Running head: THE DROPOUT CRISIS
The Dropout Crisis: What Our Interventions Are Lacking
Sarah E. Lipman
California State University, Chico
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
2
Abstract
As our society places increased value on educational degrees, the primary education
dropout rate becomes a bigger problem for individuals and for society. The research has shown
that there are clear risk factors that predict when a student is on a trajectory to dropout. Thus,
these students can be distinguished apart from graduating students early in the elementary years.
Knowing what to look for can help school districts target interventions at those students who are
at risk for dropping out. The research also indicates which components of an intervention are
likely to have a significant impact for these students. Included in this review is a detailed
description of the intervention method and results from a junior high in South Carolina, and a
high school in North Carolina. The implications of these results are discussed.
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
3
Background
Historically, it was considered socially acceptable to drop out of school before receiving
your high school diploma. Until the 1950s, the high school graduation rate did not climb above
55% (Simon & Grant, 1965). This can be attributed to the fact that up through the first half of the
19th century, most people lived and worked on farms, producing most of what they consumed.
Most of those who did not farm were involved in trading goods for export (Tylor, 1969).
Community populations were small, and all types of labor was in high demand, especially
unskilled labor (Shmookler, 1962). Families could train the next generation to perform this work
and a diploma was not required or desired. However, school popularity changed around the
1950s, after WWI.
As the United States became involved in wars, there was a greater push for high-level,
peer reviewed research, and skilled workers who could contribute to technological advancements
for the army. This required more people to attend college, which in turn required more people to
graduate high school (Thelin, Edwards, Moyen, Berger, & Calkens, 2016). As wars created a
motivation to increase technology, the expanding technology increased the types of skill based
jobs in the economy. This created even more incentive for students to complete their schooling.
In more recent years, there has been a degree inflation, or greater requirement for
higher degrees within the job fields. Although this is in part due to increasing need for skills in
many job fields, the increasing degree requirement seems to be an effect of the ever growing
population. With so many applicants competing for the same jobs, employers are able to be more
discriminatory with who they select. It is thought that in todays competitive economy, those that
do not go to college are not as motivated as those who do, and that alone acts as a way for
employers to weed out applicants. All of this creates an unemployment gap that is more than
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
twice the size between those who have a higher degree than those with a high school diploma or
less (Rampell, 2013).
Considering our current economy, dropping out of high school presents an increasing
problem for individuals and for society. Without a certificate of any kind, the individual is of
little use in the labor market. Lower levels of education are thought to have an association with
increased health issues, greater dependency on social programs and government money (APA,
2012; Bergeson, & Heuschel, 2006; Garnier, Stein, & Jacobs, 1997; Theunissen, Griensven,
Verdonk, Feron &Bosma, 2012). Those who drop out of school are also more likely to
participate in criminal activity and end up serving time in jail. According to the attorney
generals office report, 82% of those in our prison system are high school dropouts (Camp 2016).
The commonly accepted definition of school dropout is a student who leaves school, is
no longer attending school, and has not received high school credentials. The No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) legislation further defines a dropout as a student who instead of receiving a high
school diploma, obtains a general education development (GED) certificate, who finishes their
secondary education with an IEP, or who does not complete high school in four years (Bergeson
et al. 2006). Because of the extended parameter of NCLB, reported percentages of dropouts vary
from 30% to 3% depending on the source.
Of the statistics reported, the source that most closely represents the commonly accepted
definition is the definition from the U.S censes. They estimate their number based on the percent
of people who said that they currently do not have a diploma, are no longer enrolled in school,
and therefore not seeking a diploma. Their statistic is the one that we will focus on because these
are the group of students of most concern, who are leaving school without any diploma. The U.S
censes has reported the dropout rate at 7% as late as 2011 (Davis, & Bauman, 2013). Even at 7%,
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
when you consider the number of students enrolled (14.9 million in 2015) this equates to an
estimated 1.3 million American high school students that are dropping out this year. Now that
higher education has become increasingly important, there has been much interest in why so
many students are still leaving school before obtaining high school credentials.
