There are several issues concerning the U.S. high school dropout rate. While most agree that the rate has remained fairly steady or dropped slightly over the past fifteen years, the percentage is still alarmingly high. The U.S. Department of Education cites a drop in rates from 14.6% in 1972 to 9.3% in 2006 (Fields, 2008). In addition, there is a disparate difference in the dropout rates of various ethnic groups. According to the National Center for Education, the Hispanic dropout rate is four times of rate of Caucasian students, and is more than double the rate of African Americans (Burney, 2008). In addition, rates are being tracked by state and city, and noticeable differences are being found between city and suburban dropout rates. These statistics are being used to justify costly new programs, innovation in the educational system, and accountability programs. But just how are these rates being calculated? And are the calculations accurate?
The second issue concerning the high dropout rate is prevention. It is well accepted that a high dropout rate results in many social costs for the dropouts: higher crime, increased welfare rolls, and lower paying jobs, just to name a few. However, the effects are much more far reaching – to the families of dropouts and their communities. According to The New York Times, more than half of black children born in 1990 to high school dropouts had their fathers imprisoned by age 14 (Eckholhm, 17). It would seem that society as a whole could benefit from the furthering of each individual’s education. But just how do we begin to reduce the dropout rate in the U.S.? And what is an acceptable rate? Delaware’s graduation rate goal of 81.5 percent for 2008-2009 by default accepts a dropout rate of almost 20 percent. What effect on society will such a rate have? While many argue that early intervention is the answer to reducing this rate, studies of the reasons that students dropout indicate a broad spectrum of reasons behind leaving school. How is the education system going to address these issues in order to begin to reduce the dropout rate?
Calculation of the Dropout Rate
NCL B of 2001 requires that schools be held accountable for the performance of their students. While results of standardized testing at lower grade levels are usually the focus of studies gauging the success or failure of education systems, part of this accountability also involves the calculation of graduation rates. Chris Swanson, of the Urban Institute states, “Earning a high school diploma is an important outcome in its own right and a strong predictor of future social and economic success.” As such, it is also a measure of a school system’s success. In addition, states rely heavily on graduation rate/dropout statistics to justify new education programs, to prove the success/failure of those programs, and to compare performance with other geographical areas. But an accurate calculation of the high school dropout rate is essential if the statistic is to have any meaning. A standard calculation must be used in order for comparisons to take place between states, cities and suburbs, and to track changes over time. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Methodology varies greatly.
The basic calculation involves dividing the number of students who graduate by the larger population of students to reach the graduation rate. It is the district or state that must define who is counted, how they are counted, how they are represented, and how they are accounted for. For example, who is a graduate? Are we looking at students who complete the high school program in four years, or who complete it without a time limitation? This number is the numerator of the equation, and as such, must be well defined. The NCLB definition is very narrow. It specifies that students complete a regular program of study in four years. Students who complete alternative programs or the GED program do not count in the calculation as graduates, but also do not count as dropouts. This narrow definition will produce a lower graduation rate percentage.
How graduating students are counted has varied greatly across the country. This has resulted in statistics that have little or no meaning. Donlon writes of huge discrepancies between the official report and reality in Mississippi and Connecticut, ranging from 12 to 24 percent error in overstatement (Donlon 2008). Delaware uses the National Governors Association’s graduation rate, which divides the number of students who graduate within four years by the number of first time ninth graders four years earlier (Price). It also allows for adjustments for transfer students and time adjustments for non-English speakers and special education students.
Another issue is what group the statistic represents; that is, the definition of the student group to be examined. Some states use students enrolled in 12th grade at the beginning of the year and compare it to those completing the program at year-end. This, however, does not take into account the students who have already dropped out in the previous three years of high school. The resulting graduation rate would at minimum be higher, but would have greater implications as it would give a false sense of a successful program.
The accounting systems of school districts must be improved for reliable data to result. Many systems are paper-based, and do not accurately track student movement. Who is a dropout, and who has merely transferred? Unless this basic data, which is the foundation of all the calculations, is accurate, how reliable are the resulting statistics?
So what is the answer? Many believe the four-year c ohort graduation rate has the best methodology. The formula is as follows: “The number of students who graduated divided by the number of students enrolling in 9th grade for the first time, plus the students who joined the cohort, minus the students who left.” (Boser) In this calculation, several issues are addressed. First, the plan suggests that an electronic method be used to track all students from kindergarten to graduation. This would eliminate missing data. Second, it clarifies the definition of graduate to only include those who graduate in four years. The rationale is that those who complete their high school education in the four year time frame are more productive in the future. I think while this does clarify the definition and establish a standard, it does underestimate the “true” graduation rate. Those who complete their studies through alternate programs, or in longer time periods, are not considered graduates? Is this not minimizing the importance of completing the course of study, regardless of method or time?
