ERIC ED328851: Dropouts: Strategies for Prevention. A National Perspective. Policy Briefs. Number 1.

Number 1 • 1989

Policy Briefs

A Puhltr.ttiofi of thr North Crf)tr.il Ht'tjionul Liiuationjl L.tljor.ttory

■^^csisjiwo""*^ Dropouts:

•^-^ i>M tmton or orotmtad^

Strategies for Prevention

. A National Perspective

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

00
00

30

Policy Briefs
are reports
on the status of
current issues
in education
from a national
perspective,
descriptions of
actions and
agendas in the
NCREL region,
commentaries
by experts from
their particular
point of view,
and resources
forfurllwr

CM
O
CO

information.

er|c

by Todd Fenniniore, NCREL

Distressingly large numbers of
youth today are showing signs of aliena-
tion and having difficulty making the
transition into a productive adult life.
Dropping out of school, substance
abuse, truancy, depression, delinquency,
and teenage pregnancy all are symptoms
of the alienation. The nation's leaders,
educators, parents, the media, and the
business community have expressed
great concern about this alienation and
its manifestations.

Dropping out is especially problematic
because the sectors that once employed
dropouts (small farms and smokestack
industries) can no longer absorb them.
Asoureconomy continues its move from
goods production to information proc-
essing, more jobs will require higher
levels of education. Dropouts will be
shut out of tomorrow's high technology
workplace and excluded from active
participation in a complex democracy as
well (U.S. Department of Labor, 1988).

A disproportionate nnmbcr of those al-
ready maiginal in our .society, iJie poor
and minority .leave school before gradu-
ation. School dropout rates for students
from poor families are almost twice those
reported for the population average
(Catterall&Cota-Roblos, 1988). Demo-
graphic trends indicate the increase of
minority populations thalhave tradition-
ally had high dropout rates (Hodgkin-
son, 1985).

The factors associated with dropping
out include conditions inside and out-
side of sciiool. Some of the circum-
stances outside of school include limited
English proficiency, substance abuse,
early parenting, learning disability, pov-

erty, broken families, low academic
expectations of the family and commu-
nity, and general feelings of c,;clusion
from the school life of high school.
Educators have responded to conditions
inside and outside of shool by creating
strategies that improve the chances that
students stay in school.

A content analysis of the dropout pre-
vention literature and descriptions of
dropout prevention programs from na-
tional, state, and local agencies reveals
that educators use any combination of
eight strategics when forging a dropout
prevention effort (Fennimore, 1988;
Hamby, 1989). From a building-level
perspective, they include:

• Using non-punitive approaches to at-
tendance monitoring, outreach, and
improvement;

• Providing alternative school sched-
ules (e.g., evening high schools, sum-
mer programs);

• Modifying or rescinding policies that
"push out" students (e.g., gradereten-
tion. out-of-school suspension, inade-
quate social support services);

• Improving the school climate by in-
corporating elements of school effec-
tiveness and by building partnerships
with the community;

• Designing curriculum to link the aca-
demic, psychosocial, and vocational
domains of adolescent experience;

• Expandingthe teacher's role from dis-
penser of knowledge to mentor, col-
laborator, and coach;

• Using instructional strategies that
actively engage students in learning,
such as cooDcrativc or experiential
learning or applied problem solving;
and

• Assessing the integrity of the school

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

environment by measuring how fre-
quent and how participatory interac-
tions are that arc occuring within the
school and beyond.

While most traditional dropout preven-
tion efforts are designed as pull-out
programs with a narrow focus on basic
skills remediation and individualiza-
tion, some researchers have called for
greater emphasis on higher-order think-
ing and group process skills and more
movement toward restructuring schools
as a whol^., instead of adding programs
oraltemativeschools(Prcsseisen, 19K8;
Oakes, 1987).

State-level or district-level policies can
encourage or discourage iliese cluingcs
by expanding alternative sch(K)ls. sup-
porting exixirimenlation with restruc-
tured school mode Is, cal I ing for a greater
curricular focus on higher -order think-
ing, and taking a position on tracking.
How these issues are addressed frames
much of the current debate on dro|X)Ut
prcvendon.