Knowledge of risk factors
It is thought that there is no single factor that causes an individual to dropout. This
phenomenon is caused by a complex combination of factors acting upon the individual for a long
period of time, usually starting during early development. The risk factors are broken up into
four broader categories, individuals, families, school and communities (APA, 2012; Bergeson,
2005; Garnier et al. 1997).
Individual Risk Factors
One of the individual characteristics that puts students at risk is a minority ethnicity.
According to the 2011 census, both Black and Hispanic students each make up a higher
percentage of the dropouts then white students (Davis et al. 2013). Additionally, students who do
not complete high school on time are at risk for dropping out. Approximately 42% of all enrolled
Hispanic students, 43% of all enrolled African American students, and 46% of all enrolled
American Indian students will not graduate on time with a regular diploma. Those minority
groups have a significantly larger risk of dropout in comparison to 22% of all Caucasian students
(APA, 2012; Bergeson, 2005; Garnier et al. 1997).
Other individual risk factors include academic performance and motivation. If the student
has low attendance, poor grades, or expresses a dislike of school, they are more likely to drop out
before they even reach the ninth grade. Having to repeat one or more grades is seen as potentially
one of the greatest individual risk factors. One study showed that even if a student has one
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
incident of failing to be promoted to the next grade, they are less motivated to perform, continue
down a cyclical trajectory of poor performance, and have a 75% chance of dropping out (Blount,
2012). Finally, becoming pregnant or substance abuse are also thought to be individual risk
factors (APA, 2012; Bergeson, 2005; Garnier et al. 1997).
Family Risk Factors
One family characteristic thought to increase risk of dropping out is frequent and stressful
changes within the family system and environment. A longitudinal study followed families for
almost two decades (Garnier et al. 1997). The study found that those students with families who
had more changes, such as divorces, remarriages, or relocating homes frequently, were more
likely to dropout than those students whose families had less changes. Other family risk factors
include low social economic status, family drug use, and lack of involvement in the childs life
(APA, 2012; Bergeson, 2005; Garnier et al. 1997).
School Risk Factors
A characteristic of the students school that presents a potential risk factor is the conflict
between the home and school culture. For example, there are some family cultures that have
family owned business, and believe that the child should learn skills related to working so that
they can contribute to the family work. If the school does not contribute to this process, and
instead works against it by teaching the child U.S history, geometry, and other subjects deemed
irrelevant to the family business, than the family may see school attendance as getting in the way
of the childs ultimate goals.
Other school risk factors are ineffective behavior control systems, lack of relevant
curriculum, passive instructional strategies, inappropriate use of technology, or disregard for
individual student learning styles. If the teachers are spending more time redirecting disruptive
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
behavior than teaching, the students are falling behind. Similarly, if the teachers are not able to
effectively communicate information, the students will also fall behind. Finally, a school also
presents potential risk factors if they lack adequate counseling, have a negative overall school
climate, or have low expectations for students.
Community Risk Factors
One of the community risk factors include high crime rates. This can put the student at
risk for a variety of reasons. If the student is a victim of the crimes, or is living in fear of
becoming a victim, this increases the stress in their environment. It is also possible that the
student sees the crime as a model for achieving success in adulthood. This would contradict their
ideas and values for finishing an education. A final community risk factor is a lack of supports
for schools (APA, 2012; Bergeson, 2005; Garnier et al. 1997).
Risk Factor Interaction
Although no single risk factor contributes to students dropping out, the unfortunate
reality is that for those students who have any of these risk factors, they tend to be in
environments that pit most of these risk factors against them. Students who are in families who
experience a lot of environmental or structural turmoil and change, also tend to be those same
families who experience financial struggles. Families who live in poverty stricken areas tend to
go to schools that are considered dropout factories. These schools have all the characteristics
that put students at risk.
Although only about 12% of the nations school fit this category, these schools alone are
producing about half of the nations dropouts. Interestingly, it is reported that ethnic minorities
attending middle class or otherwise affluent schools will receive their diplomas at the same rate
as white students (with only a 22% drop out rate). However, nearly half of the nations African
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
American and Latino students are attending these lower social economic dropout factories
(APA, 2012; Bergeson, 2005; Garnier et al. 1997). Therefore, all of these risk factors including
ethnicity, are usually intertwined.
