What Do We Need to Know?
Nevertheless, many states increased the requirements for the number and level of academic courses needed to graduate from high school. Although research has been skimpy, some researchers found that students in schools where the achievement levels are low increased the number of academic subjects they took during the 1980s, especially in science. Overall, the increase was in the middle range of high school courses, that is, neither remedial nor advanced.
As yet, though, there are no parallel studies to show how increased state graduation requirements influence the likelihood that low- achieving students will complete high school; nor do we know the extent to which state-to-state differences in such requirements affect state-level comparisons of school dropout and graduation rates.
Varying state graduation requirements. What it means to be a high school graduate is not the same in every state because state requirements vary considerably. In addition, they change their requirements from time to time. Differences among states might include whether they require competency tests and how they categorize students who do not complete all the graduation requirements but do complete 12 years of school. Inconsistencies can also be found in how special education students are handled. Some states give them regular diplomas if they complete a personally prescribed course of study (Individualized Education Plan). Other states may give such students an alternative award, such as a certificate of completion or of attendance.
These state-to-state differences complicate the monitoring of the national graduation rate as well as the comparison of state-to- state rates. For instance, what does a 90 percent graduation rate mean when some states have much more stringent requirements than others? Comparisons over time are also difficult to make, particularly in an era of reform when states have been increasing the rigor of their graduation requirements. Differences among the states also exist with respect to equivalency credentials and regular diplomas. States vary in their requirements for awarding a GED; they even differ in who can take the GED exam. Furthermore, each state sets its own criteria as to what constitutes a passing score on the GED exam, and there is considerable variation in such criteria.
Competency tests. At the same time, many states have implemented "high-stakes" tests, so called because the test results play a significant role in establishing the future educational and occupational prospects of the students. For example, some have argued that failing to achieve a passing grade on a minimum competency test or exit test may deprive an otherwise qualified student of a high school diploma. In one study of the effects of minimum competency tests on school dropouts, counselors, test coordinators, and principals were interviewed. It was found that many educators believed that minimum competency tests were so watered-down that they did not serve as a barrier even for low- achieving students. At the same time, these educators acknowledged that they did not know whether or not minimum competency tests tended to push students out of school prior to completion. Many students had negative opinions about such tests. Over and above the influence of their school grades and family background, students who had failed a required graduation test were more likely than those who passed to express doubts about their own chances of graduating from high school.
It is worth noting, however, that other observers conclude that minimum competency testing contributed significantly to the improvement in academic achievement of minority and disadvantaged children during the 1980s. To the extent that increased average achievement reduces the number of students who would later drop out because of academic failure, and to the extent that minimum competency tests have contributed to higher achievement, those tests would be classified as a positive influence on school holding power.
Nonetheless, direct evidence on the effects of high-stakes tests and other manifestations of the quest for higher standards on the likelihood of dropping out of school remains a pressing priority for future research.
Rewards. A number of program strategies have been conceived that presume that disadvantaged students will be willing to delay gratification and continue to work for a payoff that will take place several years in the future--access to college, for instance. Perhaps the best-known example is the "I Have a Dream" program initiated by philanthropist Eugene Lang. Lang and his imitators have "adopted" classes of students, typically in the elementary and middle grades, and promised to cover certain college costs if these students dedicate themselves to graduating from high school. Although there has been no credible evaluation of Lang's or similar initiatives, a large variety of similar programs have been offered to disadvantaged children in return for effort, perseverance, and achievement.
Some observers attribute the relatively poor academic performance of work-bound high school students to a failure of employers to require more from students than a high school diploma. For example, employers do not hire new graduates for entry-level jobs on the basis of the grades they attained or the content of the courses they took during high school. Instead, the diploma stands as testament to certain desirable traits (persistence, civility, punctuality), and only secondarily as evidence of ability or academic competence. As a remedy, many leading educators have proposed a credentialing process to encourage employers to reward high-achieving students with better jobs and wages based on the quality of the student's record. The assumption is that if students believed their grades and the quality of their courses would determine their entry-level salary as well as the quality or desirability of the job they are offered, they would study harder and do better in school. They would also be less likely to drop out, the reasoning goes. Little is known about the plausibility of this assumption or of the likely effects of such incentive programs.
Sanctions. Several states exact a penalty for dropping out of school. Two of the most prominent of these penalties are Wisconsin's Learnfare program that reduces welfare benefits and West Virginia's driver's license revocation law.
The Wisconsin Learnfare program imposes penalties on families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children whose teenage members fail to attend school regularly. Family benefits are reduced when these teenagers accrue more than two unexcused absences in a month. Exemptions are allowed for good-cause absences. The average penalty in 1989 was about $100 per month. With only the initial year's administrative data to go on, officials in the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services disagree on whether or not Learnfare works, and the evidence to date is inconclusive. Further evaluation is needed of the impact that Wisconsin's Learnfare program and similar programs adopted by other states have on a family's welfare as well as their children's school attendance.
