A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

What Do We Need to Know?

The high school completion rates for certain traditionally disadvantaged groups, in particular Hispanics and American Indians, are substantially lower than the rates for both black and white students from similar economic and social backgrounds. However, even a dramatic improvement in the graduation rates of those groups would have little impact on the nation's progress toward meeting Goal 2 because these groups are relatively small. That is, because 75 percent of all students are white, the absolute number of white dropouts far exceeds the number from traditionally disadvantaged groups even though their dropout rates are three or four times higher. Consequently, if we are to make substantial progress toward a high school graduation rate of 90 percent, the dropout rate for "mainstream" white students must be substantially reduced. At the same time, we must expand our efforts to reduce the gap in completion rates between mainstream and disadvantaged minority groups.

This situation suggests four questions to be explored by research:

Mainstream Dropouts

As previously noted, one of the most evident but unremarked features of the dropout population is that two-thirds of future dropouts do not appear to be at risk by the usual criteria. They do not possess the social, economic, ethnic, or racial characteristics that are typically associated with high dropout rates. Yet, the majority of dropout research and prevention efforts are aimed at students with at-risk characteristics--namely, minority students from low-income families, students from single-parent families, and the like, as well as students who abuse drugs, and girls who become pregnant. The aim is not off target since the at-risk population as well as those who drop out consist disproportionately of minority and low-income youths. Yet, a significant national reduction in the number of dropouts and commensurate increases in graduation rates will occur only when programs effectively address the "hidden" majority--the so-called "mainstream" dropouts. Accordingly, it would be highly desirable to point additional research toward them and the aspects of school and life that incline them to drop out, together with the identifying signs that signal their imminent departure. Attention should also be paid to identifying programs and experiences that would keep these young people in school or encourage them to return.

A related subject for study involves the cumulative impact of at-risk factors on the likelihood of dropping out and completing school. The issue has two dimensions. The first is related to the likelihood of dropping out. To what extent does the probability of dropping out rise as the number of at-risk factors rises, and which combinations of at-risk factors appear to be associated with the highest dropout rates? The second dimension concerns the characteristics of dropouts as a group. What proportion of dropouts are characterized by two or more, one, or no at-risk factors? It may be the case that most dropouts do exhibit at least one risk factor, but the factors themselves may differ.

Traditionally Disadvantaged Groups

Minorities

The dropout rates of traditionally disadvantaged groups, especially Hispanics and American Indians, remain far higher than the rates of the remainder of children and youth in the United States. Equally dismaying, while overall dropout rates in recent years have declined, Hispanic dropout rates have not been falling. These high rates are particularly troubling in light of the growing proportion of Hispanics in the population and the relatively young age of the Hispanic population. In addition, Hispanic dropouts, on average, complete fewer years of schooling than do non-Hispanic dropouts. About 25 percent of Hispanic dropouts ages 16 to 24 in 1989 had completed 6 or fewer years of schooling, while only 5 percent of non-Hispanic dropouts had completed so little schooling. Possible reasons for these differentials include two obvious features of this group: language background and immigrant status. Learning English while mastering the school curriculum poses a significant barrier not faced by students whose native language is English. Moreover, there is a strong, but undocumented, suspicion that a substantial share of immigrant Hispanics may never have attended schools in the United States at all, and thus their lack of education does not reflect the performance of our schools. However, even among those born in this country, dropout rates for Hispanics are more than twice those for non-Hispanics. In addition, the Hispanic population is quite diverse, and there are substantial differences among Hispanic subgroups in dropout and completion rates that warrant further study.

Examination of the educational status of American Indians reveals a picture even more dispiriting than that for Hispanics. Claims of dropout rates from reservation schools that approach 50 percent, drug and alcohol abuse, broken families, poor schools, and poverty all conspire to depress the prospects of American Indian students. Little is known about the kind and quality of educational experience offered by Bureau of Indian Affairs schools or the nature of educational programs that would help promote school retention. The number of students involved is comparatively low; so low, in fact, that conventional education statistics do not report their status. Consequently, a productive first step would be to boost the size of the sample of American Indians in national surveys as well as to develop other research projects for the American Indian population.