Developmental Pathways
The decision to drop out of school appears to be the result of a trajectory that is formed at
least as early as kindergarten. Researchers Hickman, Bartholomew, Mathwig, and Heinrich,
(2008) examined data on the kindergarten classes from the years 1990 to 1993. They followed
data on these classes up through the 12th grade (or until the time of dropping out). The authors
found that those Kindergartners who eventually dropped out of high school had noticeably lower
reading, writing, and mathematical performance than those kindergartners who eventually
graduated from 12th grade on time. The dropout group was also absent more often than the
graduating group. Additionally, the dropout groups were known to participate more in anti-social
behaviors.
The same factors that put these students at risk for dropping out are putting them in a less
than optimal environment for understanding appropriate social engagement. As early as
kindergarten, these students are experiencing academic struggle and peer rejection. Early on
school becomes a negative environment. As children form their first ideas about their own
academic identity, they are seeing themselves as someone who is academically incapable.
The trajectory grows steeper as students progress through school. Hickman et al. also
found that those in the dropout groups performed significantly lower in all subjects through the
8th grade. Dropouts also had a significantly lower overall GPA through high school. Dropouts
had significantly lower scores on the Stanford achievement test. They have significantly more
absence than graduates, and as dropouts progressed through school, their absenteeism increased.
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
For example, while in the first grade, dropouts were absent on average for 12.06 days of
the year (with a SD of 6.48). By the time they got to 8th grade, they averaged 19.49 days of
absence for the year, (with a SD of 11.13). These students have been shown to be the same
students that are struggling to understand the material. They are already struggling, and they are
missing 10% or more of instruction for the school year. This increases their academic gap and
puts them further down a path of feeling as if school is not achievable for them.
The gap between graduates and drop outs become more apparent in middle school, and
by the time the students were in high school, there was a striking difference in their profiles. For
example, graduates earned on average of 2.26 GPA (with an SD of 1.17) in their English courses,
while dropouts earned on average of 0.76 (SD of 1.07). Graduates took significantly more
advanced courses and honors classes then dropouts. The majority of dropouts had been held back
a grade at least once, and had been retained significantly more than graduates (Hickman et al.
2008).
This developmental trajectory implies that dropping out is a problem that originates
before a student even enters school. The associated problems steepen and the students concept
of a self as an incapable student becomes more entrenched as they move through school. This
may mean that intervening becomes more difficult the farther along the child is in school. The
upside is that we know that there are noticeable and significant signs that differentiate dropouts
from graduates even early on. This may imply that there is hope for intervening early and
preventing a devastating and irreversible trajectory.
Theoretical Models
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
10
Upon reviewing the prevention research, it is clear that while promising results have been
found, no clear program or method has been identified yet as the method of choice to prevent
school dropouts. It may prove useful then to narrow down prevention choices based on a
theoretical model relevant to this sub-group. Doing so will ensure that preventions efforts align
with what we know about the way that children learn and develop.
Early Intervention
The first theory, early intervention, is derived from theories of child behavior and
development (Brambring, Rauh, & Beelmann, 1996). This is the view that behavior is influenced
by environmental circumstances, and that there are sensitive periods that the brain is most
influenced for specific functions. After the sensitive period passes, it will be much more difficult,
and in some cases impossible to effect change. Knowing that students trajectory starts early in
development, and follows a path that separates them increasingly further from those students
who do graduate, it would seem that the earlier we intervene, the greater chance we have at
preventing the problem.
Self-determination Theory
Another theory to base interventions on is the self-determination theory. In general, this
theory proposes that people have a natural and intrinsic desire for certain stimuli over others, and
will make choices that increase their probability of being around preferred stimuli. When applied
to education, this theory suggests that children can learn, will value education, and feel selfconfident to do so, if we provide them with the appropriate motivations (Hardre, & Reeve,
2003).
As discussed earlier, those students who end up dropping out come to find school holds
no motivation for them even as early as kindergarten. These students are struggling academically
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
11
and socially in part because of the culminating risk factors in their environment. Increasing
motivation to persevere through school will not negate their challenges. However, it is likely that
it will provide them with a resiliency with which to persevere against those risk factors.