West Virginia's law revokes the driver's licenses of dropouts under the age of 18 and of still-enrolled students who exhibit high rates of absenteeism during a single semester. A number of other states have passed similar legislation. Analysis of West Virginia dropout rates from 1985 to 1990 showed no evidence of reduced dropout rates for the state in the first 2 school years when the law was in effect, compared to the 4 previous school years. Researchers suggest that this is because the law did not affect most dropouts-- they may have had no driver's license to begin with or they were already at least 18 years old and therefore exempt from the sanction. Researchers argue that if incentives are to work, they must offer consequences that warrant the student's serious attention.
In summary, we still have little evidence about the effectiveness of such state and national initiatives as the school reform movement (particularly raising standards) and rewards and sanctions intended to increase the likelihood that young people will stay in school. Despite their growing popularity, few investigators have analyzed how these policies might motivate students to improve their performance or to stay in school.
Looking at the impact of school organization on dropping out thus appears to be a fruitful line of study. But only a handful of researchers have explored the connection between the ways schools are organized and how well students persist in those schools. In addition, the measures used to assess school organization are far from ideal.
Untangling the nature of this relationship is particularly important in light of several other developments. National data reveal an upward trend in the percentage of children who are above the modal age for their grade. Furthermore, black and Hispanic children are more likely to be above modal age for their grade than are white children. There is also the perception that two other phenomena are increasing: the proportion of children, particularly boys, being retained in kindergarten and first grade; and the proportion of children--again, more frequently boys--whose initial enrollment in school is delayed beyond the age at which they are eligible to start.
Few retention studies follow students throughout their school careers, especially studies beginning in the early elementary grades where grade retention is most likely to occur. Nonetheless, research suggests that students who are retained in grade in fact are more likely to drop out of school than similar students who are not retained.
Other school-level policies and practices that warrant further attention because of their consequences for potential dropouts include: grouping practices and alternatives to tracking; discipline policies; student assessment and evaluation procedures; and other practices that aim to be "responsive" to student problems, such as alternative curricula.
Researchers have examined the claim that children in single-parent families are less likely to graduate from high school or obtain postsecondary schooling than children who grow up with both parents. One study explored the possibility that children who live with single parents and step-parents receive less encouragement and supervision from their parents than children in two-parent families and that these differences in parental practices help to explain the lower graduation rates of children in single-parent families. They found that children from single-parent families less often report that their parents expect them to obtain more schooling, monitor their schoolwork, or closely supervise their activities than do children who live with both parents. Yet, these differences account for surprisingly little of the gap in graduation rates between children from intact and nonintact families.
The few studies that track children over many years suggest that the problems of future dropouts have their roots early in the students' school careers. For example, a recent study by Ensminger and Slusarcick examined the paths to graduation or dropping out taken by more than 1,200 black first-graders in Chicago. They found that academic performance and aggressive behavior in the first grade were both good predictors of whether these children eventually graduated or dropped out, as were some other factors, such as family poverty and the mother's education. They concluded:
Early aggressive behavior may lead to confrontations with teachers and other school authority figures. If this behavior is not altered by the teacher or by the child, it may spiral into more and more frequent problems and confrontations. The child increasingly becomes alienated from school. This alienation reinforces the child's poor academic performance, involvement in such problem behaviors as drug use and delinquency as the child becomes an adolescent, and membership in peer groups that do not value academic success. From this perspective, then, the design of early prevention and intervention programs that are targeted at children with aggressive behavior and their teachers is an important strategy.
Longitudinal studies also can help chart the various education and career trajectories of mainstream as well as minority youth who do leave school. In particular, we know that many students who drop out of school eventually return to an educational setting, either their original school or some alternative. Yet we know very little about the lives of such youth in the time between when they left and when they return. Even more importantly, we lack a clear understanding of the personal characteristics of returning students, and what leads them to return to school. If the policy goal is to create school environments that are attractive to dropouts and promote dropout recovery, we need better information on both the dropouts who choose to return and those who do not.
Researchers have also noted three nonacademic influences on students within schools that affect student engagement and dropping out. First, some students have weak connections to adults in the school and may come to feel that no one in the school cares about them. Second, some students may have weak connections to peers in the school and may shift their attention to friends who are already out of school. Third, some students may have weak connections to the school as an institution and may feel powerless and unsure of what is expected of them. The impersonality of the large urban high school is an example of a nonacademic dimension to life in schools that is frequently described as leading to withdrawal. Therefore, schools may want to consider adopting policies and practices designed to strengthen students' bonds to school.
Peer culture has much to say about the attitudes students take to school with them. In general, students believe that doing well in school is desirable and graduating is important. Yet some peer crowds regard learning and the effort it requires with contempt, and academically motivated students may face a social climate that punishes them for working hard and doing well. It isn't clear to what degree the climate established by such views and the behavior that accompanies them contribute to underachievement and dropping out. However, the data suggest they are particularly influential in schools that primarily serve disadvantaged students.
Defining Dropouts: A Statistical Portrait
What Do We Need to Know?
![[ Home ]](/icons/EDhome.gif){kind=icon}