendance; and retention in a grade.
The single best predictor of a potential dropout is that a student
is held back before the eighth grade. Warning signs in high school
include low grades, failed courses and low attendance. Other good
predictors of potential dropouts are low academic self-concept,
little sense of control over the academic environment, lack of
"connectedness" with the school through extracurricular activities
or a personal identification with a teacher or other adult, and lack
of belief that the effort to graduate will be beneficial.

Educators at the conference said, "Like it or not, if the dropout
problem is ever to be solved, schools must take a leadership role."
Less than one percent of the youth in need of assistance is
currently in programs such as those described below. Schools are

69 -

the only option. Schools have great resources at their disposal,
are the institution that deals with the life span of youth, and
exist in every community.

Among school -based initiatives that help reduce the dropout problem
are:

o Developmental early childhood education programs to give
children from disadvantaged backgrounds a positive orientation
to school, and skills training prior to beginning school.

o Efforts to reduce school structures and teacher workloads to
give teachers opportunities for closer and effective contact
with students and their parents.

o Competency-based promotion to identify verifiable skills,
mastered at an individual pace with positive reinforcement from
teachers, that can help offset negative school attitudes common
among slow learners.

o Summer programs to ensure that disadvantaged students or slow
learners do not lose educational gains made during the school
year, and to give them supervised work experience.

o Alternative high school programs such as the "school within a
school," to provide students with options.

o Intensive, individualized training in the basic skills combined
with more relevant, concrete projects to provide a relationship
to the world of work.

o Experiential education to link students to the broader
community outside of schools, ranging from tutoring young
students to working on construction crews aimed at revitalizing
urban housing, and to give students a greater sense of purpose,
reorient them to the broader world outside of school, and
establish a motivation to work and learn.

o Bilingual education to provide sufficient numbers of well-
trained bilingual teachers who can work with the most at-risk
pupils--speakers of English as a second language.

o Collaboration to bring government, higher education, business
and industry, social service agencies, civic groups, and
parents together to develop and expand programs for youth at
risk of dropping out.

Among the most successful methods of dealing with at-risk students
are alternative education programs that place students in different
environments, sometimes within their regular schools.

70 -

The Washington-Dix Street Academy in Washington, D.C. is a model
alternative program for dropouts and underachievers. Established in
1972 by the Washington Urban League, as part of a national project,
it was phased completely into the D.C. public school system in 1975.
The program is patterned after the "street academies" which sprang
up in New York City in the 1960s. These were small, informal
schools for dropouts and alienated youth established in church
basements and storefronts near busy streets. They were partially
staffed by young "street workers" from the community, who recruited,
counseled, and tutored students. Because of budget cuts, the D.C.
schools' program exists now without the aid of "street workers."
Enrollment is voluntary. The program, which graduates about 35
students per year, provides individualized instruction in small
classes where teachers have a close relationship with students. The
Academy also gives students the opportunity to gain credit through
community service in hospitals, day care centers, recreation
centers, and government agencies. About two-thirds of the students
in the program are young women, nearly half of whom are mothers.

The Summer Training and Education Program, a three-year
demonstration project, launched by The Corporation for Public-
Private Ventures of Philadelphia with support from the Ford
Foundation. It gives 1,500 14-year olds who failed a grade or read
below grade level a chance to catch up with academic work during the
summer months while earning money in a summer job and learning about
family planning. The project is targeted at young teens as they are
about to make the difficult transition from junior to senior high
school. The program is designed to improve literacy in reading and
mathematics, increase high school completion rates, and reduce
teenage pregnancy. The project has four key components:
remediation through self-paced, competency-based instruction; a
life-planning program, with information on sex education and
pregnancy and their effect on employment; summer jobs in
maintenance, clerical, food service and recreational work; and in-
school follow-up to monitor students and the success of the program
in meeting its goals.

A Youth Tutoring Project in San Antonio, Texas provides Hispanic
students who need money to assist their families with eight hours of
employment a week. Their job--to help third graders with their
school work. The program has led to a reduction in absenteeism,
improved scores on basic skills tests, and improved self-concept of
students involved.

The Postsecondary Planning Program in Dade County, Florida is a
curriculum and counseling program that familiarizes students with
careers. It uses computer labs and in-class activities, including
mock employment situations and career exploration study projects, to
give students motivation for learning. It begins in elementary
school. Before the program was introduced in 1980, the dropout rate
in Dade County averaged 20.4 percent. After the first year of

- 71

operation, the dropout rate declined to 17.6 percent and in 1982-83
the rate was 15 percent. According to program personnel, not only
have dropout rates declined, but job placement rates have increased
significantly.

Atlanta's Adopt-A-Student Program uses volunteers from the city's
Merit Employment Association, a group of 40 local businesses, to
provide students in the lowest quartile of their high school class
with a role model on a one-to-one basis. The program includes
seminars and workshops to aid high school students in developing and
improving their job awareness, job preparation, and job aspirations,
as well as life-coping skills.

Los Angeles Unified School District Dropout Recovery Prevention
Program, funded at $1 million, is now being piloted in 21 schools
(divided evenly between high schools, junior high schools, and
elementary schools). It provides additional staff members to work
exclusively on identifying potential dropouts and providing them
with counseling, tutoring, and psychological help where appropriate.
The staff also tries to locate students who already have dropped out
and to encourage them to return.

The Cities in Schools Project's primary characteristic is its basis
in a local coalition of leadership involving the mayor's office,
school system, business community and public and private social
service agencies. This model promotes the increased effectiveness
of service personnel and educators for at-risk students and families
by placing public and private support services, including
counseling, health, recreation, financial, legal and employment aid,
in the schools. The program was first initiated in Atlanta and
Indianapolis in 1974, but has been replicated in Houston, New York
City, Bethlehem (PA.), Los Angeles, the District of Columbia, and
West Palm Beach.

Project Redirection aims at helping a group burdened by multiple
disadvantages: pregnant teenagers and teenage mothers with poverty-
level family incomes, almost half of whom are school dropouts.
Begun in 1980 in five sites and recently expanded to seven more, the
program guides each participant according to an individualized
service plan and provides comprehensive services such as educational
placement in summer youth employment programs, and job search
assistance. Beyond that, programs offer maternal and child health
care; family planning; parenting skills; general life skills, such
as balancing checkbooks and using want ads; help in child-care
arrangements; peer group sessions; and counseling. Adult women from
the community are volunteers who serve as role models and
counselors.

No single approach will work for all disadvantaged youth. Because
they are dealing with multiple problems at the same time, programs
must be carefully designed and targeted. For example, moving
seriously at-risk 17- to 20-year old school dropouts immediately

- 72 -

into a relatively short-term supported work program did not improve
post-program behavior. Adding remediation skills training to the
work experience increased the effectiveness of the program.
Further, individualizing the assessment and skill training focused
on particular needs. Programs for pregnant teens and teenage
mothers also need to have access to a wide range of services,
including educational counseling and referral, employability
training and job counseling, birth control education, referral to
health services, instruction in parenting, personal counseling, life
management education, recreational activities, and child care for
those returning to school.

Meaningful work experience can complement schooling for
disadvantaged youth. But, participants have to receive adequate
basic education and employers have to establish school standards for
youth to meet. Demonstrations conducted indicate that many issues
need to be resolved in this area, including defining and enforcing
school attendance and performance standards. Furthermore, schools
were ineffective in recruiting students who had dropped out and did
little to create curricula which met the needs of out of school
youth. Programs which provided academic credit for work experience
did little to enhance students' basic skills and appeared to be of
questionable value.

- 73 -

(15) Jacob Kaufman and Morgan V. Lewis, The School Environment and
Programs for Dropouts. The Pennsylvania State University, Union
Park, Pa.: August 1968.

EDITORS' NOTE: This 1968 study evaluated two experimental programs
designed to get dropouts a "second chance": One designed to lead to
a diploma, the other occupational skill training. The evaluation
found the diploma program more effective by every criterion. Most
significant was the positive attitude teachers in the successful
program maintained toward their students.

KEY WORDS: Alternative programs Learning styles

Role of principals and teachers Vocational education

KEY POINTS:

This is a report of two experimental programs that were conducted
for young high school dropouts. One program offered courses leading
to a high school diploma; the other offered skill training in one of
three occupational areas. There were major differences in the
relative success of the two programs as measured by retention rates,
tests, questionnaires, and interviews. By all of these measures the
diploma program was more successful.

During the development of the high school diploma program, efforts
were made to structure each instructional situation to create
opportunities for the development of positive interactions. There
were many links in the chain of interaction. These included: the
project staff's relationships with the teachers; the teachers'
relationships with each other; the teachers' relationships with the
students; and, finally, the students' relationships with each other.
Considering what is know concerning school rejection by the
culturally deprived, it seems safe to assume that any failure in
this vital chain of relationships could have resulted in the
creation of conditions conducive to school rejection. Similar
efforts were made in the skill training program, but because of the
administrator these were not successful.

Teachers who worked effectively with the students cared about them
as individuals; they had insight into the personal characteristics
and motivations of the students and were aware of the difficulties
many of them were trying to overcome. This awareness caused the
successful teachers to put extra effort into attempting to
communicate with the students. The students responded to this

74

obvious involvement on the part of the teachers. Instead of
avoiding the learning situation--a response that they had learned in
previous school settings--they responded to the teacher and found
they could, indeed, learn.

In general the unsuccessful teachers were not able to accept the
students as individuals, responding to the stereotype of the dropout
rather than to the separate students they taught. They ascribed the
dropouts' difficulties to character defects which could be overcome
by personal diligence. Since these teachers believed the problem
lay with the nature of the student, it was the students'
responsibility to make any adjustments necessary for them to benefit
from the program. But basically these teachers had little faith in
the ability of the dropouts to make such adjustments. They believed
that the dropouts' limited natural ability and lack of initiative
prevented them from doing so.

These basically negative attitudes toward the students reduced the
effectiveness of the teachers who held them. Such teachers
complained of obtaining little response from the students; the
successful teachers, on the other hand, remarked about the
enthusiasm of their students. The poorer teachers were skeptical of
the worth of the program; the good teachers saw it as "last chance"
for students that the regular school had failed to serve. The
poorer teachers taught these students in much the same way they
taught their regular classes and learned little from their
participation in the program. The better teachers, however,
constantly attempted to find new ways to reach the students and
found that their regular teaching was being affected.

A weighing of all the available data points to the difference in the
attitudinal tone or "atmosphere" of the two programs as one of the
major reasons for the difference in their relative success. This
difference in tone appeared to stem largely from the different
attitudes of their administrators towards the value of the programs.
The school administrator is the bridge between society and the
classroom. His attitudes toward culturally disadvantaged students
and his interpretation of his responsibilities to them, as
communicated by him both to the community and to his teachers, may
significantly influence how his teachers teach.

During the development of the diploma program, many meetings with
teachers were devoted to exploration of various aspects of the
organization of the traditional high school. The values that
underlie these traditional procedures and practices were reexamined.
Teachers developed the understanding that the administration had
different expectations concerning conduct of the educational
program, evaluation of student progress, student conduct,
attendance, etc., than usually are encountered. Teachers freely
reacted to each other's ideas and influenced them. The cumulative
effect of the staff discussions that were held was to liberate
teachers from the feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and failure that

- 75 -

might have developed had they incorrectly judged administrative
expectations and tried to approach their classes with their habitual
attitudes and expectations. They were freed from the fear of
disapproval that they might have experienced when they contemplated
doing something new or different. In this way, a climate of
acceptance was firmly established before teachers and students even
met.

The situation was completely reversed in the skill training program.
Soon after the program was in operation it became apparent that the
administrator was not in sympathy with its aims. He held basically
negative attitudes toward the students and, when interviewing
prospective teachers, it was occasionally reported that he made
these views known. The "self-defeating behavior" was amply
stimulated by the teachers' attitudes, the lack of equipment and
supplies, and the repetitious nature of the instruction. Students
found once again that what society promised and what it delivered
were much at variance. The expectations of frustration and
rejection, that initially the students were motivated enough to
overcome, were only too well confirmed. Instead of the program
providing the support necessary for continuation, it supplied the
conditions that brought forth the students' more accustomed behavior
of failure and withdrawal.

Most of the ineffective teachers came from socio-economic
backgrounds where there was strong emphasis on upward occupational
mobility. Families with this orientation stress the importance of
hard work, conscientiousness, fulfilling responsibilities,
postponing immediate gratification, planning for the future, etc.
People who have internalized these values find the behavior of those
from different backgrounds very irritating. The symptoms of
poverty- -unemployment, welfare, illegitimacy—are seen as a desire
"to get something for nothing," as laziness, as self-indulgence.
Poor people have a life style which the upwardly mobile has been
taught to fear worse than death itself. To the upwardly mobile, the
fact that poor people live this way means that they must want to.
If they did not want to, they would get a job, any job, and live a
"decent" life.

tney were going to acnieve one or tne major goais set tot
adolescents in our society. The possession of this certificate
means that they no longer would be classified as outcasts and
failures. The students, of course, also hoped it would open doors

■*-/-> nmnlni/mnnt +■ li -> +■ kiH nvnwiniirl w knnn rlnfoH Rowrvn/H itc nyartiral

76 -

The learning experience does not begin with a book, an unnatural
place for the disadvantaged student to begin. Rather, the learning
experience begins with a question or problem that may develop from
experiences gained outside school or from a discussion,
demonstration, or other school originated experience. The question
or problems may be explored in a number of ways, with some form of
experimentation at or near the top of the list of preferred types of
exploration. Books and reading become part of this process when
printed reference materials become the only practical way to answer
a question or solve a problem. Indeed, it must be remembered that
the nonverbal student, whether deprived or not, probably never will
read for pleasure. Certainly, culturally disadvantaged individuals
have not had experiences at home to cause them to value books and
reading. For the disadvantaged student both natural and
environmental factors, therefore, operate to make the suggestion of
reading for pleasure a feminine, indeed oldmaidish, cliche.

The culturally deprived student--with his rejection of formality,
his needs for peer interaction and acceptance, perhaps his limited
or underdeveloped interest patterns, his lack of self-confidence,
and his lost curiosity--is in particular need of opportunities to
group and regroup as the situation requires. He may react quite
negatively to some teacher or some groups of his peers and must have
a way to move out of these situations. He may need to spend most of
his time with one particular person with whom he can identify and to
whom he can relate. He may need to spend time alone or with a
friend or two working with a particular piece of equipment,
discussing an urgent or fascinating problem. Flexibility in
grouping and in the use of time can permit opportunities for the
culturally disadvantaged student to explore, to regain his lost
curiosity, and to overcome his apathy.

Teachers who possess the basic personality characteristics that
predispose them to sympathetic and humanitarian attitudes toward
others, who have gained insights into the handicap of poverty, who
have found a way to identify with the culturally disadvantaged, who
have mastered essential teaching skills, and who also have creative
leadership, flexible school organization, and an individual
curriculum, should be able to develop positive relationships with
culturally disadvantaged students and, through these relationships,
contribute their share toward the relief of some of the problems of
poverty.

77 -

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Ausubel , D.P. "Effects of Cultural Deprivation on Learning
Patterns." In S.W. Webster (Ed.) The Disadvantaged Learner.
San Francisco: Chandler, 1966.

Cervantes, L.F. The Dropout: Causes and Cures. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1965.

Chansky, N.M. Untapped Good: The Rehabilitation of School Dropouts.
Springfield, 111: Thomas, 1966.

Greene, B.I. Preventing Student Dropouts. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

- 78

(16) James M. Weber, "Strengthening Vocational Education's Role in
Decreasing the Dropout Rate," The National Center for Research
in Vocational Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1986.

EDITORS' NOTE: This study examines the role of vocational education
in reducing dropout rates. In particular, it found that programs
that identify the dropout prone, provide them guidance and
counseling services, and offer meaningful opportunities for career
exploration and development seem to help reduce the number of
dropouts. Some of the recommendations the author offers are
providing career exploration before high school, and tying
work/study to specific educational plans.

KEY WORDS: Timely identification Vocational education

Counsel ing

KEY POINTS:

Even the best of programs cannot be successful without the timely
identification of potential dropouts. Prior to their entry into
high school and subsequent involvement in the vocational program, a
more extensive, systematic effort needs to be undertaken to identify
potential dropouts. Such an effort should resemble that used to
identify learning-disabled, disadvantaged, and other special needs
students. Previous research shows that dropout-prone students need
to be identified early enough in their school careers so that some
form of positive action can be initiated before it is too late.

It is essential that--in addition to a more systematic
identification of potential dropouts prior to high school entry--
there be more extensive guidance and counseling services available
to them prior to their entry into high school, at the transition
point into high school, and during their high school careers.
Normally, the needs of potential dropouts in this regard are
multidimensional and extensive in scope. A variety of approaches
and specific activities can be used to help deliver such services.
These approaches can include monitoring by teachers; hiring more
counselors, particularly vocational counselors, so as to decrease
the student-counselor ratio; providing parent/family workshops;
offering health screening programs; and fostering school-to-school
linkages through orientation programs, joint school activities, and
transitional guidance services. It appears that the actual delivery
of these services to potential dropouts is the critical factor at
this point, more so than the specific nature of these services.