Students with Disabilities

A recent examination of the status of special education students provides a picture of the characteristics and educational prospects of students with disabilities. Prominent among the findings was evidence that the dropout rates of students with disabilities is almost 20 percent higher than for students in the general population.

The dropout rates also vary widely according to the nature of the disability. For example, among those with disabilities, students who are emotionally disturbed are three times as likely to leave high school by dropping out as students with visual, auditory, and orthopedic impairments. Yet, the indicators that predict the likelihood of dropping out are the same for the disabled as for students who have no apparent disabilities: poor grades, low attendance, disciplinary problems, and disadvantaged or minority backgrounds. Thus, except for the special considerations set by the nature and severity of the disability, the knowledge accumulated in the study of the general population applies to those with disabilities as well.

Equivalency Certification

Of particular interest are those students who obtain a passing score on the General Educational Development (GED) Tests administered by the American Council on Education. A recent study contended that the GED certificate does not have the same value in the marketplace as a regular high school degree. The authors argue that the wages of young males who earn the GED are no higher than those of dropouts without GEDs who had the same number of years in school; furthermore, they are substantially lower than the wages earned by regular high school graduates. The researchers also found that earnings, hours of work, unemployment spells, and the job tenure of GED recipients are not distinguishable from those of high school dropouts. The authors contend that the lower economic returns for those who receive the GED imply that it compares unfavorably to a regular high school diploma.

In turn, the GED Testing Service has criticized this study on numerous grounds. The GED Testing Service points out that the sample of GED recipients is small. Furthermore, the earning comparisons among GED recipients, regular graduates, and dropouts are made in young adulthood, when GED recipients have considerably less experience as graduates than do traditional high school graduates. The study, they note, provides no data on the long-term consequences of receiving a GED credential.

At issue in this debate is the role and purpose of the GED in the education system of the United States. The average age of the GED test-taker is 26, but a substantial number of GED test-takers are young enough to still be enrolled in regular day programs. For example, 9 percent of GED test-takers in 1992 were age 17 or under and 13 percent were 18. The GED Testing Service sees the GED largely as a second-chance program for people who failed to graduate and who lack any other avenue to demonstrate their competencies. But there is increasing evidence that schools serving at-risk youth view discharging students to GED preparation programs as an acceptable alternative to regular classroom settings. In fact, several states have pilot programs training school-age, at-risk youth to prepare for the GED. This use of the GED is at odds with the recommendations of the GED Testing Service.

There are both factual and policy questions embedded in this debate. The key issues for education research are factual. For instance, in what ways are alternative credentials like the GED comparable to traditional high school diplomas, and in what ways are they dissimilar? What are the career trajectories and life chances of GED recipients, high school dropouts who lack any credential, and regular high school graduates, and how are they alike or different? Do these trajectories differ depending on whether the GED is received at a young age or an older age? All of these questions deserve further study.

The policy questions concern whether at-risk students SHOULD be encouraged to enroll in GED preparation programs when they are still young enough to participate in regular high school programs. To date, these questions have been debated largely in the absence of convincing evidence, one way or the other. Solid empirical evidence that speaks to the similarities and differences among GED recipients, regular high school graduates, and dropouts lacking any credential--both before and after secondary schooling and credentialing--might help clarify these issues.

Transition to Adulthood

Outside school, the most prevalent experiences that young people encounter pertain to the transition to adulthood. Adolescence is the stage that lies between childhood and adulthood. Marked by explorations of identity and independence, it represents a transitional stage between childhood (in which individuals are dependent on their parents and families) and adulthood (in which individuals are largely independent of the families in which they were raised). This independence is manifested in several ways, including moving away from home, finishing full-time schooling, getting a full-time job, achieving financial independence, and entering into adult family roles, such as getting married and having children.

Increasingly, the traditional order of these various events has become jumbled. Many youths work while still in high school; others are sexually active, bear children, and get married. It is easy to imagine how such experiences might interfere with high school completion, but the research base for examining these possibilities remains thin.