Leading policymakers recommend that
states define "dropout/'and build an in-
dicator system that provides common
data on all students and holds schools
accountable for their dropout rates. To
encourage theexperimentation required
for developing effective restructured or
allernaUve models, state and local (X)U
icy should allow for more building-
level autonomy and support curricular
and iastructional innovation. Finally,
states and districts should encourage
districts to develop strong partnerships
with the cominunity in forming a drop-
out prevention effort (Weiilagc. 1988).
These |X)licies will support schools as
iJiey implement dropout prevention
strategies. k1

2

RrCTPnPVAUtlllBIC

Regional Action & Agendas

Illinois

Illinois* commilincnl lo reducing Ihc number
or school dropouts is refleclcd in ils goal **lo
adopt, slrenglhcn, and/or expand }X)licies, pro
ccdurcs, and programs which address llie
problems of al -risk children and youlh/' and in
ils funding of s|Kcial and educational reforni
programs. These programs include Hispanic
Student Dropout Prevention (FY'89 funding
level: S36(U00); Truants* Alternative and
Option Eiducational Program (FY'89 funding
level: SI 3,()73,(KX)); Preschool Education
(FY*«9 funding level: S23,9(K),00()).

Legislation

No additional legislution is expected.

Future

Oe|xjnding on available funding, Illinois plr.ns
tn expand existing programs and practice to
include all children at risk of .sch(H)l failure.

Indiana

Beginning with the 1988-89 school year, the
legislauire appropriated S20 million per year
for school-based programs to assist with the
educational development of at-risk suidents.
How each school district spends its appropria-
tion is discretionary, providing the program
fits into one of the nine categories set by law:
preschool, full -day kindergarten, parental and
commimity involvement, transitional pro-
grams, tutoring, remediation, expa:icted school
coimseling, individualized prognms, and
model alternative c^lucation. Of lnciiana\s 766
programs, 280 are for counseling, and a large
percentage of the others contain s(mic aspect
of counseling in conjunction with other
progfamssuch as parental and community

Ivemeni. By the end of the .school year.
211,118 students will have been directly
served by the program, atid 38 jvrcenl o( ihe
funding will have been provided by voluntary
local contributions. Educational professionals,
state legislat.)r.s, and the Governor will supjxirt
the program.

Legislation

The original projxisal was for $20 million. By
the 1000.91 .sclnKil year, funding is expected
to increase by SH)-20 million. The Department
of Education (1X)E) has requested a slight
increase in the first year of the next fi.scal
bienniuni to evaluate the first year\s programs,
In the .second year, the DOE has requested a
SIO million increase.

Future

Bills to eslabli.sh a commission on drug free
.schools, i^sel a "Just day No Day/* and to
create a celebrities task force for drug-free
schools are moving rapidly through tlie
legislature.

Iowa

Dropouts are of high interest due to increased
dro{X)ut ratcii and new state standards for
Local Education Agencies (LEAs), K-14, to
develop plans lo serve at-risk students. The
Alternative Education Association assists
LSAs in developing and implementing
programs.

Legislation

Under 1984 legi.slation, di.stricts may file
plans for additional allowable growth to
provide for returning dropouts and dropout
prevention. Effective July 1, 1989, under
lowa*s new Educational Standards, programs
are to be established to identify and serve at-
risk students.

Future

Future objectives Jire to develop and di.ssemi-
nate a planning fonnat for use in reviewing
policies and practices that conU-ibute to
student failure and dropout, and to develop
program sU-ategies to serve larger geographic
areas and include services for small rural
disU-icts, including Area Community Colleges
and support .service agencies.

Michigan

Dropout prevention remains a top priority in
Michigan. Initiatives from the Governor's
Ofncc, the State Board of Education^ and
other departments include an emphasis on
early childhood education, .school improve-
ment and job placement.

Legislation

Funding is currently available for increased
Department staffing and pilot projects.
Propo.scd programs would provide local
school financial incentives for improving
student achievement and attendance including ^
.schools of choice as an alternative.

Future

Future plans include funding to integrate llie
Governor's Human Investment initiatives and
enhance the coordination and assessment of
employabilily skills education and job training
services.

ERLC

Minnesota

Because Minnesota has a flexible stale
funding system that supjx)rts a variety of
mainsU-cam, posLsecondary (while in high
school) Jind alternative programs, categorical
and special funding has not been needed for
new programs. Cuirenl dropout prevention
programs are st'ongly supported by llie
Governor, Senate, House, Department of
Education, and private sector groups.