79

The guidance needs of most dropouts, particularly in planning their
high school programs, are not adequately addressed either at school
or at home. For example, significantly fewer lOth-grade dropouts
than completers reported discussing their high school plans with
their parents or "significant others" in their lives. Also, as a
general rule, few dropouts and dropout-prone students reported
talking either to a counselor or their teachers about their high
school plans. This inadequacy is also reflected in the fact that
few dropouts and dropout-prone students reported that they "chose"
their high school programs rather than its being simply "assigned"
to them.

As a general rule, there are very poor assessments of students'
strengths and weaknesses. When such data are available, counselors
either cannot or will not follow up and place students in areas
where success and self-esteem can be cultivated. Such assessments
point up the need for individualized counseling services designed to
serve both dropout-prone youth as well as actual school leavers.

It is also essential that the guidance and counseling services for
dropouts and dropout-prone students assign a heightened role to
vocational education as a program alternative. Vocational education
should be a more prominent part of the comprehensive set of course
offerings from which students make educated choices, not a dumping
ground for dropouts and dropout-prone students. Retentive effects
associated with participation in vocational education can never be
realized if dropout-prone students do not participate in those
programs.

Research results suggest that once dropouts are in high school, they
tend not to enter the mainstream of vocational programs offered in
their respective schools. The involvement of dropouts in those
programs appears to be concentrated in "exploratory" courses,
especially consumer/homemaker and industrial arts courses. These
students take relatively few, if any, "occupational" courses, which
provide specific job training and other kinds of benefits.
Furthermore, they do not appear to explore the full range of
vocational offerings, nor do they develop a vocational specialty.
Because too few dropouts appear to follow the "normal" transitional
paths through their schools' vocational programs, or take advantage
of the job training aspects of those programs, mechanisms for
assisting them in these regards need to be implemented. Following
are examples of mechanisms that might be used.

o Offer occupational courses earlier in the students' high school
careers and do not require a variety of "exploratory"
prerequisites to those courses.

o Offer a special series of occupational courses or even
minicourses after school, on weekends, or during school hours
via flexible course scheduling, so as to afford opportunities
for students to acquire job-specific skills.

- 80 -

o Offer the exploratory courses as well as any required remedial
courses at an earlier time (e.g., 8th grade) or as special
courses (i.e., after school, summer, and so forth) in order to
ensure that time during the high school day is devoted to
taking occupational courses. For example, encourage community
business and industry to work with students to give experiences
and course credit on students' own time.

o Implement more extensive planning systems that involve more
decision points where counselors and teachers may discuss,
modify, and adapt the students' basic program plans. In so
doing, the advisability of students' taking more "exploratory"
versus "occupational" courses could be monitored and evaluated.

The results also suggest that one aspect of high school vocational
programs needing review is the issue of work-study. It appears that
dropouts often participate in work-study activities early in their
high school careers and to a much greater degree than that of the
general student population. Frequently, work-study activities have
minimal programmatic association with other, ongoing school efforts.
Although important because of the economic benefits they provide the
recipients, these activities may directly or indirectly serwe as
inducements for quitting school. Some activities are not related
directly to the ongoing school program, such as those that are part
of a larger dropout prevention program, (e.g., an extended school
day or alternative high school program or an experience-based career
education program). Such activities may not positively contribute
to retention and possibly should be deemphasized. Research results
also suggest that school -JTPA linkages that involve work-study
activities for disadvantaged youth should be reviewed and evaluated
on an individual basis.

Successful dropout prevention programs possess the following
characteristics:

Programs are holistic and multifaceted in their approach. The
most prevalent strategies used were a combination of parental
involvement, remedial basic skills instruction, and work
experience/job placement with counseling, supportive services,
and in-school vocational instruction all coming in as close
seconds and used in the majority of cases.

Programs are typically operational ized in such a manner that
about half of the total effort is directed toward addressing
and resolving students' education/remediation needs (e.g.,
basic skills deficiencies), about a quarter of the effort is
spent on resolving their personal needs, and the remaining
quarter is targeted toward their work-related needs.

81 -

Programs are usually presented in contexts that differ from the
"traditional school environment" (even though they may be
housed in the same physical plant, for example, a "school-
wi thin-a-school " context); involve special motivational
strategies such as tying school activities directly to the real
world (workplace, daily living, parenting needs, and so forth),
building more individualized teacher-student linkages,
mentoring, giving special awards, and designing activities to
build esprit de corps among affected students; and involve some
degree of individualized teaching/learning activities.

Programs are focused upon dropout-prone students who are in the
beginning stages of their high school careers (between the ages
of 14 and 16), prior to the time when they would "normally"
become formally involved in a vocational education program.

If a work experience component is involved, that component is
intimately tied to the other program components, both logically
and operationally, and usually results in the establishment of
what are frequently unique and closer relationships with
business/industry than normally occur in more general, work-
study programs.

The programs require the involvement of special staff/teachers
who are committed to the philosophy and goals of the program;
are able and willing to establish workable relationships with
their students — relationships that are somewhat different and
frequently require more commitment than that which is normally
required; are flexible in their approach, both to instruction
and to dealing with their students; and maintain a continuing
awareness of their students' needs.

Dropout prevention programs should have a committed staff, use a
variety of integrated strategies, be individualized in a
nontraditional environment, share a strong vocational job-related
emphasis, and have a strong counseling component. Dropout
prevention programs should have an early warning and follow- through
system in order to identify potential dropouts as well as develop
ways of ensuring that those students stay in school. Because of
their cost, program resources should be expended on students who
would become actual dropouts if no intervention were to occur.
Efforts must be strengthened to identify dropouts early in their
school careers. Emphasis needs to be placed on the development and
utilization of localized, multidimensional, student-centered
decision rules that are reliable dropout indicators.

Parents should become better informed about vocational and other
curricular offerings available to their children. Presentations
featuring employers and vocational graduates from the local area
might be beneficial. Parents should also be shown how to provide
planning and support to their children in choosing their school
programs. Extensive career exploration and related career education

- 82 -

experiences should be provided for dropout-prone students,
particularly prior to and at the transition point into high school,
in order to enhance their awareness of the full range of vocational
alternatives.

Potential dropouts need to participate in vocational programs in a
meaningful way if vocational education is to have a positive impact
upon the dropout rate. The existing rules governing entry into
vocational education should be carefully reviewed and evaluated on
an individual student basis, particularly for students deemed to be
dropout-prone. This review needs to be undertaken in order to
ensure that students are not being kept out of vocational education
programs while being allowed to participate in work-study programs
that have few, if any, logical or operational ties with students'
overall school plans or goals. Work-study experiences should be
carefully reviewed and evaluated. Such experiences, when not
logically or operationally tied to a student's overall education
program, are not a panacea for resolving that student's school
problems.

KEY REFERENCES CITED:

Appelbaum, M.J., and Dent, C. North Carolina Public High School
Dropout-Out Study. Chapel Hill, NC: T.T. Thurstone
Psychometric Laboratory, 1983.

Ekstrom, R., Goerty, M., Pollack, J., and Rock, D. "Who Drops Out
of High School and Why? Findings from a National Study."
Teachers College Record. Vol. 67, no. 3, 1986.

Elliott, D.L., Voss, H.L., and Wendling, A. "Capable Dropouts and
the Social Milieu of High School." The Journal of Educational
Research 4. no. 60, 1966.

Fine, M. and Rosenberg, P. "Dropping Out of High School: The
Ideology of School and Work." Journal of Education 165, no. 3,
Summer 1983.

Mann, D. "Action on Dropouts" Educational Leadership. September
1985.

Morrow, G. "Standardizing Practice in the Analysis of School
Dropouts." Teachers College Record. Vol. 67, no. 3, 1986.

Sewell, T.E., Palmo, A.J., and Manni, J.S. "High School Dropout:
Psychological, Academic, and Vocational Factors." Urban
Education. Vol. 16, pp. 65-76, 1981.

Wehlage, G.G., and Rutter, R.A. Dropping Out: How Much Do Schools
Contribute to the Problem? Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for
Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984.

- 83 -

INDEX OF KEY WORDS

Selection Numbers

Absences from school (5), (6), (8), (11)

Alternative programs (8), (10), (11), (12),

(13), (14), (15)

Comprehensive approach (1), (3), (4), (10),

(11), (12), (13)

Counseling (9), (11), (16)

Definition of dropouts (2)

Differences across groups (1), (3), (4), (6),

(7), (8), (9)

Dropout decision process (5), (6)

Female dropouts (3)

Learning styles (3), (15)

Migrant students (4)

Multicultural needs (7)

Opportunities for success (6)

Participation in extracurricular activity (5)

Pregnancy (3)

Role of principals and teachers (12), (15)

School -related factors (1), (5), (6), (14)

Timely identification (1), (4), (12), (16)

Vocational education (11)» (15), (16)

84 -

STUDY OF SCHOOL DROPOUT FACTORS

IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

OF NORTH CAROLINA

VOLUME 2

A COMPARISON OF EIGHT
HIGH AND LOW DROPOUT SCHOOLS

July 14, 1988

PREPARED FOR

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PREPARED BY

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 750

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 842-2200

100 Europa Drive, Suite 590

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

(919) 968-4961

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii

1. STUCK DESIGN 1

2. THE VIEW FROM CENTRAL OFFICE 10

3. DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION PLANS 17

4. THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SCHOOL PKLNICIPAL 21

5. THE COUNSELING COMPONENT 26

6. INTERVIEWS WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS 31

7. IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS 36

8. ALTERNATTVE PROGRAMS 42

9. SURVEY OF STUDENTS 49

10. SURVEY OF RECENT DROPOUTS 55

11. OBERSERVATTONS AND CONCLUSIONS 61

T.TfTT OF TABLES

Table 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED SCHOOIS 4

Table 2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 9

Table 3. HIGHLIGHTS FROM CENTRAL OFFICE INTERVIEWS 16

Table 4. HIGHLIGHTS FROM DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION PLANS ... 20

Table 5. HIGHLIGHTS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ... 25

Table 6. HIGHLIGHTS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH COUNSELORS 30

Table 7. HIGHLIGHTS FROM INTERVIEWS DEPARTMENT HEADS 35

Table 8. HIGHLIGHTS FROM IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS 41

Table 9. HIGHLIGHTS FROM ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS 48

Table 10. HIGHLIGHTS FROM SURVEY OF STUDENTS 54

Table 11. HIGHLIGHTS FROM SURVEY OF RECENT DROPOUTS 60

PREFACE

This report constitutes the second of three volumes prepared
as a part of the Study of School Dropout Factors in the Secondary
Schools of North Carolina. The first volume is an edited
collection of articles and papers dealing with the multiple
factors affecting school dropout decisions, as perceived by a
range of experts and scholars. The third volume reviews current
policies and practices in the state and suggests revisions and
extensions of these policies and practices that might result in
reductions in dropout rates statewide. The purpose of this second
volume is to contrast four high schools, which are among those
with the highest dropout rates in the state, with four high
schools which, while matching in student demographics and school
characteristics, are among those schools with the lowest dropout
rates in the state.

School-level data were used to rank schools by dropout rate
and to select four matching pairs of high and low dropout rate
schools. Two-person teams visited each of the eight schools,
interviewing district and building level administrators,
department and program heads. In addition, selected students were
interviewed in informal focus groups and surveyed via a two-page
questionnaire. The interview teams also collected supporting
materials including written descriptions of the local community,
figures on dropouts for the last five years, district dropout
prevention plans, and test data, grade transcripts, and referral
forms for 20 recent dropouts. The referral forms were used to
contact dropouts and their parents in telephone follow-up
interviews. Together, these elements permitted meaningful
comparisons across schools and a comprehensive analysis of school-
based factors which are associated with high and low dropout
rates.

The project team wishes to thank Patricia M. Santos for her
assistance in two of the site visits and Trinia Holman-Beasley and
Betty J. Johnson for their roles in the follow-up telephone
survey.

Barry M. Kibel, Ph.D., Project Director
Gary D. Gaddy, Ph.D.
Joseph L. Thomas
Cynthia D. Williams

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Site visits were made to eight high schools in North
Carolina, selected in pairs to include one school with an
extremely high dropout rate and a matched school with an extremely
low dropout rate. During the visits, interviews were conducted
with district and building level administrators, program heads,
teachers and other staff, and with groups of students. A survey
of eleventh graders was performed and follow-up phone interviews
were conducted with recent dropouts from these schools and with
their parents.

All eight sets of school district administrators were
articulate and generally aware of the issues pertaining to dropout
causes and the required interventions. Districts with the low
dropout schools were quick to identify at least one program of
which they were particularly proud, but also quick to point to a
complement of additional strong programs which were collectively
contributing to dropout prevention. Districts with the high
dropout schools tended to have a good explanation for why the rate
was so high and felt that efforts underway to reduce the rate
would, in time, prove effective.

All administrators saw counseling as the backbone of any
successful dropout prevention effort. The earlier that students
with academic or other problems could be identified, counseled
effectively and offered appropriate remediation, the greater was
the chance that these students would remain in school, find
sources for academic and social success, and graduate.

n

Most of the school districts felt that they were doing
better now than in earlier years in combining forces with local
social service agencies to help pregnant teens and young mothers
to continue their education. Similarly, they felt that their job
placement and work-study efforts were getting stronger.
Vocational education programs were frequently mentioned as major
factors in keeping groups of students in school through
graduation, especially by districts with low dropout schools.

While there were same differences among district dropout
prevention plans in terms of depth of analysis and attention to
evaluation measures to gauge progress, these were not reflected in
either the comprehensiveness of programs at the schools nor in
their successes in reducing dropout rates. It was apparent that
the district dropout prevention plan was viewed more as a
necessary burden to obtain state funding than as a vehicle for
tackling the problem of school dropouts. The majority of building
level administrators, counselors, and department heads interviewed
admitted to having never seen the plan.

Principals from all four of the high dropout schools
complained that while dropout prevention was a priority of their
school district, resources had not been forthcxming to their
schools to tackle the problem in a concerted and vigorous way. In
marked contrast, the principals from the low dropout schools
focused on the progress that was being made and on the program
elements which were being implemented and improved. They argued
that the same quality and attention which went into their dropout
programs could be seen in all their academic and other programs.

111

All principals and counselors interviewed expressed concern
about the large number of students who had demanding jobs after
school which conflicted with their ability to study. They felt
that many students were working far too many hours and perhaps
being exploited by employers. Student surveys and interviews with
recent dropouts confirmed that many students were working long
hours at the expense of study time and academic success.

The almost universal observation of the counselors
interviewed, as well as other administrators at the schools, was
that the counselors have extremely heavy administrative workloads
that can preclude meaningful and sustained interaction with at-
risk students needing such attention. Counselors admitted to
spending a disproportionate share of their time focusing on the
needs of college bound students. The low dropout schools had
found ways of providing clerical support to counselors, as well as
employing an individual to work primarily with dropout prone
students in a counseling capacity.

At all schools, the common academic deficiency seen by
department heads was reading ability and other basic language
skills. Dropout prone students were struggling and often failing
in every class that involved significant reading assignments.
Social promotions were blamed for placing students in the high
schools without the fundamental skills to function successfully
there. There was unanimous consensus among the heads of the
special education departments that ultimately it is the teachers
that make the difference with many dropout-prone students.

IV

A very common comment on the in-schcol suspension programs
was that these were worthwhile tools for discipline, but not
cornerstones for dropout prevention programs. Many of the
students assigned to in-schcol suspension were there for minor
discipline infractions and in no danger of dropping out of school.
The high dropout schools were less likely to offer counseling
services to students sent to in-schcol suspension.

The alternative options associated with the high dropout
schools, extended day schools and JTPA programs, were generally
not integrated with the regular school programs. The
alternative programs at the low dropout schools, in contrast,
tended to be more comprehensive in structure and more closely
linked with the regular school. The most resourceful aspect of
the programs at the low dropout schools was the networking of
adults and services to insure that students got the help they
needed.

The most frequent reasons given by eleventh grade students
surveyed to account for dropout decisions among their peers were
wanting to work, pregnancy or marriage, and alcohol and drug use.
Over half of the students surveyed worked outside of school. Of
those working, 67% worked 20 hours or more and 8% worked 40 hours
a week or more. Most students indicated they worked for spending
money or to make a major purchase, such as a car.

Parents of recent dropouts frequently said they were
uninformed and caught by surprise when they found out how many
days of school their children had missed. Many had no idea that
their children had dropped out until long after the action

occurred. At the high dropout schools, more dropouts left school
when they turned sixteen; at the low dropout schools, more dropped
out for academic reasons. Invariably, large numbers of absences
preceded the dropout act, as the students disengaged from the
school.