Stay a Winner Model
A final model to base drop out interventions on is Burdens stay a winner Model. This
model involves changing multiple parts of a system, as opposed to focusing on a single aspect.
Burden based this model off of the notion that, in regards to the dropout rates, a variety of
approaches used concurrently will make a difference (Burden, 1992). This would suggest that
those interventions that target the whole childs world are better than just a single intervention
that targets only one part of a system.
Recommended intervention programs
Many interventions have been attempted, implementing ideas such as making
scholarships available to at risks groups, setting up career mentoring programs, and making
opportunities to make up credits more accessible. However, much of the research has focused on
single interventions targeted at one aspect of the childs world. An intervention consistent with
the theoretical models should target multiple parts of the system concurrently, should have the
individual childs motivation in mind, and should start as early as possible. The institution of
education and sciences (what works clearing house), gives similar recommendations. This
institution provides rigorous and empirical reviews of interventions for various educational
deficits. In their review of interventions for dropouts, they advise that the individual
interventions (academic, social-emotional, career, and behavior) should be delivered in
conjunction with multiple other recommended interventions (2008).
Junior High Intervention
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
12
One system wide intervention that meets all the above criteria (whole system, child
motivation driven and early intervention), was implemented in South Carolina at a suburban
middle school. The intervention was labeled identity redevelopment and aimed to rebuild at
risk students academic identity from one that was incapable, to one that was successful and
confident. The intervention specifically targeted 7th grade students who had been retained in
previous grades, and as a result were now older than their same grade peers and farther behind in
curriculum then their same age peers. The intervention started at the beginning of the 7th grade
year, and the goal was that by the end of the year, students would have earned enough credits and
learned a sufficient amount of curriculum to be promoted to the 9 th grade. This goal would tackle
some of the underlying problems of students who are at risk for dropping out, including grade
retention, falling behind academically, and having an idea of themselves as academically
incapable (Finnan & Kombe, 2011).
Academic Component
The academic component combined the 7th and 8th grade curriculum into one year.
Subjects were taught in 90-minute (rather than 40-minute) blocks each for English language arts
and math. Social studies and science was combined in the same 90-minute block. The focus was
on math and english. The read 180 computer program was used as part of the English curriculum
(HMH, 2015). Class sizes were capped off at 15 students to ensure individual attention.
Career Component
To address motivation for long term career goals, students were offered multiple
opportunities to participate in enrichment activities such as field trips and service-learning
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
13
experiences. These opportunities were above and beyond the opportunities made available to the
rest of the middle school students. This was thought to develop their sense of responsibility and
identity as a contributing member of society.
Social-emotional & Behavioral Component
To address their social-emotional and behavioral needs, a full time counselor and
program director was assigned to work exclusively with these students. They designated and
maintained a behavioral management system and for example, allowed students a planned space
to take a time out when they were feeling overwhelmed. The counselor did individual and
group counseling. During these times they would, for example, tend to any stress the students
were experiencing. They would also teach skills important for age appropriate social interactions,
and encouraged the group to talk out issues together. The counselor was also responsible for
helping to plan enrichment activities and building a sense of community amongst student and
staff.
One student explained to the researcher that she learned to talk out her problems in this
program because she felt the support to do so. She explained, In my other class I could break
down and cry, and no one would help. Here, I broke down, and several friends came to help at
[former school] I was all bottled up Ive matured more this year. No one gave up on me; I
thought they would, but they didnt
Study Statistics
In coordination with the researchers at the College of Charleston, this experimental
intervention spanned two years, and served 70 different students. 58% of those students were
male, and 42% were female. 52% were Black, 36% were Caucasian, and 12% Hispanic.
Study Results
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
14
During the first year of the program, 33 of 37 (89%) students completed the program
successfully and were advanced to 9th grade. The second year, 33 of the 33 (100%) students
completed the program successfully and were advanced to the 9 th grade. On average across both
years, students only had three absences for the whole year. Similarly, behavioral infractions were
low. There was only one suspension during the entire 2-year program.