Current Legislation

• High School Graduation Incentives (HSGl)
(1987. amended 1988)

• Adult Diploma Program (1988)

• Area Learning Centers (1987, amended
1988)

• Minor Parenl/Prcgnjint Legislation (1988)

• Mandatory School Attendance for Minor
Parents (1987, amended 1988)

• Sliding Scale Child Care Funds (1987)

• Postsecondary EmoUment O^itions (198.5)

• MeU-oOpcn Enrollment (1988)

• Other FVevenlion Laws and Policies
including: Early Childhood Screening,
AIDS Prevention, and Risk Reduction

Proposed Legislation

• Amendment to HSGI-funding to private
alternatives

• Interagency Adult Basic Education Iniiiativo

• Amendment to Human Service Welfare
Reforr.i for 18- & 19- Year-Olds, Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
custodial parents

• TransiKirtalion for children of cusKxIial
parents

• Learner outcomes and individuali/.ed
learning for alternative programs

• Early childhood .screening for 3 -year -olds

Future

The Legislature and the Governor a^^c
directing additional attention to these issues
and will be refining drojxnil program
initiatives.

Ohio

Dro|x)ut prevention is a major priority of the
Ohio Department of Education. Ohio's
Formula for Educational Success, published
by the DeparUnent in 1988, defined 14 factors
as.soeiated with the at-risk .student. Pilot
projects were selected for 1988-89; 80 stale
and federally-funded programs were identified
to address some of these factors. The goals are
to reach at-risk suidents, keep them in .school,
and ensure they graduate with skills.

Guest Commentary

by Gary G. Wehlage, Associate Director

National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Legislation

The Stale Board of Education's legislative
rcconiniemlatinns included proposals sueh as
riill-(h«y kindergarten, adolescent pregnancy
prngranis, urban demonstration projects, addi-
tional Reading Recovery Programs, and
siminiLT education/job programs so that by the
year 2(KM) all students who enter high scliool
will graduate. U^gislative consideration alsci is
hoitig given to driver's license revocation for
dropouts.

Future

The Department has established a Dro}X)Ul
I^rcvcntion Section wiilun llie Educational
Scrviees Division to serve as a clearinghouse
of information and as a coordinator of
Department dropout prevention cfforLs. Re-
gional and dis!nci meetings are planned to
gather information and input concerning the
(!ro}wnit problem.

Wisconsin

An aggressive statewide public jwlicy and
programmatic thrust is underway focusing on
educational standards, school age parents,
education for employment, the Job Training
Partnership Act, {)rescliool chihiren iind
education, welfare reform, youth suicide and
alcohol and other drug abuse preventi(m. and
pupil services. Constraints include tlie lack of
sufficient resources to iniplenicnt and
integrate pr(;grams; limited funding for inter-
agency coojxiration: and inflexibility of
systems.

Legishtion

Legislation is extensive in the areas of:

• Children at risk

• School District Educational Stimdards

• Compulsory attendance to 18 years

• Tmancy Prevention

• Learn fa re

• Al(()h(^l and other drug abuse prevention
education

• School age parents

• F?<hication for employment

Future

Statutory latigunge affecting children at risk,
prcschooM2th ^rade, will be refinc<I and
nroloijixjs for effective resource networking
and program models will be provided.

A s educators began to address the prob-
lem of unacccpiably high dropout rates during
the 1980s, it became clear they were dealing
witli a complex problem. Practical experience
with this problem indicated that there was no
single cause or solution. Increasingly state pol-
icy initiatives rea)gnizcd the complexity of the
problem by offering legislative programs rang-
ing from pre-school and child care aid to adoles-
cent drug abuse prevention to pilot alternative
.schools. It appears from the current lis^of initia-
tives funded by the slates that most of them have
approached the problem with a scries of discrete
programs. These tend to target particular prob-
lems associated with dropping out. While each
of these discrete programs is probably worthy of
support, states and districts should consider how
they might best develop comprehensive strate-
gies lliat more systematically address the factors
leading to dropping out. Let ne suggest a com-
prehensive approach to dropout prevention that
can serve as the foundation forpolicy initiatives.