For both high and low dropout rate schools, about half of
the recent dropouts who worked admitted that their jobs had
interfered with school and that this was one reason they left
school. Half of the dropouts had been retained in either the
ninth or tenth grade. Ihere was a high degree of agreement that
leaving school had been a mistake, and many of the recent
dropouts interviewed expressed a desire to return to school to
graduate or to attend the local community college.

The root solution to the problem of school dropout appears
to lie in making each and every student feel attached in same
tangible way to the school, to the extent that the student wants
to move up through the grade levels, became a senior, and
graduate. Success in implementing this root solution appears to
require one-to-one interplay, over extended periods, between a
student with problems and an adult with the counseling abilities
and resources to convince the student to remain a part of the
school community. What distinguished the districts and schools
with the low rates was a recent record of successes in keeping
dropout prone students in school, or getting recent dropouts to
return to school, which in turn provided confidence to expand
programs and services to sustain these accomplishments.

VI

The high dropout schools, in contrast, were somewhat
frustrated by the numbers of recent dropouts and were attempting
to explain the situation by factors external to the secondary
school environment, such as work pressures and social promotions
from the lower grades. The district and building level
administrators were not generally aware of what other more
successful districts and schools were doing that was different
from what they were doing. The low dropout schools were clearly
in an action mode; the high dropout schools were not.

vn

CHAPTER ONE
STUDY DESIGN

Site visits were made to eight high schools in North
Carolina. The schools were selected in pairs to include one
school with a high dropout rate and a matched school with a low
dropout rate. Interviews were conducted with school district
administrators, school building administrators, chairpersons from
English, vocational education, and special education departments,
counselors, and individuals working directly with at-risk students
and recent dropouts. Opinion surveys of cross-sections of
eleventh graders were administered, and small groups of students
were interviewed. Materials collected included school board
policies, facts about the community and school district, district
dropout plans and other local reports, dropout statistics for the
previous five years, and grade and test data on recent dropouts.
Follow-up phone interviews were conducted with a sample of recent
dropouts and their parents from each school.

A short form was sent to each of the 140 school districts in
the state, requesting information on all senior high schools in
their district. The information requested included (a) the grade
levels served; (b) the close-of-the-schcol-year membership and
total number of withdrawals-as-dropouts during the school year

(designated with a W2 withdrawal code) for the previous (1986-87)

school year; (c) race-sex distribution of students in the current

(1987-88) school year, as captured in the 10th day report for that

school; and (d) participation in the free and reduced school lunch

program for the previous month (February 1988) .

The school dropout rate was approximated as:

W2 RATE = Number of W2's reported

Membership + W2's reported

The W2 rate is clearly lower than the dropout rate, which includes

a large number of non-returning students after the summer recess,

but accurately reflects the ability of the school to retain

students during the nine months of the school year. Inasmuch as

the study focused on school-related factors associated with high

and low dropout rates, the use of the W2 rate was appropriate.

During the three weeks available for return of the short

forms, 110 districts (79 percent) responded, providing information

on 267 senior high schools. A data base was developed to store

and process the information from each school. Schools were ranked

by W2 rate from the highest value (15.8 percent) to the lowest

value (0.4 percent) . An algorithm was developed to match schools

at the high end of the list with schools at the low end. The

match was made on the basis of grade levels served, number of

students, ethnic mix, and percent of students participating in the

free and reduced lunch programs (a surrogate for family size and

income) . Four pairs of schools were then selected which had the

largest disparity in ranking.

For example, the 6th highest school (with a W2 rate of 11.5
percent) was matched with the 261st ranked school (with a W2 rate
of 1.4 percent) . Both schools were within small city school
districts, served grades 10-12, had student bodies of between 750
and 800, had student bodies which were between 40-45 percent
Black, and had roughly a third of the students participating in
the free and reduced school lunch program.

The school districts and specific schools selected, as well
as the individuals interviewed, were assured of anonymity as a
condition for participating in the study. This condition was
appropriate since the purpose of the study was not to assess
specific schools or school districts, but rather to focus on
factors within high and low dropout schools which might contribute
to their dropout experiences. The promise of anonymity resulted
in ready agreement from districts and schools to participate in
the study and in free and open discussions with virtually every
person contacted during the site visits. The attributes of the
four pairs of schools selected are summarized as Table 1 on the
next page.

Seven of the eight districts with selected schools indicated
their willingness to participate in the study. The eighth
district felt that the study was being conducted too close to the
end of the school year and district policy precluded the conduct
of outside research during this period. A substitute school was
identified and that district welcomed the opportunity to
participate.

Table 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED SCHOOLS

Pair 1

Predominantly Black (about 90 percent)
Predominantly low income
Around 1000 students
Grades 9-12

Pair 2

70-30 White-Black mix
About one quarter low income
Around 1200 students
Grades 10-12

Pair 3

Predominantly White (90+ percent)

Rural area

Around 750 students

Grades 9-12

Pair 4

60-40 White-Black mix
Small city schools
Around 800 students
Grades 10-12

In general, the districts were enthusiastic about the study
and were pleased to be part of it. The schools with high dropout
rates expressed concern and a desire to understand why they were
not doing better. The schools with low dropout rates were proud
of their success and anxious to share their experiences with
others.

School districts were provided in advance with lists of
positions to be interviewed, with lists of additional materials
required, and with sets of questions to be asked during interviews
or included in student surveys. Appointments were made for two-
day visits to each district, which occurred during the first two
weeks of May 1988. The districts and individual schools assumed
responsibility for scheduling interviews, compiling materials, and
seeing to the administering of the student survey instrument.

Two two-person teams were assigned to conduct the site
visits. All team members were assigned site visits to both high
and low dropout schools.

The site visit typically began with an hour-long interview
with the school district Superintendent. Questions were asked
regarding school board policies and priorities, recent dropout
experience in the district and at the selected senior high school,
programs and initiatives underway to reduce the dropout rate,
involvement of parents and community organizations, and resource
needs to address the school dropout problem. The Assistant
Superintendent for Instruction was usually interviewed next.
Similar questions to those asked of the Superintendent were posed,
with added focus on district instructional policy/ summer school
programs, testing efforts, and transitions between school levels.

A third interview at the district level was conducted with
the individual designated as the district's Dropout Prevention
Coordinator. This interview focused on the process of developing
and inplementing the district dropout prevention plan, district-
wide coordination of dropout prevention efforts, extent of the
vocational educational program, and resources needed to address
the dropout problem at the district level. Copies of the dropout
prevention plans were obtained and subsequently reviewed and
compared across districts.

The remainder of the site visit occurred at the selected
high school. Interviews with teachers were scheduled during their
free periods. Principals were very cooperative in making
arrangements, including providing quiet places to conduct the
interviews, and often in encouraging their staff to speak openly
and express their opinions and needs.

Separate interviews were conducted with the principal and
with each assistant principal. These interviews focused on the
school's recent dropout experiences, the types of students who
drop out and their reasons, identification of dropout-prone
students and intervention measures taken with these students,
academic deficiencies and behavior problems associated with recent
and potential dropouts, in-schcol suspension and alternative
programs, counseling resources, parental support, and resource
needs to enhance dropout prevention efforts.

Additional interviews were conducted with the heads of the
counseling department, the English department, the vocational
education department, and the special education department. These
interviews focused on the specific attributes of each department,

particularly as they related to relationships with potential
dropouts, as well as dealing with same general topics such as
recent school dropout experiences, profiles of typical dropouts,
and resources needed to deal with the dropout situation at the
school.

The interview with the individual responsible for the in-
schcol suspension program dealt with the components of the
program, the behaviors leading to assignment to the program, the
work performed by students while under suspension, attitudes of
teachers toward the program, the extent of counseling services
provided, the frequency of repeat assignments to in-schcol
suspension, the perceived effectiveness of the program in
modifying behaviors and in preventing school dropout decisions,
and resource needs to strengthen the program. Persons responsible
for alternative programs at the school, such as extended day, teen
pregnancy, and job training programs, were also interviewed.
These interviews reviewed program components, staffing and
resources, student referral procedures and participation options
within the program, relationship to other programs at the school
and in the community, and perceived effectiveness of the program
in keeping students in school until graduation.

A survey instrument, with items on both sides of a single
sheet of paper, was administered to eleventh grade students in one
advanced, one regular, and one remedial English class at each
school. Respondents were identified by age, sex, and race, as
well as level of English being taken. The survey asked the
students to register their degree of agreement or disagreement to
a set of statements, to list the reasons why male and female

students drop out of school, and to rate the importance of a list
of reasons for dropping out. They were also asked what could be
done to keep students in school and to indicate the extent to
which they themselves worked during the school year.

A list of twenty students who had dropped out of school
during the past year was obtained, together with street address,
telephone contact number, and name of a parent. Grade transcripts
and test scores for these students were also provided, but with
the names removed for purposes of confidentiality. Phone
interviews with these former students and their parents were
conducted during the first two weeks of June 1988. The interviews
included questions on reasons for dropping out, problems while
attending school, current vocation, plans for returning to school
or to an alternative program, and suggestions on what might have
been done to keep them in school.

Table 2, on the next page, summarizes the sources of
information used in the study to compare low and high dropout
schools.

Table 2: SOURCES OF INFORMATION

DISTRICT LEVEL

School district superintendent

Assistant superintendent for instruction

Dropout prevention coordinator

Description of community/local economy

Description of school district

School board policy statement on dropouts

School district reports on dropouts

Dropout prevention plan and any annual updates

INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS

SCHOOL ALXGNISTRATION LEVEL

High school principal

Assistant principal (s)

Head of counseling department

Membership and W2 data for past 5 years

Referral forms for 20 recent dropouts

Grade transcripts for 20 recent dropouts

Testing data for 20 recent dropouts

INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS

DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM LEVEL

Head of English department
Head of vocational education department
Head of special education department
Head of "alternative" program (s)
Head of in-schcol suspension program

INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW

CURRENT STUDENTS

Students in 11th grade English, advanced
Students in 11th grade English, regular
Students in 11th grade English, remedial
Small groups of students

SURVEY FORM
SURVEY FORM
SURVEY FORM
FOCUS GROUP

RECENT DROPOUTS

Recent school dropouts

Parents of recent school dropouts

PHONE INTERVIEW
PHONE INTERVIEW

CHAPTER TWO
THE YEEW FHH CENTRAL OFFICE

Separate interviews, each lasting around one hour, were
conducted with the school district superintendent, the assistant
(or associate) superintendent responsible for instruction, and the
administrator assigned as district dropout prevention coordinator.
Interview guides were followed, with the individuals having the
opportunity to review the questions in advance of the interview.
Materials, including school board goal statements, school district
brochures, special reports dealing with at-risk students and
dropout prevention measures, and the district's dropout prevention
plan, were provided in support of the interviews.

There were clear areas of consensus among administrators of
districts with low and high dropout schools. All eight sets of
district leaders were articulate and generally aware of the issues
pertaining to dropout causes and the required interventions. All
emphasized the need for early identification, counseling services
at all grade levels, and a comprehensive approach to the problem.
All felt that their local school boards were encouraging of steps
taken to reduce dropout rates. All spoke favorably of the
assistance being provided by the state to help with dropout
prevention, but called for greater local discretion and
flexibility in the use of allocated funds.

10

Districts with the low dropout rate schools were quick to
identify at least one program of which they were particularly
proud: a strong vocational program, an innovative extended day
program, or an extensive network of social services in support of
students with problems; but also quick to point to a complement of
additional strong programs which were collectively contributing to
dropout prevention. They emphasized that there were no easy and
immediate solutions, rather a sustained and expanding effort was
required to further reduce the number of dropouts. A common
remark was that the district could not be complacent, that "even
one dropout was too many."

Districts with the high dropout schools tended to have a
good explanation for why the rate was so high. The attractiveness
of work (as the means for expressing independence and affording
the opportunity to purchase a car and clothing) was seen as
overriding the desire to do well in school. Their communities
were described as working class and not education-oriented.
Parents were cited for lack of real interest in their children's
education and for no longer having the ability to control their
children. These districts tended to view the local dropout rate
as "moderate" rather than high and felt that efforts underway to
reduce the rate would, in time, be effective. The administrators
tended to think that a certain number of dropouts was inevitable
and that little could be done to change decisions of this core
group.

While both sets of administrators emphasized the importance
of early identification and elementary school efforts in the
overall dropout prevention effort, there was a difference in

perspective. The common argument among the districts with high
dropout schools was that it is already too late to make a
significant difference at the high school level, that "students
begin dropping out in the third or fourth grades." Therefore, a
long-term approach is needed beginning at the elementary or even
pre-kindergarten level. The administrators from districts with
low dropout schools, in contrast, were turning their focus to the
lower grades because they felt that their secondary school
programs were doing well as a result of several years of effort
and improvements and now wanted to extend these successes downward
to the lower grade levels.

All administrators saw counseling as the backbone of any
successful dropout prevention effort. The earlier students with
problems could be identified, counseled effectively and offered
appropriate remediation, the greater was the chance that these
students would remain in school, find sources for academic and
social successes, and graduate. There was a unanimous call for
funds for more counselors to work with at-risk students at all
grade levels. The early teen years were viewed by all as
particularly vulnerable times for many youngsters. Several
programs were underway to inculcate more positive self-images and
to encourage better life choices. Concern about drug use among
teenagers was a motivating force behind some of these programs.

Related to the counseling component was the early
identification of students with academic or other problems. All
districts had efforts in place to pinpoint at-risk students, not
only at the secondary level but also at the elementary and
kindergarten levels. Test scores and referrals of teachers and

12

aides were the common sources for early identification at the
elementary and middle school levels. Computer printouts of
students with failing or near- failing grades, as well as daily
attendance lists and absence reports, were the usual sources for
targeting students with problems at the secondary schools.

In-schcol suspension programs were generally viewed as
positive contributions to the overall school climate and as
effective responses to discipline problems, but not as
cornerstones for dropout prevention efforts. Three of the
districts with the high dropout schools felt that the monies
provided for such programs could better be used elsewhere, if
dropout prevention was the concern. These districts felt that the
students being directed to in-school suspension were not the
highest risk students but were better characterized as "middle-of-
the-road discipline cases". In contrast, three of the districts
with low dropout schools pointed with pride to the success of
their in-school suspension programs in affording opportunities for
one-on-one counseling and as a vehicle for mobilizing parents in
support of the education of their children.

The administrators, particularly the superintendents, were
largely critical of the G.E.D. programs offered at the local
community colleges. They felt these programs were too attractive
to marginal students, in affording an easy way to compensate for
lack of effort in public school and still earn a degree. Feelings
were mixed concerning the "legitimacy" of extended day programs.
Some saw these programs as a viable second chance option for
students; others saw these as academically inferior programs.
None of the four districts with high dropout schools had extended

day programs to which they could point with pride. Rather, these
programs were small and underfunded. In contrast, two of the
districts with low dropout schools felt they had excellent
extended day programs that made a significant difference in the
lives of many students who would otherwise have dropped out of
school and stayed out.

Most of the school districts felt that they were doing
better now than in earlier years in combining forces with local
social service agencies to help pregnant teens and young mothers
to continue their education. Similarly, they felt that their job
placement and work-study efforts were getting stronger.
Vocational education programs were frequently mentioned as major
factors in keeping groups of students in school through
graduation, especially by districts with low dropout schools.

Summary

In summary, all district administrators recognized the need
for a comprehensive approach to the problem of dropout prevention,
extending from pre-school through secondary school. They
recognized that there were many factors contributing to dropout
decisions, and the precipitating factor could be academic
difficulties, outside work opportunities, pregnancy, drug and
alcohol abuse, or problems at home. The importance of early
identification of a student with problems and the ability to
follow through by directing the student to someone in the school
system or in the caramunity with the interest, resources, and
skills to help to solve these problems were seen as critical to
success.

14

While having a shared sense of the causes for school dropout
and a recognition of the broad-sweeping programs needed to
effectively respond to the problems of the potential dropout, the
districts with low dropout schools appeared further along in their
ability to follow-through than districts with high dropout
schools. Administrators of districts with low dropout schools
viewed their success with pride and caution, arguing that more
needed to be done and would be done. Administrators of districts
with high dropout schools felt they were aware of what needed to
be done, were moving in these directions, and that time was
required to realize success. All administrators identified the
requirement for more funds for personnel and programs, and for
more local flexibility in the use of these funds. The
administrators with the low dropout schools, in particular, viewed
dropout prevention as an integral part of the total educational
delivery system, and cautioned against treating dropout prevention
as an isolated program with separate goals and resources apart
from those of the school district's regular instructional program.

Table 3, on the next page, provides highlights of thse
interviews with central office administrators.