The students were followed for three years after leaving the program in the 2008-2009
school year. 42% of the first year students, and 52% of the second year students stayed on track
and were promoted with their same age peers. Another 42% of the first year class, and 48% of
the second year class fell a year behind. The final 16% of the first year program students
struggled and were still classified as 9th graders by the 2008-2009 school year.
While at least half of the students still struggled academically from each program year,
79% of the first year, and 57% of the second year had no further suspensions through high
school. Thus, the intervention had a low rate of success for improving academic achievement and
removing the grade retention risk factor. However, it had a high rate of success in lowering
behavioral infractions, absences and low self-concept. Thus, overall this intervention affectively
decreased some of the risk factors for dropping out. Unfortunately, the students were not
followed through graduation, and thus it is not known whether the 58% of students who fell
behind in credits persevered until receiving a diploma. To learn more about this specific study,
how it was conducted, or see more quotes from the students served in the program, refer to the
article (Finnan et al. 2011).
High School Intervention
Another example of a program that used a whole system approach, and considered the
motivations of the student was used in a North Carolina high school in a rural area. While this
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
15
intervention did not meet the criteria for an early intervention, the school was still able to
decrease student dropouts by 50% using this intervention. Thus, the particular components they
used in their system intervention may prove helpful for other school districts wanting to
intervene with current high school students.
Study Statistics
The intervention was delivered over the course of two years to at risk 9th grade students
between the 1991 and 1992 school years. 87 students received the intervention the first year, and
65 the second year. Of these students, approximately 70% were Black. Because the majority of
students served were Black, the intervention used learning styles and motivations thought to be
typical of Black students.
Academic Component
To address the academic component of the system, the school restructured the curriculum
for these students so that all lessons could be noticeably tied to a real world application. The
major focus was on processes required for job success. This included critical thinking, problem
solving and information processing. Curriculum also included directly teaching transferable job
skills such as identifying problems, using technology to process information, and communicating
effectively in teams. Because the students still had to take end of course tests, they had to learn
some of the same information as the other 9th graders, however, the structure and delivery of this
information changed.
Teacher student ratios were decreased so that there were 5 to 15 students per class. This
allowed each student to have more individual attention. The delivery of instruction was changed
to cover the depth of each subject, rather than superficially covering a multitude of subjects. The
use of technology was added, such as computers and CDs. The faculty involved in the program
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
16
attended a two-day workshop taught by Dr. Cluadia Melear on multicultural diversity: African
American Learning styles. Students were tested with the Myers-Briggs personality profile, and
results were correlated with individual learning styles and appropriate teaching strategies.
Career Component
To address motivation for long term career goals, students were required to attend a
seminar where they participated in activities to help develop goal setting skills, and skills for
dealing with setbacks. Teachers incorporated connections in their lessons and elaborated on how
each lesson might apply to a career. Finally, more extracurricular activities were offered such as
school news programs, yearbook and other multimedia programs. This was thought to encourage
motivation for careers in communications.
Socio-emotional & Behavioral Component
To address the social-emotional and behavioral aspects of the system, each teacher
involved in this program was assigned to 8 students. The teachers met with those students
weekly to mentor or counsel them on concerns they may have. A new course was also added and
could be taken in replacement of homeroom. The course taught positive self-concept, responding
to temporary setbacks and improving test-taking skills.
Additionally, parents were encouraged to become more involved in students lives. This
was achieved by hosting several meetings, dinners and luncheons between parents and staff. A
monthly newsletter was mailed and parents were contacted by phone or written notes frequently.
To learn more about this specific study, and how it was conducted, refer to the article (Burden,
1992).
Cumulative Study Results
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
17
Prior to starting the intervention, the High school had a dropout rate of 10%. After
implementing the intervention, the dropout rate was decreased to 5%. Both the high school and
the junior high were able to see significant improvements for students at risk for dropping out.
However, there are a few studies that showed little to no improvement when similar system wide
interventions were implemented at the high school level (Corrin, Parise, Cerna, Haider, &
Somers, 2015; Tecumseh Consortium, 1990). The failed attempts further suggest the importance
of the early intervention component.