First, dropout prevention might be con-
ceived as requiring a longitudinal plan, ftevcn-
tion requires a continuous effort from prenatal
care and early childhood education through the
grades to graduation. An assumption is that one
should not expect to "solve** the problem with
early intervention strategics alone .since many
young people become at risk of dropping out
from causes that occur later rather than earlier.
Also, a comprehensive plan should include
dropout reu-ieval during the high school years
and conclude with non-traditional opportunities
for acquiring a diploma, GED, and adult basic
education.

Second, a comprehensive approach
to dropout prevention sliould be developed from
good data about students and the schools they
auend. States should consider requiring school
districts to use a commonly defined set of indi-
cators for detennining the origin and severity of
problems associated with dropping out. In con-
junction with .state mandated definitions and
procedures, districts would be required to re})ort
information on the following indicators: drop-
out rate, course failures, retention in grade,
suspensions, at tendance, academic achievement,
teen pregnancy, youtli employment, .inactivity,
and post.secondary enrollment.

These indicators would serve two pur|X>ses,
First, they would allow states, communities, and
school di.stricts to measure change over lime on
key, commonly defined variables as programs
are implemented to improve schools for at-risk
youth. These indicators w(uild inform pxili-
cy makers, educators, and the public as lo whether
conditions are improving as a result of policy
initiatives. Second, data from these indicators
would allow schools to assess the extent and
severity of certain problems in their schools.
Data would provide a basis for making judg-
ments about what interventions and which pol-
icy changes are needed. Forsome.schools, infor-
mation on tjie various indicators might suggest
that relatively minor problems exist, and that
with a few improvements sch<uils can provide a
safety net of supjxnt for th<isc who are ai risk of
dropping out. Tliis safety net might include a
variety of supplementary programs that provide
remediation, counseling, and incentives toreach
graduation. Where a high dropout rate exists, the
indicators might suggest a need to review and
modify school }x)licies g<werning matters such
as course failures, retention in grade, and .sus-
pension. Also, the data might lead educators to
conclude that there is a need f<u alternatives
whichoffer a substJintially different .school struc-
ture, climate, and curriculum if at-risk siudenis
are to succeed in school.

Finslly, the indicators can serve tti gaN
vanize whole communities that are concerned
about the<|uality of community life and the op*
portun i t ies th at ex i.s t for young people . 1 1 may be
that in some communities young p^ple experi-
ence serious social problems and perceive little
opportunity for a better life. In such situa'lons,
schools need to unite with o^hcr '^•'>nmimiiy
institutions to provide services and create a
climate of hope alxnit the future that makes
engagement in school seem worthwhile. State
policy cou\(\ encourage the formatiim of com-
munity collaboratives that bring together the
schools, .social service agencies, the business
community, private organizations such as
churches and .service clubs, the legal system, the
city council, and institutions of higher educa-
tion. Collaboratives provide the basis for com-
munity planning and coordination of resources
in attacking the broad array of conditions thai
place young people at risk. ■

ERIC

References & Resources

References

CatteralL J,. & Cota-Robles. E,
11988. November), The educa-
tionally at-risk: What the
numbers mean. Paper presented
at an invitational conference at
Stanford University, Accelerating
the education of at risk students.
Stanford. CA,

Clune. W,H., P,. & Patterson. J.
(1989. February). The implement
tation and effects of high scho _Ql
graduation requirements: First
steps tov^/ard curricular reform .
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for
Policy Research in Education.

Fennimore. T.F. (1988). A guide for
dropout prevention: Creating an
integrated learning environment
in secondary schools . Columbus,
OH. National Center for
Research in Vocational Educa-
tion.

Hamby. J.V, (1989, February). How
to get an "A" in your dropout
prevention report card. Educa-
tiona l Leadership . 4S (5). 21 28.

Hodgkinson. H.L, (1985). All one
system: Demographics of
education, kindergarten throug h
graduate school . Washington,
DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership, Inc.

Oakes. J. (1987, October),
Improving inner-city schooL-
Current directions in urban
district reform (Report No. JNE-
02). Santa Monica. CA: Center
for Po'^Cy Research in Education.

Presseisen. B.Z. (Ed.). (1988).
risk students and thinking: Per-
sp ectives from research . Wash-
ington. DC: Joint publication of
the Nationat^ducalion Associa*
tion and Research for Better
Schools. Inc.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1988).

workers for the 21st century.
Washington. DC: Author.