15

Table 3: HIGHLIGHTS FROM CENTRAL OFFICE INTERVIEWS

All administrators recognized the need for a ccarprehensive
approach to the challenge of dropout prevention, extending
from pre-schcol through secondary school

Districts with low dropout schools had mobilized more resources
to provide program follcwthrough at the secondary school level
than had districts with high dropout schools

Districts with low dropout schools felt that definite
improvements had been made but that sustained and expanded
efforts were still required

Districts with high dropout schools had explanations for these
high rates and felt they were doing a reasonable job at
keeping the rates within moderate bounds

Districts with low dropout schools identified one program of
which they were particularly proud, plus a complement of other
strong programs which collectively contributed to dropout
prevention

Districts with high dropout schools were taking a long-term
approach, placing their hopes on early intervention efforts;
districts with low dropout schools were turning their focus to
the lower grades after having first established successful
high school dropout prevention programs

All administrators emphasized the need for early identification
of at-risk students and early counselor intervention

All administrators called for greater flexibility in the use of
dropout prevention funds provided by the state

16

CHAPTER THREE
DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION PLANS

A systematic reading of the dropout prevention plans for
each of the eight high schools visited uncovered no apparent
patterns that would account for differences between districts with
schools with high dropout rates and those with schools with low
dropout rates. For both sets of schools, the dropout prevention
plans were, from all appearances, relatively comprehensive and
legitimate attempts to address the problem of dropouts. The
standard formats provided by the state tended to insure that plans
were reasonably well constructed, covered district strengths and
weaknesses with regard to dropout efforts, and laid out projects
and timetables for their implementation.

While there were some differences among plans in terms of
the depth of analysis and attention to evaluation measures to
gauge progress, these differences were not reflected in either the
comprehensiveness of programs at the schools nor in their
successes in reducing dropout rates. For example, the plan with
the most concrete and measurable goals for each objective came
from the district with a high school with one of the worst dropout
rates in the state. Other vaguer, less specific plans came from
districts with schools with low dropout rates.

In conducting the interviews, it became apparent that the
district dropout prevention plan was viewed more as a necessary
burden to obtain state funding than as a vehicle for tackling the
problem of school dropouts. The task of writing the plan was

17

frequently assigned to one individual in central office who was
good at writing proposals. The task sometimes fell on the
director of vocational education. In a few cases, school level
personnel were asked to participate in meetings devoted to the
plan. Some districts required school level personnel to submit
written inputs or building level plans, which were incorporated
into the district plan. In most cases, however, one or a few
persons in the central office pulled together the plan from
available documents and knowledge of programs under way or
requested, without much school level input.

The majority of school administrators, counselors, and
department heads interviewed admitted to having never seen the
plan. They knew that it was responsible for funding the in-school
suspension program and part of a counselor's salary, but had no
idea of its content nor of the arguments which supported the plan.
In one case, the in-school suspension coordinator and counselors
had asked for a copy of the plan, but the district had decided
that it was not appropriate for them to see it.

Among the high school principals and the assistant
principals who had seen it, there was general acceptance of the
document as useful, with the most common comments at both high and
low dropout rate schools being that it "makes us think about the
problem" and "gives us some guidelines to follow." However, most
were quick to add that while the plan sounded great on paper, its
contents were not reflected in the day-to-day reality of their
schools, or that it was simply a compilation of programs already
underway.

1R

Table 4, on the next page, highlights the main observations
of the study team concerning the dropout prevention plans.

19

Table 4: HIGHIJGHES FRCM DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION ELAN REVIEWS

For all districts, the dropout prevention plans were, from all
appearances, relatively comprehensive and legitimate attempts
to address the problems of dropouts

The quality or scope of the plans were not indicative of the
success or lack of success of the district in reducing high
school dropout rates

District dropout prevention plans were viewed more as a
necessary burden to obtain state funding than as a vehicle for
tackling the problem of school dropouts

In most cases, a few people at the central office pulled

the plan together from their knowledge and available documents

without much input from the schools

The majority of school administrators, counselors, and
department heads interviewed admitted to never having seen
their district's plan

The most common comment on the plans was that "it makes us
think about the problem"; but it was also admitted that the
contents of the plans were not fully reflected in the day-to-day
reality of their schools or were simply compilations of programs
already underway at the schools

20

CHAPTER POUR
THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SCHOOL ERLNCIPAL

Principals and assistant principals at each of the eight
high schools were interviewed in separate sessions, each lasting
around one hour. A structured interview guide was followed which
included questions on recent dropout trends, profiles of dropouts,
academic deficiencies and behavior problems associated with
dropout prone students, interventions employed to counter these
deficiencies and problems, strengths and shortcomings of the
counseling, summer school, in-schcol suspension and alternative
programs, parental involvement and support, and links to community
colleges and local service organizations. The individuals
interviewed were also asked to identify resources the school
needed to improve its dropout prevention programs.

One clear pattern became immediately apparent. Principals
from all four of the high dropout schools complained that while
dropout prevention was a priority of the district, resources had
not been forthcoming to their schools to tackle the problem in a
concerted and vigorous way. One principal went so far as to state
that "dropout prevention is almost a lost cause at this level."
In marked contrast, the principals from the low dropout schools
focused on the progress that was being made and on the program
elements which were being implemented and improved. They too had
requests for more resources, to sustain and ejq^and their efforts,
but did not appear to be stuck or fighting an uphill battle, as
did their counterparts at the high dropout schools.

21

Similar profiles of dropout-prone students emerged from
interviews at both the high and low dropout schools. These were
students who were deficient in basic skills, particularly reading;
who were bored or frustrated in classroom contexts, and acted out
this frustration through disorderly behavior or apathy. They
tended to have histories of absences and tardies, in addition to
generally poor grades. These school problems were frequently
compounded by family problems, pressures to work, or pregnancy.
Whereas the principals from high dropout schools complained of
social promotions at the lower grade levels that were adding
students to their roles who could not perform at high school
levels and of students with problems which an overworked
counseling staff could not adequately address, the principals at
the low dropout schools identified specific program components in
place to deal with each of the problems indicated.

Programs were in place, for example, to work with pregnant
teens through counseling and homebound assistance. Parents were
included in the efforts to keep the students in school as long as
possible and to encourage their return to school following child
birth. Where regular programs were inappropriate, extended day
programs were operating and could usually accommodate these
students. Students who needed to work were helped to find
employment which did not conflict with their schooling, and were
assisted with flexible course schedules which meshed with work
demands. Considerable attention was given to placing students in
classes geared to their ability levels, and to moving them to
classes where they could succeed when difficulties emerged.

on

Attempts to counter high dropout rates through stricter
policies had not proven successful. One school district had
instituted an attendance policy designed to reduce absenteeism by
triggering an automatic failure after ten absences including one
unexcused absence. The number of absent days reported did go
down; but students "caught" by the policy and facing failure
regardless of their academic performance were dropping out and
going to work. A school which introduced a punitive in-schcol
suspension program to cut down on suspensions did keep the number
of repeaters to a minimum, but did not reduce the number of
dropouts.

The principals and assistant principals from low dropout
schools were enthusiastic about their schools and viewed dropout
programs as additional elements in their "total approach" to
meeting the needs of kids. They argued that the same quality and
attention which went into their dropout programs could be seen in
their academic, vocational, and athletic programs. The emphasis
was on a positive school climate with opportunities for all
students to be successful. Knowing every student in the school by
their first name was seen as a priority for the administrators.
While parental involvement was not all that they would like, they
did feel that the parents had generally positive feelings about
their schools and the education their children were receiving.
When it became necessary to contact a parent concerning a problem,
the parent was almost always supportive of the intentions of the
school and available to help.

The principals from the low dropout schools, while seeing
the need for more counseling support at their schools and at the

23

elementary and middle schools, had taken steps to make counseling
resources available to students in need of these services. The
principals at the high dropout schools recognized the need for a
full time, trained counselor to work exclusively with at-risk
students. This was perhaps their highest priority with regard to
dropout prevention efforts. They also saw the need to obtain
clerical support to free regular counselors from administrative
burdens so they could concentrate on counseling students.

All principals, but particularly those from the high dropout
schools, expressed concern about the large number of students who
had demanding jobs after school which conflicted with their
ability to study. They recognized the value of extended day
programs, integrated with the regular program in terms of courses
and teaching staff, as a viable means for acxxsmmodating students
who needed to work. Still, they felt that many students were
working far too many hours and perhaps being exploited by
employers. All principals saw the value in keeping parents
informed and interested in the educational progress of their
children, but few had found a means for obtaining active support
until the situation became critical.

Most of the principals would have agreed with these comments
of one assistant principal from a low dropout school: "We need to
have a viable response to every excuse a student may have for
wanting to leave school. This means continuing to stretch our
resources as far as we can to help kids to succeed and not give
up." The low dropout schools, in general, appeared to be further
along in their ability to translate this attitude into practice.

Highlights from the interviews with principals and assistant
principals appear on the next page as Table 5.

Table 5: HTOIKEGHIS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH SCHOOL PRINCEPAIS

Principals from the high dropout schools emphasized that while
dropout prevention was a priority of the school district,
adequate resources were not provided to tackle the problem
in a concerted and vigorous manner

Attempts to counter high dropout rates through stricter
policies have not proven successful

Principals from low dropout schools viewed dropout programs
and dropout prevention efforts as elements in a "total approach"
to meeting the needs of the entire student population

Whereas principals from high dropout schools complained of
social promotions at the lower grade levels and of students
with problems which an overworked counseling staff could not
adequately address, principals at low dropout schools identified
specific program components in place to deal with each of the
problems indicated

While all principals saw the need for more counseling support
at their schools, as well as at lower grade levels, those from
the low dropout schools had found ways to make more counseling
services available to their at-risk students

All principals, but particularly those from high dropout
schools, expressed concern about the large number of students
with demanding after-school jobs

25

CHAPTER FIVE
THE COUNSELING COMPONENT

Interviews were held with members of the (counseling
department at each of the eight high schools. The number of
counselors on staff varied across schools and ranged from two to
five. The almost universal observation of the counselors
interviewed, as well as other administrators at the school, was
that the counselors have extremely heavy administrative workloads
(schedule changes, meetings, recommendations for college and
scholarships, and other paperwork) that can preclude meaningful
and sustained interaction with the at-risk students needing such
attention. A disproportionate share of the time of counselors was
spent responding to the needs of college bound students.

The schools with low dropout rates have each found ways of
freeing counselors to work with at-risk students. Three of these
schools have located funds for clerical support to free up some of
the counselors' time for interaction with students. The value of
this asset was highly rated, and schools lacking this clerical
support frequently ranked it highest among their needs. The
fourth low dropout school has a network of "specialized
counselors'1 in place that includes teachers and other staff
members. When a regular counselor is unable or unavailable to
assist a student, there is someone else qualified and ready to
work with the student.

26

An important component of each of the low dropout schools
was their ability to maintain contact with each of their at-risk
students and not let them "disappear". Attendance rolls were
checked daily, and there was follow-up on at-risk students marked
absent. Administrators and teachers worked together to keep
abreast of the progress of at-risk students and to also pinpoint
stronger students who exhibited sudden changes in behavior or
poorer academic performance. Students with perceived problems
were referred to the counseling office.

Counselors at each of the eight schools agreed that in-
schcol suspension (ISS) is a sound program and a preferred
alternative to out of school suspension. There was also agreement
that although it is beneficial, it is not a dropout prevention
measure in and of itself. At the low dropout rate schools, where
extensive individual and group counseling and alternative program
options are in place, ISS is viewed as an integral component of a
total effort to intervene on behalf of the dropout prone student.
At the high dropout rate schools, without this range of
complementary programs, ISS was not seen as having much long-term
impact on reducing the number of students leaving school.

The counselors at the low dropout schools felt that their
schools had firm grips on the problem and suggested that resources
were needed at other grade levels to catch problems earlier. More
elementary school counseling and ISS programs at the elementary
level were suggested by the counselors. They all reported good
transition programs between elementary and middle (or junior
high) , and between middle and senior high school.

97

At the high dropout schools, the counselors tended to have a
less optimistic, more fatalistic view of their school's dropout
situation. Each reported that the school's rate was high and due
in part to a student body containing relatively large numbers of
at-risk students. They felt that parents were largely indifferent
to their children's educational needs, and often actively
encouraged them to work at the expense of school.

These counselors estimated that at least half of their time
was expended performing administrative and clerical tasks at the
expense of interaction with students. Their schools lacked
personnel to actively seek at-risk students for counseling.
Counselors became aware of problems only after students got into
trouble, were assigned to ISS, were referred by a concerned
teacher or friend, or requested help on their own. Too many
students were just "disappearing" before the counselors were aware
of problems. When counseling did occur, there was inadequate time
and resource options to offer the level of response that was
required and demanded.

Counselors from the high dropout rate schools identified
several immediate needs of their schools, apart from help to
reduce their administrative loads. A full-time person, with
counseling training, was required to work specifically with
dropouts and at-risk students and to increase home-school
contacts. They also identified many students with basic skills
deficiencies, particularly in reading and math, that could only be
addressed in smaller classes with more individualized attention.
Several suggested that a partial answer to many dropouts lay in
more extensive vocational offerings coupled with life skills

28

training, to prepare these students for decent jobs. All
counselors were concerned with the number of students leaving
school to work, whether out of family need or a personal desire to
have money to buy and maintain a car, or purchase clothing and
other goods. They noted that local communities frequently placed
a higher importance on working than on education. Merchants and
businesses hire students and schedule them to work long and often
late hours.

The basic difference between the schools with low versus
high dropout rates was captured succinctly by one counselor from a
low dropout school: "Kids are more open today than ever before
and are responsive to counseling, if they feel it is not
superficial. The key is to have adequate numbers of people
available to work with students with problems, to listen to them,
and act responsively to their needs. This requires time and
commitment, and often means visits to their homes as well as long
talks with them."

Highlights of the interviews with counselors, and of
discussions with others concerning counseling, appear as Table 6
on the next page.

OQ

Table 6: HKHLEGHES FBCH IMIHW3HB WTIH GOQNSEE£RS

The almost universal observation of counselors, as well as
others at the schools, was that the counselors have extremely
heavy administrative workloads which conflict with their
abilities to offer direct services to students

Counselors at high dropout schools estimated that at least
half their time was spent in administrative and clerical tasks
rather than with students

Schools with low dropout rates had each found ways of freeing
counselors, or hiring additional counselors, to work with
at-risk students

The counselors at the low dropout schools felt that their
schools had a firm grip on the dropout problem and thought that
resources were needed at earlier grade levels to catch problems
earlier

Counselors at high dropout schools identified several
immediate needs at their schools: a full-time dropout prevention
counselor, smaller classes with more individualized attention
for students with basic skills deficiencies, and more extensive
vocational offerings to prepare students for decent jobs

All counselors expressed concern over the number of students
working long hours at after-school jobs

30

CHAPTER SIX
INTERVIEWS WTffl DEPARTMENT HEADS

Interviews were conducted at each school with the heads of
the English, vocational education, and special education
departments. At the high dropout schools, the department heads
were more likely to view the dropout problem as originating
outside the school and as outside their control. A typical
viewpoint was that their dropouts come from low socio-economic
families with parents who themselves did not complete high school
nor place high value on their children completing their education.
At the low dropout high schools, the department heads were more
likely to talk about progress on the problem and what was being
done rather than about why little could be done.

A strong vocational program was considered by almost
everyone interviewed as a key to low dropout rates. The heads of
the vocational education departments at the low dropout rate
schools were quite free both in their praise for their programs
and in taking credit for part of their schools' successes in
keeping the number of dropouts down. At some of the high dropout
schools, the vocational education efforts were credited for
encouraging some students to stay in school and for keeping the
dropout rate "moderate."

31

At both high and low dropout schools the caramon academic
deficiency seen by department heads was reading ability and other
basic language-related skills. Dropout prone students were
struggling and often failing in every class that involved reading
assignments. In addition to calling for earlier identification
and remediation of reading deficiencies, several people thought
that there needed to be reduced-level texts for the students who
do make it to the high school with reading difficulties. It was
suggested that some of these materials might focus on relevant
vocational topics that would engage and instruct these students
without frustrating them with words and concepts they could not
grasp.

Because of the stigma of labeling, department heads noted
that remedial courses in reading and writing need to be dealt with
sensitively. Many of the English department heads reported that
students are ashamed of being labeled "weak" or "slow" in English
and avoid these classes because of the taint associated with them.
The few schools that reported having no stigma attached to their
remedial English courses were very careful about how they dealt
with students. At one school, classes were not labeled, even
though the teachers and most students knew there were levels, and
the existence of levels was further disguised by having no
"remedial teachers". Instead remedial class assignments were
rotated among the whole teaching staff. At another school, the
stigma was reduced through self -placement into remedial courses.
Most individuals interviewed stressed the point that these classes
needed to have a small student/teacher ratio or have an aide if
they were to be effective.

**9

One concern raised by several of the heads of vocational
education, and by others, was that the Basic Education Plan's
strong focus on academic requirements was hurting vocational
education because it was reducing the number of available elective
credits that students could use for vocational courses or for
pursuing vocational sequences. While they generally supported the
Plan, they felt that this emphasis might push out marginal
students who only stayed in school for the vocational training.
Even the heads of the English department at several of the high
dropout schools called for a more vocationally oriented
curriculum, "something that would meet the kids where their
interests lie."