Adolescent Employment

The results of one major survey found that working more than 20 hours per week while in high school increased the likelihood of dropping out. The survey also found that working less than 20 hours per week had some beneficial effects on school completion and other academic activities, such as time spent on homework.

Other research found that increased time spent on nonacademic activities outside of school increased a student's likelihood of dropping out of school. For example, the more hours students worked during the sophomore year of high school, the more likely they were to drop out of school. While the effects of working during high school were generally negative, there were some aspects of work that had positive effects on student outcomes. In particular, working to save money for college had noticeable positive effects on the students' academic and social outcomes, especially actual college attendance.

Adolescent Pregnancy

The links between adolescent parenting and dropping out are just as tangled as those between employment and dropping out. Historically, young mothers have shown themselves to be less likely to obtain their high school diplomas; however, this may be more of a reflection of the impact of low income than early maternity. Poor women are more likely both to bear children at a young age and to drop out. Although data on the sequence of childbirth and dropping out have been lacking, it has been common to assume that young women become sexually active, experience childbirth, and then drop out of school, in that order. But, in fact, there are several things going on at once, and cause and consequence are hard to separate. At the same time that young women are becoming sexually active, they may be engaged in other problem behaviors as well, some of them in school. It may prove difficult to determine whether poor school performance leads to sexual activity or whether sexual activity leads to poor school performance and then, in both cases, to dropping out.

In fact, the most recent, best evidence on the timing of a first birth and high school completion suggests that having a baby while in high school does not necessarily mean that the young women will not finish school. Researchers found that most young women who had a baby and remained enrolled in high school were as likely to eventually graduate from high school as women who did not have a baby and did not interrupt their schooling. But those young women who interrupted their schooling at the time they gave birth were less likely to return to complete high school, especially if they were older. They seemed to prefer completing their high school education by way of alternatives such as the GED. Finally, women who dropped out and then got pregnant and had a baby were also less likely to return to and complete high school, although they often obtained their GEDs.

With this review of the characteristics and correlates of students who drop out of school, we now turn to a brief discussion of dropout prevention programs and end this paper with a few suggestions for future research and program design.

Dropout Prevention Programs

The federal government has already made substantial contributions to the development of evidence about dropouts and their characteristics. In the U.S. Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publishes an annual report on the status of dropouts in the nation, and data from NCES longitudinal surveys provide the foundation for descriptive and analytic research on the topic. The results of studies using these data have helped shape our understanding of the school dropout problem, and guided the development of strategies for keeping students in school. Moreover, the promulgation of successful programs through the National Diffusion Network in the Department's Office of Educational Research and Improvement provides access to promising, if not proven, dropout prevention programs to the nation's schools.

Nonetheless, most dropout prevention programs have not been carefully evaluated, even though program evaluation is essential to understanding the impact and possible replication of such programs. In those instances when evaluations have taken place, the programs often fail to fulfill their promise. Two recent reports on the evaluation of programs designed to keep students in school illustrate this issue.

One report described an attempt to replicate the Peninsula Academies model, a dropout prevention program in 10 California high schools. In 3 of the 10 replication sites, there was clear evidence that Academy students performed better than comparison group students. Yet in only one of the 10 schools was there a demonstrably lower dropout rate for the Academy students. The authors point out that implementation of the Academies model was inconsistent across sites.

The second report provided a sobering evaluation of the New Futures Initiative, a series of urban dropout prevention projects funded by the Annie M. Casey Foundation. The New Futures Initiatives were designed to restructure the delivery of services to youth in four medium-size communities with high dropout rates, high teen pregnancy rates, and high youth unemployment. Reporting on the first 3 years of the 5-year initiative, the evaluators described its total lack of success in restructuring the educational experiences of at-risk youth in these communities. They found little evidence of collaborations among schools and other agencies serving youth. Within the schools, they found little change in the social relations between youth and adults, or in the nature of the curriculum and instruction. Furthermore, there were no signs that the roles and responsibilities of teachers and administrators working in the schools had been fundamentally restructured.

What Do We Know? Table of Contents The Need for Theory

[ Home ]