Wehlage. G. (1988), Schoo l
reforms for at-risk students.
Madison, Wl: National Center on
Effective Secondary Schools.
University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

Williams. P.A, (1987. October).
Standardizing school dropout
measures. Brunswick. NJ: Center
for Policy Research in Education.

Resources
Illinois

Please contact the Illinois State
Board of Education for available
products.

Indiana

Please contact the Indiana
Department of Education for
available products.

Iowa

lo\^a Department of Education;
"Iowa Guidance Surveys"
"Alternative Schools and Programs

• Reaching Out to Help People"
"Student at Risk • A Planning

Worksheet for Educators"
Michigan

Michigan Department of Educa-
tion:

Report on Operation Graduation: A
School Dropout Prevention
Program{1989)

The Black Child in Crisis. Identifica-
tion of At-risk Students (1988)

Michigan School Dropouts

Hispanic Dropout Report (1985)

Minnesota

Minnesota Poparlment of

Education:
Copies of legislation

Mailings on each program

Flyers on High School Graduation
Incentives, Area Learning
Centers, Minor P&rent/Pregnant
Minors, and Post^Secondary En-
rollment Options

Learners at Risk legislation in
Minnesota

Listing of child care centers and
referral in high schools m
Minnesota

Ohio

Ohio Department of Education:
Reducing Dropouts in Ohio

Schools: Guidelines and

Promising Practices (1984)
Ohio's Formula for Educational

Success (1988)
Fourth .Annual Report • Indicators

for Progress (1988)
Identifying Barriers to Serving Al-

Risk Students (1988)
Wisconsin

Department of Public Instruction:
Children At Risk. Guidance.
JTPA. Alcohol and Other Drug
Abuse Prevention. Pupil
Services. Education for Employ-
ment Resource & Planning
Guides

Department of Industry. Labor. &
Human Relations: JTPA and
Employability Resource Guides

Department of Health and Social
Services: Learnfare and Workfare
Resource Guides

State Contacts
Illinois

Illinois State Board of Education
100 North First Street
Springfield. Illinois 62777
Carolyn Farrar
217-782-6035

Indiana

Indiana Department of Education
Stale House. Rm. 229
Indianapolis. Indiana 46204-2798
Carol D'Amico
317.232-6667
Iowa

Iowa Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines. Iowa 50319
Raymond Morley
515-281-8582 or
Edward Ranney
515-281-3893
Michigan

Michigan Department of Education

P.O. Box 30008

Lansing. Michigan 48909

Linda Forward

517-335-0554

Minnesota

Minnesota Depo, ijnent of

Education
682 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul. Minnesota 55101
Joleen Durken
612-296-4080

Hot Line number for dropout
information: 612-296-1261
Ohio

Ohio Department of Education
65 South Front Street
Columbus. Ohio 43266-0308
Margaret Trent
614-4664838
Wisconsin

Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction
125 S Webster
P.O. Box 7841
Madison. Wisconsin 53707
Dennis Van Den Heuve!
608-266-1723

OpiniofVi expressed in the cotmneniaries do not necexxarily reflect the vie>^fs of the NCREL staff or Board.

Facts and ideas presented in NCREL's Policy Briefs are intended to survey a current uisue and not to advocate a particular position.

Mils Hrivfs

A (M'hluMlitui (>| ihc Norlh CVnlr:il
Rouu'fi.il r.diKMlnui.il I aKor.ilt^fA
I'i l-rnr-n
|'Im,|mi(.|, [IhiHUs

K \\ N^)V^.^^^n^ <ki. Interim Lxn utnc

N.iiu> I-ulf'^rd. r.-hif^r

.\Lri.iim'; Kf\V'^:cr. P*^fHiut:ttf>n Ldilr^r

niiis puhlicalion is based oi\ work
SfKxisorcd wholly or in pan by ihc
Office of liducalional Research and
Improvcmcni (OliRI), Dcpartmcni of
lulucaliixi, under Contract Number
40().86-0(K)4. Ihc conlenl of this
piibliciilioti dtxjs not necessarily
'■cflcci Ihc views of OBKl, ihc
Depannicnt o{ l-,ducaliw» or any olhcr
jijiency in ihr U.S. Government .

ERIC

r\}ncd and produced on the
op hy Peter 0. Reid Oesi^^n

Bulk RateU S.
Postage PAID
Elmhurst. Illinois
Permit No 338

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

5