There was unanimous consensus among the heads of the special
education departments that ultimately it is the teachers that make
the difference with many dropout-prone students. Working in
special educational teaching situations, with smaller class sizes
and opportunities for individualized attention and instruction,
special education teachers could see progress in subject areas and
improvements in self-image and confidence as successes were
realized. They felt that the availability of classes with low
student-teacher ratios, coupled with responsive counseling for
students with problems requiring this service, was keeping
otherwise marginal students in school until graduation. The close
relationship which the special education department had with
students, and often with their parents as well, was also
contributing to the decisions of students to remain in school.
One school, for example, reported having only three of 65 special
service students drop out during the school year.

33

Extended day programs were seen as viable options for some
students, as they permitted them to work while continuing their
education in smaller, individual paced settings. The presence of
a full-time counselor to work with students in these programs, as
well as with dropout-prone students in the regular school, was
viewed as an important component of such programs. The general
atmosphere of the extended day programs, with directors and staff
who communicate interest in their students and have more
opportunities to demonstrate their commitment to the students than
are afforded in regular classroom settings, was seen as having a
positive effect on many students who would otherwise have left
school for good.

Table 7, on the next page, offers highlights from the
interviews with department heads.

-XA

Table 7: HIGHLJGHES F9CM INTERVIEWS WFffl DEPARTMENT HEADS

At high dropout schools, department heads were more likely
to view the dropout problem as originating outside the school
and outside their control

At the low dropout schools, the department heads were more
likely to talk about progress in working with dropout prone
students

At both high and low dropout schools the common academic
deficiency was reading ability and other basic language skills;
dropout prone students were struggling and often failing in
every class that involved significant reading assignments

A strong vocational program was considered by almost everyone
as a key to low dropout rates

Heads of vocational education, and some others, felt that the
BEP's academic requirements were often running counter to
requirements for a strong vocational education curriculum

Heads of special education programs felt that the availability
of classes with low student-teacher ratios, coupled with
close contact with the students and their parents, were keeping
most special education students in school until graduation

35

CHAPTER SEVEN
IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS

Interviews were conducted with the individual or individuals
at each school who were responsible for operating the in-school
suspension (ISS) programs. In addition, most administrators and
teachers interviewed were queried about their views of the ISS
programs at their schools. These programs are required by the
state, are in place at secondary schools throughout North
Carolina, and are sometimes the primary component of the
district's dropout prevention program. A program guide has been
developed by the Department of Public Instruction to provide
assistance to districts and schools in developing and operating
the ISS programs. However, as became clear during the site
visits, there was wide variation in how these programs were
actually being implemented.

A very common, though not universal, comment on the in-
school suspension program made by individuals interviewed at both
the district and building levels, was that the in-school
suspension program was a worthwhile tool for discipline, but not
the cornerstone for a "dropout prevention program." While ISS did
help in keeping dropout-prone students in school, many believed
that most of the students in ISS were not very likely to drop out
in any case and would not have been suspended from school for the
offenses which sent them to ISS. It was a stop-gap measure for
some students who might be on the road to dropping out of school,
but rarely made the difference in the decision to leave school.

36

It simply postponed the decision, perhaps allowing time for more
decisive interventions. These comments were heard at both high
and low dropout schools.

There were marked differences, however, in the way in which
ISS was conceived and operated at the high versus low dropout
schools. The two schools with clearly punitive philosophies,
operational ized through the deliberate creation of unpleasant
environments for the suspendees, were both at high dropout
schools. At one of these schools, ISS was held in a converted
concession stand. The facility had no windows, one door, no air
conditioning and only a small space heater. Whether the students
felt "punished" being sent to this ISS can only be surmised, but
the coordinator said he felt he was, and absolutely hated the job.
The other school with a punitive philosophy kept the students in
an ordinary classroom, but had replaced the desks with straight-
back chairs and consciously kept the room either too cold or too
warm, depending on the season. Students were not given any
academic work to do in the first day of a suspension, but instead
were made to sit still and silent in their straight-back chairs
(or on the floor if they preferred) all day long.

The one school which appeared to operate ISS with a
philosophy from the other end of the spectrum, namely that
students need a nurturing environment to work through the reasons
which caused their suspension, was also at a high dropout school.
One consequence of this philosophy was a repeat offender rate of
over 80%. Out of 571 students suspended during this year 468 were
repeat offenders. The ISS at this school had a waiting list, and
students had to wait as long as three weeks to serve their time.

The philosophy of the fourth high dropout school was middle
of the road. Students spent their time quietly doing their work.
However, in the afternoon the class as a group did "paper detail,"
picking up trash from the campus grounds. The apparent success of
the ISS, as expressed by several persons interviewed, was due to
the personality of the individual running the program rather than
to any effective program elements that could be replicated
elsewhere. His 6-foot, 8-inch stature gave him a natural
authority that allowed him to keep order without attempting to
intimidate the students. His outgoing personality allowed him to
establish a good rapport with the students which he actively
cultivated outside of ISS as well, so that troubled students would
not have to be sent there just to get the chance to talk with him.
The philosophies of ISS at the low dropout schools were more
clearly focused on remediation and rehabilitation. Where
punishment was part of the philosophy, it was more restrained.
One of the ISS's at a low dropout school did not appear to be
working well, but that seemed to be a result of the mismatch
between the job and the person who held it. He felt out of place
and isolated, and did not see the position as a useful one. One
low dropout school which seemed to have a particularly successful
ISS had students fill out a lengthy diagnostic instrument which
focused on why they were sent to ISS, the circumstances
surrounding the incident, and their behaviors and attitudes in a
variety of academic and social areas. The results of these
surveys were reviewed by a counselor and when deemed appropriate
the students were given one-on-one counseling. This counselor
came to ISS around noon each day for one hour of group counseling

38

that focused on the attitudes and behaviors that led to the
students being suspended.

Another of the low dropout schools employed a point system.
Suspendees had to earn points to get out of the program, by
completing assignments, by being on task, and by engaging
constructively in group discussions. A dropout counselor worked
with the ISS coordinator to insure adequate counseling where
appropriate. Based on a teacher's request, suspendees were
permitted to return to the classroom for particular lessons that
the teacher felt were too critical to be missed. The program had
a low repeat rate.

At the eight schools visited there were ten individuals who
operated ISS, half-time or more. Most of these individuals had no
formal background or training in counseling or psychology. Most
of them were coaches. Most of the ISS programs at both high and
low schools tried to put a focus on academic work, and said that
at least 75% of the time in ISS was spent on academic work.
Several said as much as 95% of the time was spent on school work.
One exception, as noted above, was the high dropout school with a
punitive philosophy which gave no academic work at all in the
first day of suspension, and provided no desks for students to
work on after the first day.

Teachers had mixed opinions of ISS. They felt it was
filling a gap in the system by keeping problem students in school
rather than out on the streets. They also felt they were
themselves being "punished" by having to prepare and grade special
lesson plans developed for students who had often been inattentive
or disruptive in the classroom. The ISS coordinators praised

TQ

certain teachers for developing excellent work activities, and for
taking after school time to work with suspended students to permit
them to catch up with their class; they were critical of other
teachers who provided no plans or lessons, or sent activities
which the students could complete in ten minutes or less. Several
ISS coordinators expressed a need for better resource materials to
use with students when teacher assignments were inadequate.

As suggested above, many of the offenses for which students
were sent to ISS were not offenses that would have led to an out-
of -school suspension. In several of the schools, as many as 30%
of the student body had been in in-school suspension during the
current school year. Students who worked were particularly
vulnerable. To illustrate, a student would oversleep after
working late hours at the job. He would be assigned to after
school detention, but could not appear because of job (Commitments.
He therefore was sent to ISS for three days. Other students found
themselves in ISS because of smoking violations in schools which
formerly permitted smoking but now were cracking down on smokers.

In summary, the low dropout schools are taking a more
positive approach to in-school suspension, and where punishment is
part of the philosophy, it is moderated. At the majority of the
low dropout schools, affirmative steps are being taken to help the
students past the problems that led them to ISS. At the high
dropout schools, counseling is used little or not at all. The ISS
program is viewed as a stop-gap measure to deal with discipline
problems and not linked to an overall dropout prevention strategy.

Highlights of the review of in-school suspension programs
appears on the next page, as Table 8.

40

Table 8: HIGHLIGHTS FROM REVIEWS OF IN-SOCOL SUSPENSION FKX3W6

Although the ISS program is mandated by the state and guidelines
exist, there was wide variation in how in-school suspension was
implemented at the schools

Most of the heads of in-school suspension had no formal
background or training in counseling or psychology, and most
of them were coaches

The two school visited with clearly punitive philosophies, as
well as the one with the most nurturing environment, were at
high dropout schools

At most of the high dropout schools, counseling was used very
little or not at all

The in-school suspension programs at the low dropout schools
were more clearly focused on remediation and rehabilitation

A common observation from personnel at all levels was that while
in-school suspension was a worthwhile tool for discipline, it
was not the cornerstone of a dropout prevention program; the
student under suspension were not necessarily the most prone to
drop out of school

41

CHAPTER EIGHT
AEEERNATIVE FHOGRAMS

Seven of the eight schools visited had an alternative
program of some type in place. These school options, while
varying in structure, policy, and atmosphere across schools, were
extended day programs, JTPA programs, or a combination of the two.
The one school without an alternative program was a low dropout
school with an excellent vocational education department.

Of the four high dropout schools visited, two had extended
day programs and two had JTPA programs. None of the coordinators
of the programs associated with the four high dropout schools
mentioned any type of connection or networking to other programs
at the schools. When the regular school was mentioned, it was to
reference or compare facilities, courses, privileges, or possible
dual enrollments.

One of these extended day alternatives allowed any 7th to
12th grade student in the district to enroll. Students were
referred by counselors or requested it themselves. Approximately
230 students were in the program the past school year, most of
whom had discipline problems, needed credits to graduate or pass a
grade, or both. According to the program head, "some students
don't have problems but simply prefer the relaxed atmosphere in
extended day." They offered small classes, usually under 10:1
student-teacher ratios, and a second chance to pass required
English and math classes that often were failed previously. A
nurse, a full-time guidance counselor, a half-time home economics

42

teacher, and 16 part-time teachers comprised the staff. The
students tended to feel they were getting something out of it and
there are usually no discipline problems. Even so, the overall
dropout rate of the school remained high.

The extended day program associated with the other high
dropout school had the same basic structure. Enrollments were
restricted to 9th to 12th graders referred by the junior high
school or the principal of the high school. Students already out
of school had to contact the program head for permission to enter.
Approximately 90-100 students were served this past school year,
most of whom had family or some other problems. The program
offered all the privileges of day school (proms, athletics, etc.),
the same courses, equal length class periods, certified teachers,
and the same facilities. Remedial English classes were available,
but no remedial math or reading was offered. Rather than the
"relaxed atmosphere" of the above-mentioned program, this extended
day school had a "tough love" policy that tolerated no
disobedience or discipline problems from students. First offense
discipline offenders were given one chance to 'straighten up,1
but the next offense put them out of the program. Class sizes
ranged from 23 to 32 students, while the program head felt the
maximum size should be 17 to 20 students. The program had limited
success as evidenced by the fact that 66% dropped out.

The JTPA program coordinators of the high dropout schools
had a lot less to say about their programs. One school's JTPA had
a full-time job counselor at the high school and a part-time
dropout prevention counselor at the junior high. They enrolled
about 40 students and focused mainly on job training for

41

economically and educationally disadvantaged students. Few
discipline problems were encountered and 39 of the 41 students who
enrolled the past school year remained in the program. The
resources believed to be most needed were computers, smaller
remedial classes, and more support from local businesses.

The JTPA program of the other high dropout school emphasized
life skills, pre-employment skills, and administering the paid 250
hour co-op program. Referrals were made by teachers and
enrollment, as mandated by law, was based on economic
disadvantage. Of the 23 students enrolled in the program the past
year, only 3 dropped out (one of whom was forced by his mother to
go to work full time) . Role playing and other activities helped
ready students to assume a position in the working world. The
program head felt a strong need for more parental involvement in
the school and more discipline. She believed that more facilities
and training equipment were the most needed resources.

The alternative programs at the low dropout schools tended
to be more comprehensive in structure and more closely linked with
the regular school, another school program, or both. The one
school with JTPA as its alternative program included a "work
experiencen component as well as training. The coordinator
reported that about 8 of the 20 students in the program had been
placed in unsubsidized jobs, and the other 12 were still in the
program. The coordinator felt that the program was helping keep
some potential dropouts in school until graduation, but also
thought that the school system needed to identify potential
dropouts earlier and then "find something they can be successful
at." He also thought the school needed an extended day program.

44

One low dropout school offered a combination JTPA/extended
day alternative. Its extensive outreach activities to recruit
students included church presentations, bulletin distributions,
and actively seeking referrals from adults in the school and the
community. All privileges of regular school were carried by the
program, including having its own basketball team to play other
schools' extended day programs. JTPA was an integral part and
focused on providing students with pre-employment and job skills.
Students could enroll at any time during the year. Small classes
(7-20 students) allowed individual attention. The program was a
flexible one with the goal of making students marketable and
competent. They tried to tie all of the basic competency areas
together in every class, offering a comprehensive approach to
individualized learning. The program had a diploma award rate of
80% of its enrollment.

The remaining low dropout school had an extended day
alternative program called the Comprehensive Program. This was
indeed the most comprehensive and best organized of all those
programs examined. It began as an extended day program ("evening
school") and expanded to offer classes from the same time regular
school starts on into the evening. It was very well integrated
with the regular school with classes going on in the same building
at the same time. Students had all the same privileges as in the
regular school, and some had dual enrollments, selecting from both
curricula. Students who failed 9th grade could take courses in
the Comprehensive Program, while still attending the junior high
to make up the courses they failed. An open door policy allowed
dropouts to return to school at any point during the school year.

Students in the program tended to have serious deficiencies in
reading and in basic math skills. Labs were provided which
emphasized individualized learning at the student's own pace. A
close link with the local community college permitted students to
take courses there and get additional job training, and also
encouraged them to continue their education after getting a
diploma.

Outstanding among its features was the comprehensive
counseling network incorporated into the program. Students in the
program required and received constant contact and frequently
developed a strong association with the program and with their
fellow students. The staff were willing to "go the extra mile"
for the students, and this was recognized and appreciated. A key
component to the success of this program was this network of
caring adults who were willing to help. The coordinator summed it
up very effectively in the statement "There are no quick fixes to
dropout prevention. It takes a lot of effort from a lot of
individuals who want kids to succeed and are willing to invest
time and energy toward this end. An alternative program has got
to keep adjusting to meet the needs of kids and not simply
accommodate the established framework of the school. It takes a
comprehensive approach to planning services, mobilizing resources,
and implementing activities."

The most resourceful aspect of the programs in the low
dropout schools was the networking of the adults and resources to
ensure that students had the help they needed. Every program
coordinator at the low rate schools mentioned a link or bridge
with some other person or program that was readily available to

46

step in when present resources were not enough. By making the
alternatives an extension of the regular school and an integral
element of the total dropout prevention efforts, these programs
have managed to make an impressive difference on the overall
dropout rates of the schools with which they are associated.

Highlights from the review of alternative programs are
presented on the next page, as Table 9.

47

Table 9: mGHUGHTS FROM REVIEWS OF AETERNATIVE PROGRAMS

The alternative options associated with the high dropout
schools were generally not integrated with the regular school
programs; several of the persons interviewed felt that these
programs were not of the same standard as the regular program

The alternative programs at the low dropout schools tended to
be more comprehensive in structure and more closely linked with
the regular school, another alternative program, or both

The dropout rates in extended day schools which are separated
from the regular high school were very high

JTPA programs were successful in keeping students in school,
but lacked the resources to provide the full range of services
needed by the students in these programs

The most resourceful aspect of the programs at the low dropout
schools was the networking of adults and services to insure
that students got the help they needed

Several district and building level administrators felt that
the G.E.D. programs at the community colleges were made to easy
and were encouraging marginal students to leave high school for
this easier option

48

CHAPTER NINE
SURVEY OF STUEEMS

At each of the high schools visited, a survey instrument was
administered to gauge how a cross section of students perceived
the dropout problem. The survey gathered opinions on issues
related to dropping out, reasons why students drop out, and
suggestions concerning what could be done to keep dropouts in
school. A supplementary set of questions focused on after-school
work patterns of the students completing the form. To obtain a
fairly representative sample of students without placing an undue
administrative burden on the schools, one class of each of three
levels of eleventh grade English was surveyed at each school. The
classes surveyed included a remedial class, a "regular" or
"general" class, and a "college prep" or "advanced" class. At the
eight schools a total of 24 classes were polled with nearly 20
students per class responding, providing about 450 completed
survey forms.