Decreasing the Dropout Rate
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has issued rules to hold schools accountable to lift the graduation rates for all students and to meet these targets by 2012. In order to reduce the dropout rate, one must first understand the reasons underlying the rate; that is, what causes students to dropout? The Pennsylvania State Department of Education cites six reasons in descending order: disliked school; wanted to work; academic problems; behavior problems; childcare, marriage, or pregnancy; or runaway or expelled (Burney). A program for reducing the rate must therefore address a wide-ranging number of issues. Research from the Center for Public Education advocates a four-pronged approach to reducing the dropout rate: Prediction, Intervention, Prevention, and Recovery.
In the area of prevention, while research shows that a student’s socioeconomic status, family factors, adult responsibilities, and academic experience are general predictors of a student’s predilection toward dropping out, more specific indicators have been found. Roderick found that two factors: academic performance and school engagement are more accurate predictors (Jerold 2007). In Delaware, the Communities in Schools Program offers emotional and academic support for struggling students to try to reduce the dropout rate. Other studies have indicated that poor academic performance and poor attendance beginning in ninth grade are more accurate predictors of future dropouts, far ahead of any social or family pressures (US Department of Education). If these two factors are accurate predictors of those prone to dropout, they should be red flags for administrators, and should warrant intervention.
If, using the criteria above, at-risk students can be identified, then appropriate interventions should be mobilized. It has been found that tutoring programs on a less than consistent basis have little or no long-lasting effect on student performance or the graduation rate. Intensive intervention is key, and programs like Check and Connect and The Coca-Cola Value Youth Program have combined monitoring attendance and progress with mentoring and tutoring to improve a student’s chance at timely program completion.
Research has shown that there are many factors that a school has the power to alter to increase the graduation rate. Because ninth grade is a highly important transition year, it is crucial that students have support to ease transition and develop with relationships with both faculty and peers. Curricula should be challenging, but also interesting and relevant to the student’s future interests. Small size also seems to improve a student’s learning experience. In Jerold’s research summary, he states “Croninger and Lee (2001) found that, other things being equal, high schools whose teachers are highly supportive of students manage to cut the probability of dropping out nearly in half.” These improvements are well within the power of individual administrators, and can have an enormous effect on students. Teachers who are willing to spend the time to make class engaging, to be sensitive to students’ changes in performance or behavior, and those who are willing to develop supportive relationships with students can make a profound difference in the dropout rate.
Another way to approach a reduction in the dropout rate is from the backend – that is, once prevention and intervention has failed, how can we help the students recover? Research shows that most students regret their decision to dropout (Bridgeland 2006). There are two groups whose needs must be addressed: those just short of credits for graduation, and those lagging far behind. The first are the students who fail to graduate just short of credits, usually due to some life event. Marriage, birth, having to work, or incarceration are common reasons for these students dropping out. Providing flexible early morning or evening programs would greatly benefit this group. Reentry programs like Riggs in Camden, New Jersey, for example, provide instruction for youths that had been incarcerated. The second group, those who are far behind in credits, need intensive instruction and help. New York City Department of Education has a multiple pathways program to give students a second chance.
Conclusion
It would seem that the graduation/dropout rate must be approached from several different angles. If we believe the research, then students at risk for dropping out can be identified by watching academic performance and attendance. What is interesting about tracking academic performance is that most of the research regarding graduation rates only deals with academic performance in the high school years. Yes, we can identify a student prone to dropping out based on academic performance in ninth grade. But what if these low performers are identified at an earlier age? Just what effect are early intervention programs going to have on the future graduation rates of this country? Are students with learning disabilities going to be identified and helped so much at an early stage that their tendency toward academic failure will be negated? This would be an interesting track to investigate.
While the recovery programs written about seem worthwhile and valuable to those who have dropped out, they don’t seem to be the solution to the graduation problem. As written earlier, the statistics for those students do not figure into the graduation rate calculation. So while the programs are socially worthwhile, when evaluating the rate itself and its movement, they will have no effect.
Individual schools, their faculties, and administrators are instrumental in any change in the graduation rate. It seems that faculty awareness of student relationships and situations, smaller class sizes, and the development of a bond between faculty and students have a major effect on a student remaining in school. It was written that if a student feels he is cohort, or member of group, he is less likely to be willing to leave that group. If a student feels he belongs with a group of students, and is cared for by a faculty in a school, he may think twice about leaving. We can only hope.
Read Full Post »
The BottSpot Blog 