The opinions of students on issues relating to dropping out
were very similar for students at schools with high dropout rates
and those at schools with low rates. For example, both at schools
with high and low dropout rates, over 90% agreed and over 60%
strongly agreed that it is difficult to get a decent job without a
high school diploma. Over 80% at both types of schools indicated
that they would feel less good about themselves if they did not
earn a high school diploma. An identical 88% at both types of
schools agreed or strongly agreed that the education they are

49

receiving is preparing them to reach their goals in life. Most
students did not see dropouts in stereotyped fashion, with less
than half agreeing with the statement that "the majority of
dropouts are slow learners or disruptive students." Less than
half at either type of school agreed that "people without high
school diplomas are looked down upon by society."

Where there were measurable differences in opinion between
students at the two types of schools, the students at the high
dropout schools were generally more likely to see dropping out as
a problem. For example, while 65% of those at low dropout schools
strongly agreed that dropouts are making a mistake, 74% of those
at high dropout schools strongly agreed to the same statement.
Students at schools with a high dropout rate were more likely to
agree or strongly agree that a high school diploma and a G.E.D.
are worth about the same by a margin of 43% to 30%.

The students were asked to volunteer the main reasons why
male students and why female students dropped out of school. The
four most frequent reasons given for males dropping out, in order
of greatest response, were: (1) wanting to go to work, (2) alcohol
and drug use, (3) needing to go to work, and (4) becoming a
father. For females, the most frequent reasons given, in order,
were: (1) pregnancy, (2) wanting to go to work, (3) getting
married, and (4) alcohol and drug use. Of interest, academic
difficulties were not listed among the favored responses.

The overwhelmingly dominant reason for females dropping out
was pregnancy, being listed as 40% of all the "three main reasons"
given. Another 9% of the reasons listed for females was marriage.
Fatherhood and marriage accounted for a total of 11% of the

reasons given for males dropping out. The students saw males as
most likely to leave school to go to work. For males, 23% of the
reasons listed were because they "wanted to go to work" and 8%
because they "needed to go to work" which compared to 11% and 3%
respectively for females. Alcohol and drug use accounted for 15%
of the reasons given for males leaving school and 9% of the
reasons given for females. However, when pregnancy is removed
from the calculations, alcohol and drugs were given as reason for
females (11%) nearly as often as for males leaving school. It
should be noted that these reasons may reflect opinions gleaned
from television and other sources and not necessarily from
observations of their local school and peers.

When the students were presented with a list of 14 possible
reasons why many students drop out of school, almost every one of
the 24 classrooms surveyed felt that two of three "strongest
reasons" were pregnancy and alcohol or drug use. Next most
frequently mentioned (each in 8 out of 24 classes) as "strong
reasons" were "left home/family problems" and "needed to go to
work." Worth noting were some factors that were not considered
"strong reasons" for many students dropping out. Students did not
see academic demands as being important factors for many dropouts
— "school work was too hard" and "couldn't earn enough credits to
graduate" did not rank among the top three "strong reasons" for
any of the 24 classes. "Couldn't pass the competency exam" ranked
among the top three for only one class — and in that case it
ranked third. Notably, that was for a remedial class. Further,
the competency exam was volunteered only a single time (out of
over 1800 responses) as a reason that either males or females drop

51

out. That school work was too hard was volunteered as 5% of the
reasons given for males dropping out and 2% of the reasons for
females.

The part of the survey dealing with employment outside of
school clearly indicated that work was a major source of
competition for students' time and energy, and perhaps one
external force which influenced dropout rates. Over half of all
the students surveyed worked outside of school. Of the students
surveyed at schools with high dropout rates, 57% reported working
outside of school compared to 45% of those surveyed at schools
with low dropout rates. Of those working at all schools combined,
about 67% worked 20 hours or more a week and about 8% worked 40
hours a week or more. Again, at the school with high dropout
rates the intensity of work was higher with 9% working 40 hours or
more compared to 6% at schools with low dropout rates.

The reasons the students gave for employment made it clear
that economic necessity was an uncommon reason for students
working. Among all the reasons given, the students indicated
"family needs the money" only 5% of the time, and rarely was it
given as the sole reason for working. On the other hand, the
students indicated "wanted extra money (movies, clothes, etc.)"
45% of the time and "wanted to make a major purchase (car, etc.)"
28% of the time. Interestingly, 14% of the time students listed
"saving for college" as a reason for working, but again very
rarely was it listed as the sole reason for working or in tandem
with "family needs the money."

The solutions that students offered to the problem of
dropping out were diverse — sometimes they seemed naive,

sometimes they appeared quite cynical, but almost always they
seemed sincere. Most of these proposed solutions came out of
these non-dropouts1 own experiences and were targeted at the
school. The most common class of solutions for students was that
school be made "less boring" or "more exciting," or that there be
"more activities" or "more interesting classes." This type of
answer was common from both high and low dropout schools, however
it was more prevalent from high dropout schools (30% versus 20% of
the solutions offered) .

Another common call was for "teachers who care," again with
high dropout school giving this solution more frequently (12%
versus 9%) . Students at the low dropout schools were more likely
to see a need for more counseling and guidance for dropouts (15%
versus 11%) and more likely to see a need for home-school
coordination (3% versus 0%) . At both high and low schools
students saw a need for fewer and less restrictive rules. As many
of them put it: "Treat us like adults" (6% and 7% of solutions
offered) . A similar fraction of the students at high and low
schools also thought that lowering academic standards (reducing
credits needed, number of days or hours of school) would help
lower dropout rates (9% of solutions offered at both schools) . An
equal number of students at both high and low schools recommended
raising the dropout age or making graduation required by law (7%) .
Highlights from the survey of eleventh graders are presented
on the next page, as Table 10.

53

Table 10: HTGHLIGHIS FRCM SURVEY OF STOESinS

Students universally agreed that it is difficult to get a
decent job without a high school diploma, and felt that their
high school was preparing them to reach their goals

Few students felt that "most dropouts were slow learners and
disruptive students"; and less than half felt that "people
without high school diplomas are looked down upon by society"

Students at high dropout schools were more likely to agree that
"a high school diploma and a G.E.D. are worth about the same"

Students felt that the major causes for school drop out were
pregnancy, alcohol and drug use, and work pressures; they did
not see academic demands as a major problem for most dropouts

57% of students surveyed from the high dropout schools worked
outside of school, as compared to 45% of those from the low
dropout schools

9% of working students from high dropout schools worked
40 hours or more, as compared to 6% of working students at
schools with low dropout rates

Economic necessity was not a major reason for working; most
students worked for spending money (45%) or to make a major
purchase (28%) such as a car

More students from the high dropout schools (30% versus 20%)
felt that school could be made more interesting for dropout
prone students

CHAPTER TEN
SURVEY OF RECENT EKDPOUTS

As a follow-up to the visits to each of the high schools, a

telephone survey of recent dropouts and their parents was

conducted to gain their perspective on the dropout problem. Using

lists of dropouts compiled from referral forms gathered during the

site visits to each of the high schools, letters were sent to the

parents of about 20 dropouts from each of the schools informing

them of the purposes of the study and that they would be receiving

a telephone call in the next several weeks. The subsequent phone

interviews, conducted over a four-day period, gathered information

on when these former students dropped out, their ages and grade

levels at the time, and whether they had dropped out before. The

dropouts and their parents were asked about problems the dropouts

had in school, about their work outside of school and whether that

was a factor in their decision to drop out. The dropouts were

asked about the decision itself: why they dropped out, who they

talked to and how their parents reacted when they found out they

had left school. Finally, they were asked about what they were

doing now, how they felt now about their decision to leave school,

and what they thought could have been done to keep them in school.

A total of 61 dropouts and 76 parents of dropouts were
contacted. Where possible, interviews were conducted with both
the dropout and one parent or guardian. One subjective impression
of the interviewers was that both the dropouts and their parents
were generally cooperative. In contrast to the expectation that

55

had been created by the comments of school officials about
apathetic parents of at-risk students, the parents that were
interviewed were helpful and seemed to be genuinely concerned
about their children and their decision to leave school. Rather
than being indifferent, the parents frequently said they were
uninformed and were caught by surprise when they found out how
many days their children had missed from school. They often said
they only found this out when they saw an end-of -semester report
card or when the child was already approaching or had exceeded the
maximum number of days he or she could miss and still pass.
Frequently students said they dropped because they knew they
couldn't finish the year without exceeding the attendance limit
and thus automatically failing.

An examination of the results of the survey revealed a
number of commonalities among the dropouts at the high and low
dropout rate schools and several interesting distinctions. At
both high and low dropout rate schools, fully three-quarters of
the dropouts indicated they did not talk to anyone at school about
their decision before they actually dropped out. At both types of
schools about half the dropouts said they were having some kind of
problem in school before they dropped out. The reasons the
students gave most frequently for dropping out were largely the
same whether the students were from low or high dropout rate
schools: wanting to go to work, just didn't like school, or had
too many absences.

Some key differences between high and lew dropout rate
schools were, that at high dropout rate schools, dropouts left
when they are younger (54% were 16 or younger compared to 24% at
low dropout rate schools) and were more likely to have dropped out
more than once (20% versus 11%) . Dropouts at the low dropout rate
schools were more likely to have problems with academics (39%
versus 33%) , especially the state competency exam (50% versus
22%).

Dropouts from the low dropout rate schools were also
somewhat more likely to have been working while going to school
(57% versus 50%) , especially those working full time or more (31%
versus 17%) . The fraction working full time or more was
particularly striking when compared to the figures from the survey
of students in school where the percentages were much lower (6%
and 9% respectively) . And while for both students in school and
for dropouts, the majority were working because they wanted to
(about 76% for both) , the dropouts were substantially more likely
to be working because their family needed the money (20% versus
5%) . The students from the low dropout rate schools were also
somewhat more likely to volunteer that a job was part of the
reason for leaving school (25% versus 16%) . For both high and low
dropout rate schools, about half of the dropouts who worked
thought their job interfered with school and said it was one
reason they left school. Further, the students from the low
dropout rate schools were more likely to be working now (67%
versus 57%) and less likely to be in some type of alternative
school or community college program (0% versus 15%) .

57

While there was a high degree of agreement given by dropouts
from both high and low dropout rate schools that leaving school
was a mistake, students from high dropout schools were more likely
to think so (88% versus 72%) and less likely to say they would
drop out again if they had it do over again (87% versus 59%) .
And while at both high and low schools a great majority of the
dropouts said they planned on going back to school to get their
diploma or G.E.D. , the dropouts from high dropout schools were
even more likely to say so (by a margin of 93% to 81%) . Overall,
these results suggest many of these dropouts could be brought back
into the school system if the proper opportunities were available.

In association with these phone interviews, transcripts of
these recent dropouts were reviewed. Names were removed by the
schools, however, to protect the privacy of the students. The
information provided was used for comparisons across schools to
determine what, if any, correlations existed between grades, other
measures of academic performance, and dropout rates. The most
prevalent attribute detected from the transcripts was the number
of absences. Many of the students who dropped out during the
school year had missed 30-50% of the days of that school year. At
the same time, transcripts of previous years for some of these
same students indicated that many of them had received "good" or
"average" grades when they attended classes regularly.

The transcript data strongly suggested that marginal
students were having a difficult time with the transition from
middle or junior high school to senior high school. Of the
transcripts provided, 41% of the recent dropouts had repeated
either the 9th or 10th grade, while 13% had repeated the 9th grade

repeated twice, or had repeated both the 9th and 10th grades.
Both of the above-mentioned factors support the information
gathered from interviews at the school and follow-up phone surveys
with the students themselves. Differences across transcripts from
high and low dropout schools were generally not detected. There
were, however, more repeaters in high dropout schools among the
dropouts with transcripts reviewed.

Table 11, on the next page, summarizes the highlights from
these interviews with recent dropouts and their parents.

59

Table 11: HTGHUGHES FROM SURVEY OF RECENT DRQPOOTS

Recent dropouts, and particularly their parents, were very
cooperative and articulate in discussing their situations

Many parents admitted to being uninformed that their children
were in danger of dropping out until it was too late to do much
about it

Reasons given most frequently for dropping out were related to
work, not liking school, or too many absences

Three-quarters of the dropouts claimed they did not talk to
anyone at school about their decision prior to making it

Dropouts from the high dropout schools left when they turned 16
more frequently than those from low dropout schools (54% versus
24%)

Dropouts from the high dropout schools were less likely to be
currently employed and more likely to be attending a community
college or alternative school program than those from the low
dropout schools

Dropouts were more likely to have been working long hours just
prior to dropping out than working students still in school;
half indicated their job had been interfering with school

Reviews of transcripts indicated large numbers of absences
prior to dropping out and a large number of retentions in the
9th and 10th grades

There was a high degree of agreement that leaving school had
been a mistake; a great majority of the recent dropouts
indicated plans to return to school to get a diploma or a G.E.D.

CHAPTER ELEVEN
OBSERVATIONS AND CCNeXUSIONS

The four high dropout schools included in the study were
among the very highest in the state in dropout rate during the
previous school year. The matching pairs of low dropout schools
were among the very lowest in the state. To the extent that these
extreme cases define the spectrum of high school contexts in the
state with respect to dropout experience and dropout prevention
measures, it can be concluded that the situation in North Carolina
is promising and improving. State dropout statistics and site
visits did not reveal the type of extreme dropout condition that
has been reported in metropolitan areas of other states. District
and building level administrators were sensitive to the issues
surrounding dropout decisions and understood the types of programs
and efforts that were required to bring the local dropout rates
down to minimal levels.

What distinguished the districts and schools with the low
rates was a recent record of successes in keeping dropout prone
students in schools, or getting recent dropouts to return to
school, which in turn provided confidence to expand programs and
services to sustain these accomplishments. Dropout prevention was
no longer viewed as a separate initiative; rather, it was well
integrated within the total service package available to the
student body. At the high dropout schools and districts,
administrators tended to view dropout prevention as another

61

problem area to be concerned about and were approaching it more or
less in isolation from other district and school initiatives.

The root solution to the problem of school dropout appears
to lie in making each and every student feel attached in some
tangible way to the school, to the extent that the student wants
to move up through the grade levels, become a senior, and graduate
with his or her class. Students who feel like "outsiders" and
cannot find an avenue for academic, vocational, athletic, social
or personal success within the school environment are prone to
drop out when either offered a chance to be an accepted and
successful "insider" somewhere else (at work or even hanging out
with friends) or when some precipitating event at school or home
drives a wedge between the student and school.

Success in implementing this root solution appears to
require one-to-one interplay, over extended periods, between a
student with problems and an adult with the counseling abilities
and resources to convince the student to remain a part of the
school community. The low dropout schools had at least one
individual who was almost compulsive in his or her desire to "not
lose any kids," plus a strong and diverse network of counselors,
administrators, teachers, staff, and outside supporters to call
into play in response to the needs of particular students.
Students with problems were made to feel that someone cared and
that the school itself was sufficiently flexible to make necessary
allowances to help the student to remain a student.

62

The age of sixteen was clearly a critical point in the
dropout decisions of students. Not only is a student no longer
legally required to remain in school, but the student is also now
able to operate an automobile. For same students, the driver's
license itself represents a "graduation" and an important step in
disengaging from the school. A large number of the students
surveyed and recent dropouts interviewed indicated that the desire
to purchase and maintain a car was a primary factor in their
decisions to find work. As the number of work hours increased,
the amount of time devoted to study decreased. Many dropouts and
dropout prone students found themselves in academic difficulty as
a consequence of working. The local employers often needed this
inexpensive labor and did not feel compelled to moderate the terms
of employment so that the students could keep up with their
studies. Two of the high dropout schools, in particular, felt
that the pull to work, coupled with the pull to car ownership,
were the principal explanations for their high dropout rates.

The relationship between the school and parents of dropout
prone students was less than adequate in all cases, both for high
and low dropout schools. The high dropout schools were, however,
more prone to point a finger of blame at the home situation; while
the low dropout schools were more apt to admit that they needed to
work harder to involve parents in problem-solving affecting their
children. Inasmuch as poor attendance was a prime indicator of
disengagement from school, the schools are clearly positioned to
identify potential dropouts at an early enough stage to contact
parents and seek their involvement. Many of the parents of recent
dropouts who were interviewed would have welcomed this

63

solicitation from the school. A large number of these parents
were caught by surprise when they learned how many days their
children had missed from school or even that they had dropped out
of school. An still larger number of recent dropouts had not
found anyone in the school to talk with about their decision prior
to having finalized it or having gone beyond the point of "no
return" (failing classes or excessive absences) .

Special education and vocational education programs contain
a number of positive elements associated with keeping students in
school through graduation. Classes are generally small enough to
provide individualized attention. Materials can often be tailored
to the basic skill levels of the students without diluting the
content areas. The individual or individuals operating these
programs usually see the students for more than one period each
day, and for several courses during the years of school, and
develop personal relationships with these students. This carries
beyond the coursework into other problem areas which concern the
students. Parents are frequently drawn upon for support,
particularly in special education programs. Opportunities for
individual success are greater in these programs than in the more
competitive academic classes. The students are made to feel like
"insiders" within the school community.

The decision to drop out of school need not be viewed as
irreversible. Many of the recent dropouts interviewed expressed a
desire to return to the school to graduate or to attend the local
community college. Several had already taken steps in this
direction. Parents were clearly supportive of such action. The
more successful extended day programs had opened a wide door to

64

recent dropouts, to bring them back to make up classes and earn
credits for graduation. These programs represented themselves as
integral components of the high school, not as isolated "evening
schools" offering watered down curricula. The same teachers who
taught in the regular program offered classes during the extended
hours, and seemed to be enthusiastic about the successes they were
gaining with students who had formerly found such courses too
difficult for them.

In conclusion, the low dropout schools appeared to be
operating from a posture of confidence, having realized reductions
in their dropout rates in recent years due to program enhancements
and staff changes. This confidence permeated the entire school
district, and was reflected in attitudes and statements of both
district and building level administrators and staff. The high
dropout schools, in contrast, were somewhat frustrated by the
numbers of recent dropouts and were attempting to explain the
situation by factors external to the secondary school environment,
such as work pressures and social promotions from the lower
grades. The district and building level administrators were not
generally aware of what other more successful districts and
schools were doing that was different from what they were doing.
The low dropout schools were clearly in an action mode; the high
dropout schools were not.

65

STUDY OF SCHOOL DROPOUT FACTORS

IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

OF NORTH CAROLINA

VOLUME 3
POLICY ISSUES

July 14, 1988

PREPARED FOR

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PREPARED BY

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 750

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 842-2200

100 Europa Drive, Suite 590

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

(919) 968-4961

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i

Introduction 1

POLICY ISSUES:

#1 Funding of In-School Suspension Programs 4

#2 Preparation of District Dropout Prevention Plans ... 7

#3 Reading and Mathematics Skills Remediation 10

#4 Adequate Counseling Resources for At-risk Students . 13

#5 The Critical Age of 16 16

#6 Technical Assistance to High Dropout Schools .... 18

PREFACE

This report constitutes the third of three volumes prepared
as part of the Study of School Dropout Factors in the Secondary
Schools of North Carolina. The first volume is an edited
collection of articles and papers dealing with the multiple
factors affecting school dropout decisions, as perceived by a
range of experts and scholars. The second volume contrasts four
high schools, which were among those with the highest dropout
rates in the state, with four high schools which, while matching
in student demographics and school characteristics, were among
those schools with the lowest dropout rates in the state. The
purpose of this final volume is to identify those current
policies, procedures, and practices that should be continued since
they appear related to retention of students in secondary schools
and those which should be discontinued or modified.

Six policy issues were identified. These dealt with (1) the
funding of in- school suspension programs, (2) the preparation of
district dropout prevention plans, (3) the provision of reading
and mathematics skills remediation, (4) the availability of
counselors to work with at-risk students, (5) the state laws
directly affecting sixteen year olds, and (6) the provision of
technical assistance to schools with the highest dropout rates in
the state. Each issue is briefly discussed, drawing on materials
from the earlier volumes, and followed by sets of recommendations
for discontinuing or modifying current state initiatives in
support of dropout prevention efforts.

The project team wishes to thank Joan Rose for her support
as Contract Administrator in facilitating meetings and
communications with members of the Joint Legislative Commission on
Governmental Operations.

Barry H. Kibel, Ph.D., Project Director
Peggy A. Richmond, Ph.D.
Gary D. Gaddy, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Dropout prevention is an integral part of the Basic Education
Program (BEP), a plan for excellence and equity in North
Carolina's public schools. In 1985, the North Carolina General
Assembly appropriated funds specifically for the development and
expansion of dropout prevention programs in middle schools, junior
high schools, and high schools. One in-school suspension position
was funded at each secondary school having grades 9 and 10 or a
12th grade. Additional funds were provided to staff additional
dropout prevention measures on the basis of school membership. In
the 1986-87 school year, increased funding was provided for a
half-time job placement specialist in each secondary school in the
state.

The policy of the State Board of Education requires that
dropout prevention be a part of the educational program of every
local education agency. The Board has established the goal of
reducing the dropout rate in every local education agency by one-
half from 1985 to 1993. The Board has authorized and directed the
staff of the Department of Public Education to develop and provide
guidelines, standards, informational materials, and programs to
support this statewide effort.

Each school district must submit an annual system-wide plan
for dropout prevention. The plan should reflect the use of state
dropout prevention funds, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
funds, and other funds that are anticipated to be used during the
fiscal year, as well as describing other efforts that do not
require funding. Elements of the plan include a problem statement
and needs assessment, goals and objectives, strategies arrayed on
summary charts provided by the state, and an evaluation design.

Through the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction,
two excellent resource documents have been made available to
school districts in developing and improving their dropout
prevention programs. These are Keeping Students In School: A
Handbook For Dropout Prevention and Joining Hands: The Report of
the Model Programs For Dropout Prevention. The Annual Report of
the State Dropout Prevention Program provides additional useful
material and data. In addition to these documents and the funding
efforts listed above, the state has organized meetings in each of
the education regions of the state to address dropout prevention
issues, widely distributed brochures entitled Dropout Prevention
in North Carolina, conducted program reviews and site visits to a
small number of school districts, conducted a statewide Dropout
Prevention Conference, sponsored a public service campaign on
television stations across the state, and made numerous
presentations to civic groups.

Site visits conducted by the study team to eight high schools
in North Carolina (refer to Volume 2) confirmed that these efforts
clearly have had a positive impact. District and building-level
administrators, program heads, teachers and staff were
consistently articulate and informed concerning issues pertaining
to school dropouts. Many exemplary programs and program
components were in place. Schools were also beginning to reap the
benefits from the administrative software package provided by the
state, in terms of having ready access to attendance reports,
student schedules, and grade reports.

Still, there were major variations between the efforts
underway at the four low dropout schools visited versus the four
high dropout schools. These were discussed at length in Volume 2.
The following set of six policy issues were developed to reflect
these findings and to direct the Joint Legislative Commission on
Governmental Operations to areas of potential high payoff in the
state's continuing efforts to encourage students to remain in
school through graduation.

POLICY ISSUE #1
FUNDING OF IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS

Issue

More than half of the state's dropout prevention funds are
currently allocated for staffing in-school suspension programs.
Given the operations and impact of these programs, is this an
effective use for these funds?

Discussion

The stated purpose of the in-school suspension program is to
provide opportunities for problem students to develop the degree
of self-discipline required to take advantage of the school's
academic program. It is viewed as a practical alternative to out-
of-school suspension, designed to keep the students within the
school context while being penalized for unacceptable behaviors.
Elements of the in-school suspension program are to include the
isolation of the student from normal school activities for a
designated number of days, make-up and continuation of academic
work assigned by the student's regular teachers, personal
reflection, group and individual counseling, parent involvement,
and follow-up to determine if appropriate adjustments in attitude
and behavior have occurred.

Despite clear guidelines and useful suggestions provided to
school districts by the state (In-school Suspension Program Guide,
Department of Public Instruction, 1986), the visits to the eight
high schools revealed wide variation in how in-school suspension
was being implemented locally. Most of the heads of in-school
suspension had no formal background or training in counseling or
psychology and, at the high dropout schools in particular,
counseling was used very little or not at all. Two of the high
dropout schools had clearly punitive programs aimed at making it
physically uncomfortable for the students. One program at a high
dropout school was so supportive of suspended students that the
program appeared to be viewed by students as a respite from
classes, and there was a long waiting list to get into one of the
available twelve seats.

The programs at the low dropout schools tended to be more in
the spirit of state guidelines, with emphasis on time-on-task and
some counseling to examine the behaviors which had led to the
suspension. Only two of these programs, however, attempted to use
the time that students were suspended to cause a significant shift
in these behaviors. One utilized a point system, whereby
suspended students had to earn their way out of the program by
appropriate behaviors. A second employed a lengthy self-
diagnostic instrument coupled with group and individual counseling
with a trained professional.

A common observation from personnel at all levels was that
while in-school suspension was a worthwhile tool for discipline,
it was not the cornerstone of a dropout prevention program. Many
of the students in the program were there for one or a combination
of infractions which would not likely have led to out-of-school
suspension; and most were not likely candidates to drop out of
school. For the dropout prone student who was sent to in-school
suspension, the program was seen as a stop-gap measure for some
who might be on the road to dropping out of school, but rarely
made the difference in the decision to leave school.

Recommendations

(1) Funds allocated for in-school suspension programs are at
best playing a secondary role in reducing school dropout rates.
Schools should either be given more discretion in how these funds
are to be used for dropout prevention efforts or a different use
for mandated funds, such as counseling support or special reading
programs, should be considered.

(2) To the extent that in-school suspension programs are
supported through state funding, these need to be more closely
regulated to insure adherence to guidelines and intent. Such
regulation should include site visits and technical assistance, as
required.

POLICY ISSUE #2
PREPARATION OF DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION PLANS

Issue

District dropout prevention plans are being prepared in order
to qualify for state dropout prevention funds. They are not
stimulating building-level planning processes and related problem-
solving efforts aimed at reducing school dropouts. What can be
done to encourage more meaningful documents and processes?

Discussion

The state provides thoughtful and comprehensive guidelines to
school districts in the preparation of their annual dropout
prevention plans (Annual Plan For Dropout Prevention, Department
of Public Instruction, 1986). In fact, these guidelines are too
good. The dropout prevention plans prepared by the districts were
almost always extrapolated from the guidelines both in terms of
format and content. There was very little to distinguish one
district's plans from those of another district, as both were
molded from the same template.

In conducting the interviews, it became apparent that the
district plan was viewed more as a necessary burden to obtain
state funding than as a vehicle for tackling the problem of school
dropouts. The chore of writing the plan was frequently assigned

to one individual in the central office who was good at writing
proposals; or the vocational education director was recruited for
the task. In a few cases, school -level personnel were asked to
participate in meetings devoted to plan preparation, to contribute
sections, or to review the plan prior to submission. However, the
majority of building-level administrators, counselors, and
department heads admitted to having never seen the plan. Some who
had seen it complained that it was a well-written document, but
did not reflect the day-to-day realities of their schools or was
simply a compilation of programs already underway.

A planning document is valuable only if it reflects an on-
going process of setting goals, solving problems, mobilizing
resources, and implementing programs, coupled with evaluation and
feedback. It is the process, not the document, which is of
primary importance. In the case of the district dropout
prevention plans, the reverse is the case. The process exists to
produce the document; the document does not exist to guide and
stimulate the process. Moreover, to the extent that there were
differences in the quality of the documents prepared by the eight
schools in the study, these differences were not reflected in
either the comprehensiveness of programs at the schools nor in
their successes in reducing dropout rates.

Plans are most effective when written by those with the
primary task of implementing their contents. In the case of
dropout prevention, the school is a more appropriate planning
level than the district. However, the compilation of programs and

8

staffing needs is no more appropriate at the building level than
at the district level .

A more substantive planning process would be one based on the
development, by teachers and counselors, of personal education
plans for each at-risk student at the school. Guidance would be
provided by the state in defining which students require such
plans. These plans need not be wordy and time consuming to
prepare. A well -designed planning form, using checklists and
short comments, would suffice in most instances. (A personal
education plan (PEP) in this spirit is being required by the state
as a part of the current BEP summer school program.) The plan
would be reviewed and signed by a parent, who would be encouraged
to identify activities he or she might undertake in support of the
student. The school plan would be a compilation of the needs
addressed in the individual student plans, translated into
resource and program requirements. The district request for funds
would be based on the school plans.

Recommendations

(1) The district dropout prevention plan should be replaced
with a simplified form for use in applying for state dropout
prevention funds.

(2) The application for funds should be supported by school
plans, which in turn are based on compilations of personal
education plans and related needs of the students at the school.

POLICY issue n
READING AND MATHEMATICS SKILLS REMEDIATION

Issue

Students who drop out for academic reasons have major
problems with reading comprehension and basic mathematical
reasoning. These problems prevent them from actively
participating in many classes at the high school. What should be
done for these students to insure them a decent education?

Discussion

Virtually everyone interviewed at the eight high schools in
the study, when asked to identify the reasons for academic failure
by recent dropouts and dropout prone students, began by naming
reading as the major deficiency, followed by weakness in basic
mathematics skills. The common concern was that these students
could not successfully read and understand text books written for
the high school grade levels. As a result, they had struggled or
failed in classes involving a significant amount of reading.

These students could read the words in most cases (what
teachers referred to as "word calling"), but they had major
problems with comprehending and retaining what they were reading.
Similarly, they often could manipulate the mathematical symbols to
get an answer in a mechanical manner; but did not grasp the
reasoning behind these operations.

10

Some students complained that there were simply too many
subjects during the school day. Teachers added that these
students needed to have their self-confidence bolstered. The
universal request was for small class sizes to allow for
individualized attention. It was stressed that a class size of 15
was an absolute maximum for such classes to be effective.
Students in special education, vocational education, and extended
day programs benefited from these smaller classes, although
teachers complained of a lack of good textbooks which covered high
school content but at easier reading levels. Students who were
not enrolled in special education programs, yet had major problems
with reading and math, often could not perform to the levels
demanded in social science and other classes where they were
placed with stronger readers.

Most district and building-level administrators, as well as
teachers interviewed, called for early identification of students
with basic skills deficiencies and for appropriate remediation.
Such remediation is often required for extended periods. They
complained of social promotions which were filling the high school
ranks with students without the academic resources to succeed.

Recommendations

(1) Comprehensive learning centers should be established,
as needed, at all schools and for all grade levels, to bring each
student to competence in reading and mathematical comprehension.
Placement into such centers would be triggered by results of a

11

state testing program; however, no student would be assigned to a
center without the consent of a parent and, for secondary school
students, the consent of the student. These would be total
immersion programs, with small student-teacher ratios, wherein all
subjects would be taught by one or more teachers trained to work
with these students in a variety of learning modes. The state
might wish to purchase or develop a program based on criterion
referenced testing to insure standardization across schools and
districts.

(2) Textbooks covering high school materials, but written
for middle school reading levels, should be made available to
teachers in special education, vocational education, and extended
day programs.

12

POLICY ISSUE #4
ADEQUATE COUNSELING SERVICES FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS

Issue

School counselors spend considerable time performing
administrative and clerical tasks at the expense of meaningful
interaction with students. Too many students are dropping out of
school before counselors are aware of problems or have time to
offer viable alternatives. How can counseling time be found for
working with dropout prone students?

Discussion

All administrators interviewed saw counseling as the backbone
of any successful dropout prevention effort. The earlier that
students with academic or other problems could be identified,
counseled effectively and offered appropriate remediation, the
greater was the chance that these students would remain in school,
find sources for academic and social success, and graduate. Yet,
a complaint among counselors interviewed, particularly those from
the high dropout schools, was that they had extremely heavy
administrative workloads that could preclude meaningful and
sustained interaction with at-risk students requiring such
attention.

13

These counselors estimated that at least half of their time
was expended in chores such as administering tests, computing
credits and grade point averages, writing letters of
recommendation, and making course changes. Counselors admitted to
spending a disproportionate share of their time focusing on the
needs of college-bound students. Even when at-risk students were
identified, through reviews of grade reports or absences, time was
often not found to call in these students for one-on-one sessions.
Three-quarters of the recent dropouts interviewed claimed that
they had not discussed their decision to drop out with anyone from
their school .

Many persons interviewed felt that a full-time dropout
prevention coordinator, with counseling background, was needed at
each school to work with at-risk students and their parents. Some
schools, particularly the ones with low dropout rates, reported
that an important step had been taken when additional clerical
support was found to relieve counselors of some of their
administrative burdens, using local funds or volunteers.

The full impact of the Student Information Management System
(SIMS) had yet to be felt at most of the schools visited. When
fully operational for scheduling and grade reporting, some of the
clerical chores described by counselors will be routinely handled
through this software package. A complementary forms processing
package, customized for the requirements of school counselors,
would further relieve counselors of some administrative burden and
permit more time for interaction with students.

14

Recommendations

(1) As an alternative to staff for in-school suspension
programs, the state should offer an option of a full-time dropout
prevention counselor to work with dropout prone students and
interact with their parents. Schools should be permitted to
request alternative options for this funding, such as increased
clerical support for the guidance program or counselors and
reading teachers for extended day programs.

(2) Funds might also be provided for the purchase of
inexpensive computers or terminals for use by counselors for forms
processing and for accessing the SIMS database. A state-of-the-
art software package specifically developed to facilitate
administrative tasks required of school counselors might be made
available to the schools.

15

POLICY ISSUE #5
THE CRITICAL AGE OF 16

Issue

Students are required to attend school only until reaching

the age of 16. They can obtain a driver's license at 16. The

hours they may work is not limited once they reach age 16. The

convergence of these factors contributes to raising the dropout

rate in North Carolina. What can be done to improve the
situation?

Discussion

The current study focused on school -related factors affecting
dropout rates. Still, in conducting the site visits and follow-up
interviews, it became clear that the sixteenth birthday was a
critical point for many students. In the high dropout schools,
more than half of the dropouts left school during their sixteenth
year. For some students, the driver's license itself represented
a "graduation" and an important step in disengaging from the
school (and possibly also from a stressful home environment). The
ability to obtain a driver's license prompted many students to
seek work to purchase and support a vehicle. While state and
federal laws limit the hours which teens aged 14 and 15 can work,
no state laws apply to age 16 and older.

16

Many students surveyed and interviewed were found to work
long hours and often late hours. Of the eleventh graders surveyed
who were still in school, about half reported working. Of these
working students, 67% worked 20 hours or more each week and about
8% reported working 40 hours a week or more. Among recent
dropouts, 57% reported working while attending school and almost a
quarter of them reported working 40 hours a week or more. The
reasons given for employment made it clear that economic necessity
was not a common reason for students working. Wanting extra
spending money and wanting to make a major purchase were the main
reasons offered for working by students and recent dropouts.
About half of the recent dropouts who worked thought their job
interfered with school and said it was one reason they left
school .

Recommendations

(1) The state should investigate the impact and
repercussions of raising the mandatory attendance age.

(2) The state should investigate the impact and
repercussions of raising the legal driving age, as well as other
options for restricting car usage for 16 year olds.

(3) The state should consider placing restrictions on
working hours and conditions of employment for students, including
requiring that schools be notified and approve the terms of
employment beyond certain minimum levels.

17

POLICY OPTION #6
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HIGH DROPOUT SCHOOLS

Issue

Schools with extremely high dropout rates frequently are
struggling on their own. Exemplary programs, models, guidelines,
and expertise exist which could be used more effectively to aid
such schools. How can the state provide technical assistance to
these schools to help catalyze processes and initiate programs
which will significantly reduce their dropout rates?

Discussion

The high dropout schools included in the study shared several
features which suggest that appropriate technical assistance could
make a significant difference in their abilities to reduce their
dropout rates. School district and building-level administrators
were articulate and generally aware of the issues pertaining to
dropout causes and their required interventions. They indicated
that dropout prevention was a high priority of their school
district, that considerable attention had been focused on the
problem, and that they would welcome any help they could get in
dealing more effectively with the problem. While having several
program elements in place, these schools had not demonstrated the
resourcefulness of the low dropout schools in mobilizing
individuals and funds to offer effective comprehensive programs.

18

Whereas low dropout schools were operating from a posture of
confidence, having realized reductions in their dropout rates in
recent years due to program enhancements and staff changes; the
high dropout schools were somewhat frustrated by the numbers of
recent dropouts and tended to explain the situation by factors
external to the secondary school environment. The district and
building-level administrators were not generally aware of what
other more successful districts and schools were doing that was
different from what they were doing. Successful efforts appear to
be founded upon one-to-one interplay, over extended periods,
between a student with problems and an adult with counseling
abilities and resources to convince the student to remain a part
of the school community.

The state has developed excellent materials for guiding
dropout prevention program efforts which have not been translated
into operating programs at these high dropout schools as intended.
More direct involvement by the state in effecting this translation
is appropriate. Many excellent models exist throughout the state
which can further stimulate thinking and action by the high
dropout schools. High dropout schools need exposure to these
models.

Recommendations

(1) The state, on an annual basis, should identify the
twenty schools in the state with the highest dropout rates. These
schools should be provided with technical assistance through (a)
discussions and work sessions involving these schools in a

19

networked relationship, (b) trips by school administrators and
staff to model programs in the state, (c) site visits to the
schools by individuals knowledgeable in areas where the schools
need help, and (d) external monitoring and feedback throughout the
year.

(2) Modest one-time grants should be made available to
these schools to permit the purchase of materials or the hiring of
temporary staff to move their dropout prevention programs forward.
These grants should be linked to the technical assistance effort
and the use of funds should be subject to review and approval by
the state.

20

STUDY OF SCHOOL DROPOUT FACTORS

IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

OF NORTH CAROLINA

PRESENTATION OF
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

MAY 26, 1988

PREPARED FOR

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PREPARED BY

Research and Evaluation Associates, Inc.

1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 750

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 842-2200

100 Europa Drive, Suite 590

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

(919) 968-4961

AGENDA

BACKGROUND TO STUDY

LITERATURE REVIEW

SELECTION OF SCHOOLS
FOR SITE VISITS

OBSERVATIONS FROM 8 CASE STUDIES

PRELIMINARY POLICY IMPLICATIONS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

PROJECT FLOW DIAGRAM

IDENTIFY >|<
ARTICLES

DEVELOP
PROTOCOL

*

1

T

T

HIGHLIGHT *l,
KEY POINTS

PROCESS
SCHOOL DATA

*

r

SELECT
SCHOOL SITES

*

CODE AND -.u
CROSS-REFERENCE

i

T

SCHEDULE
VISITS

*

PREPARE >j<
INDEX

~ ' 1

T

T

PREPARE jL.
SYNTHESIS

CONDUCT
SITE VISITS

*

(

c

▼

VOLUME 1 )

TELEPHONE
FOLLOW-UP

T

E 2 ) ^g

PREPARE
CASE STUDIES

VOLUM

>j< COMPLETED

-^

+

ANALYZE
FINDINGS

!

r

1

r

v

VOLUM

Ea^)^

DEVELOP
RECOMMENDATIONS

/

B

LITERATURE REVIEW
CONSENSUS OF OPINION

TL DROPPING OUT IS A GRADUAL PROCESS
■ WITH MULTIPLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

THERE ARE NO QUICK FIXES
AND NO CURE-ALLS

INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESS INCLUDE:

EARLY IDENTIFICATION
STRONG COUNSELING COMPONENT
CONSTANT MONITORING
FLEXIBLE CURRICULA
OPPORTUNITIES TO EXCEL
RESPONSIVENESS TO NEEDS
SCHOOLWIDE SUPPORT

cc
o

LL
<

<

D

_I
O

o

X

o
co

X

o

Q

1-
to

O

Q.

o
cc

Q

_J
O

o

X

o
CO

_I

o

o

X

o

CO

LU
Q
O

O

LL

O

-J

o

LU

o

^

X

<

o

z

CO

CO

_I

LU

>
LU

_J

LU
Q
<
CC

o

CL

X
CO

cc

LU
CD

LU

CO

<

CC

a

x

H

04

LU

-J
<

<

LU

LU
LL

z
<

Q

Z

LU

-J
<

<
CO

<

LU

<

LU
LL

z
<

CO

<

LU
_l
<

o

z
<

CL
CO

LU

LU

LL

O

z
<

a.

(0

LU

O
<

-J

m

LU

<

LU
LL

<
-J
CO

LU

LU

H

X

LU
<

LU
LL

LU
H

X

<
CL

LU

a

3

co

a

LU
O

3
O
LU
CC

z

LU

a

3
I-

co

LU
LU
CC
LL

LU
O

3
H
CO

2-Sr s

cc > o <

— O CD >
£ O CC CC

2fg»

>

J" CO «_

w to ■Ci

o

„

Q.

O

CD

o

(X

-C

>N

o

<T>

Q

CO

JT

CO

r~

CO

O)

u> at

o "

ja -a

i S

* o

c <a

— cc

a ca

3

a.

O
o

> r * ■»

£ O 00 ©

» 2- 2 *

S a ^ to

o — IS "

o c £ o

o ■* "" -J

t/>

D

D

ID
H
C/)

O

Ql

o

G

-J

o
o

X

o
(/)

I
o

o

z

co~

LU

H
<

O

o

CO

<

z
o

<

ID

<
>

Q

OS

X
V-

cc
o

z

CO

o

CC

o

<

I

LU

o

>-

h-

CO

-J

2
UJ
(J
CC

I

o

a

o

UJ

a.

X

o

CO

in

CO

UJ

c\i

r-

(-

00

<r

cc

1

CM

O

CD

3

u.

CO

<

O)

H

1—

<

Q

LU

<\l

CM
O

CO

CO
lO

h-

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

<

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

cc

00

N

(O

m

tT

o

CM

(/>

'*—

UJ

>

LU

-J

_J

O
O

UJ

I

a

o

CO

<

z

oc

O)

LU

a

<
cc

a
o

a

o

1-
co

X

UJ

o

-1

(J)

cc

<

UJ

>

00
LU

•*-

h-

V

<

CsJ

00

O

I-
C/>

OS"

\-/ oo

o<

x3

CJ>

T" W

o5

<£ w
Oa

h-
DC
O

o

CC

o

<

X

LU

o

>-

h-

CO

X

-J
O

UJ

O

a:

o

O

LU

a.

X

X

r>

r-

o

00

»n

(D

LU

CM

h-

00

<r

cc

fM

o

CD

$

u_

00

<

CD

h-

T~

<

Q

o

CO

id

oo
id

CO
CM

CD

o
en

id

CM

V)

Tf

OJ

_1
O

•

VO

O

10

X

o

LU

h-

< ~1~

CC 9

CM

I
o

o

o

o

n r

o o

O
O
CM

-J

o

O

o

CM

T-

00

1-

o

X

1

o

z

LU

a

o

o

T"

3
H

X

00

(5

_J

o
o

o
o

X

X

o

IL

1
1—

o

00

o

10

X

LU

h-

a

N

X

Li.

(/)

o

lO

o

>-

1^

1

LU
CO

m

o

^

UJ

o

lO

3
Z

<

CC
CM

o

o

£

lO

Q
C/)

O

OL

o

DC

o

co

UJ

o|

_l O

CO

CO

<

z
O

h-
<

o
o

X

o

(/)

X
G

X

>

LU
Q
<2

X

o

CC
<

DC w

" CO

LU
CC

-J

o

<
o

X

h-

DC

o

CO

_J
O

o

x
o

CO

X

o

CD
CM

CC
O

<

<3.
LU

>

_J

LU

o

o

a.

X

o

id

(0

LU

r*-

CO

£T

■

M

CD

$

CO

LU

H
<
CC

CM

5

CO

h-

A

Z

0s

o

lO

1-

1
o

(/)

lO

CO

o

^
o^

h-
z

LU

a

3

0.

2

o

o

lO

1
o

CO

o

o

*

1

o
<

<

CO

o

o
o

Li.

<

i

O

DC

o

h-

CM

z

>

LU

o

DQ

CC
LU

LU

O

Q.

H

CM

i

<

O

CC
CM

0s-

<:

o

CO

>-

D
(/)

O

Q.
O

dc

G

-J

o
o

X

o
(/>

X

X

o

o

z

CO

LU

<

o
o

CO
CO

<

z

O

<

o

<

>

X

LU

O

<

z

z

<

X

-J

o

o

cc
<

DC

LU

<

l/J
LU

o

CC

O

cc

O

<

I

LU

o

>■

l-

CO

<z

-J

LU

X

o

U
CC

o

o

LU

X

X

CO

r^

o

CO

CO

LU

CM

h-

00

rr

cc

i

CM

o

CD

5

u.

00

<

en

H

^~

<

Q

CD
10

CO

id

CM

CD

IT)

00

_J

o
o

X

o

00

CO

id

LU

H
<
CC

CM

^

o^

O

^

*.

X

o

z

Z)

0s

_l

o

LU

tf

LU

1

CC

o

Li.

CO

O

z

>

cf

LU

o
O

CO

1

O

LU
CC

o

CO

CM

1-

z

LU

a

3

h-

O

co

CM

Li.

l
O

o

T—

1-

z

LU

O

CC

LU

^
O^

Q.

O

z
o

<
o

cc
<

CL

X

o

LU
LU

CC
LL

>
CO

LU

H
<
DC

CM

o

CO

o

o

ID

o

o

o

CO

o
csi

H

SELECTION OF SCHOOLS
FOR SITE VISITS

HIGH DROPOUT SCHOOLS LOW DROPOUT SCHOOLS

NOTE: SCHOOLS SELECTED BASED ON SAME CHARACTERISTICS
YET MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE IN RANK OF W2 RATE

CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED SCHOOLS

H1 AND L1:

PREDOMINANTLY BLACK, LOW INCOME,
AROUND 1000 STUDENTS, GRADES 09-12

H2 AND L2:

70-30 ETHNIC MIX, 25% FREE/REDUCED LUNCH,
AROUND 1200 STUDENTS, GRADES 10-12

H3 AND L3:

PREDOMINANTLY WHITE, RURAL AREA,
AROUND 750 STUDENTS, GRADES 09-12

H4 AND L4:

60-40 ETHNIC MIX, CITY SCHOOLS,
AROUND 800 STUDENTS, GRADES 10-12

SITE VISITS
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED

SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR INSTRUCTION

X DROPOUT PREVENTION COORDINATOR

[X] HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
[X] ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS

HEAD OF COUNSELING DEPARTMENT

HEAD OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

HEAD OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

HEAD OF SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

HEAD OF IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAM
HEAD OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS

STUDENTS IN 1 1TH GRADE (SURVEY)
[X] STUDENTS IN IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION

□ RECENT SCHOOL DROPOUTS/PARENTS (PHONE)

K

OBSERVATIONS FROM 8 SITE VISITS

(W) OBSERVATION *1:

SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS ADOPT
A BROAD-STROKED APPROACH
TO MEET NEEDS OF STUDENTS

#) OBSERVATION *2:
^ SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS KEEP CLOSE

TRACK OF DROPOUT PRONE STUDENTS

OBSERVATION #3:

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS KEEP

IMPROVING AND EXTENDING

THE SERVICES THEY OFFER STUDENTS

OBSERVATIONS FROM 8 SITE VISITS

#) OBSERVATIONS:

^ IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION EFFORT
IS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED
UNIFORMLY ACROSS SCHOOLS

$ OBSERVATION #5:

DISTRICT DROPOUT PREVENTION PLANS
GENERALLY ARE NOT EFFECTIVE

OBSERVATION *6:

REFERRAL SYSTEMS AND FOLLOW-UP
ON RECENT DROPOUTS ARE NOT
OPERATIVE IN MOST SCHOOLS

M

®

OBSERVATIONS FROM 8 SITE VISITS

OBSERVATION *7:
STATE COMPETENCY EXAM IS NOT
A MAJOR FACTOR IN STUDENT
DROPOUT DECISION

OBSERVATION *8:

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS CANNOT READ OR PERFORM
MATH AT NECESSARY LEVELS

# OBSERVATION #9:

ACADEMIC/SCHOOL DIFFICULTIES
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED MORE
VIGOROUSLY AT LOWER GRADE LEVELS

N

)

OBSERVATIONS FROM 8 SITE VISITS

OBSERVATION* 10:
PRESSURE ON STUDENTS TO WORK
LONG HOURS AFTER SCHOOL CONFLICTS
WITH ABILITY TO BE STUDENTS

# OBSERVATION #11:

EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS, IF
INTEGRATED WITH REGULAR PROGRAMS,
CAN RECONCILE SCHOOL/WORK CONFLICT

# OBSERVATION » 12:

STRONG VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS CAN BE CORNERSTONES
FOR DROPOUT PREVENTION EFFORTS

OBSERVATIONS FROM 8 SITE VISITS

;•)

OBSERVATION #13:

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS HAVE ONE PERSON
WHOSE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IS
WORKING WITH HIGH RISK STUDENTS

OBSERVATION #14:
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS PROVIDE A
NETWORK OF COUNSELORS
TO MEET NEEDS OF STUDENTS

* OBSERVATION #15:

SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS FOSTER
AND MAINTAIN PARENT AWARENESS
AND SUPPORT

PRELIMINARY POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Q RECOMMENDATION*!:

A STATEWIDE INITIATIVE CAN BEST
TACKLE THE DROPOUT PROBLEM

O SOLUTION IS CLEAR, IMPLEMENTATION IS KEY

O PATTERNED AFTER SIMS MODEL

O COORDINATED BY SCHOOL-BASED COUNSELOR

O STATEWIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED

O MODULAR DESIGN

O CAN BE ADOPTED AT PACE THAT FITS SCHOOLS
AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS

O AUDIT COMPONENT

Q

PRELIMINARY POLICY IMPLICATIONS

°Q" RECOMMENDATION #2:

COMPREHENSIVE LEARNING CENTERS
ARE NEEDED TO BRING EVERY STUDENT
TO COMPETENCE IN READING AND MATH

© REQUIRED FOR ALL GRADE LEVELS AT ALL SCHOOLS

© ELIGIBILITY BASED ON TEST BATTERY

Q PARENTS/STUDENTS MUST AGREE TO PLACEMENT

O SUITABLE MATERIALS MUST BE DEVELOPED
© BASED ON LOW STUDENT-TEACHER RATIOS
O PROVIDED UNTIL CRITICAL THRESHOLDS ARE PASSED