Guidelines for Prevention implementation
When implementing school dropout interventions, there are some essential elements to
consider. Finances must be considered. Additionally, one should decide which levels (academic,
behavior, parent family connections etc.) to include in the system intervention. Finally, programs
should ensure that they are targeting early intervention.
Finances
Both examples of interventions presented in this review received grants from their
school district or from the department of public instruction. The money went towards, for
example, buying equipment, adding additional staff for the program, and sending current staff to
trainings. Thus, the district should try to obtain a budget or grants to fund the intended program.
However, some funds may be reduced. For example, the North Carolina study doubled their
teachers as mentors and counselors instead of adding a new counseling staff member to the pay
roll.
Components to Consider
Another important element to consider is the type of components to include in a system
wide intervention. There should be a change to the current academic plan, whether its added
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
18
tutoring, more individual one-on-one teaching, or a complete restructuring of the curriculum to
align it with student motivations. The academic piece is important because at risk students are
usually struggling with the curriculum. These students, for whatever reason, are having an
arduous time grasping academic information as it is presented, and thus begin falling behind as
early as kindergarten.
Some type of long term career goal component also seemed to be helpful for students.
Some examples that appeared in the interventions include, helping students see how curriculum
is applicable to careers, including them in extracurricular activities that directly linked to a
career, or providing them opportunities to do service-learning activities. The students that
participated in these activities seemed to experience an increased motivation to stay focused in
school as a result.
Of all the components however, the most important component to include in the system
intervention was the social-emotional component. For most if not all of these students, some of
the risk factors they are up against are issues that put them at a disadvantage for learning
appropriate methods of interacting and problem solving, and often have them in stressful living
environments. Thus, these students are struggling academically in large part due to the stressors
that make it hard for them to focus and because they lack the skills to deal with that stress.
Having someone to help them process through this and teach them the skills they miss out on in
community environments will remove the very elements that act as risk factors for them.
Whether this part of the intervention is delivered through the addition of an onsite counselor
assigned to these at risk students, or by assigning them a teacher/mentor, this is an important
element that cannot be overlooked.
Discussion & Summary
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
19
It should be noted that while none of the research reviewed was able to achieve a
complete turn-around for all students, they were able to close the gap for many students. It is also
important to understand that all intervention efforts missed an important key element, that if
corrected may provide more drastic changes. One of the key elements of this intervention that all
the research missed, was to follow early intervention theory. Even the intervention at the junior
high most likely missed that sensitive period in the developmental trajectory. As discussed
earlier, the developmental trajectory is noticeable as early as kindergarten, and by the first grade
the gap is significant. So why wait to intervene until junior high? It might be that the students
identity as someone who is incapable of learning is solidified by that point. Interventions should
occur at the elementary level. It may prove most helpful to include as part of the whole system
intervention an at home connection and transition for those at risk families entering kindergarten
for the first time.
Each system wide intervention is going to look slightly different depending on the
schools needs and available resources. What should be consistent among the interventions
however, is a dedicated and planned budget, an academic component, a social-emotional
component, and a target at an early stage in the developmental trajectory. Intervening in this way
should help to reduce the dropout rate and the resulting negative consequences that school
dropouts cause for both the individual and society as a whole.
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
20
References
American Psychological Association. (2012). Facing the school dropout dilemma. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from [Link]
Blount, T. (2012). Dropout Prevention: Recommendations for School Counselors. Journal of
School Counseling, 10(16),
Brambring, M. Rauh, H. Beelmann, A. (1996) Early Childhood Intervention: Theory, evaluation,
and practice (pp. 11-52). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
Burden, A. S. (1992). Stay a Winner: A Model for Drop Out Prevention.
Camp J. (2016). 4.8 absences: dont miss class. ED 100. Retrieved from
[Link]
Corrin, W., Parise, L. M., Cerna, O., Haider, Z., Somers, M., & MDRC. (2015). Case
Management for Students at Risk of Dropping Out: Implementation and Interim Impact
Findings from the Communities in Schools [Link],
Davis, J., & Bauman K., (2013). School enrollment in the United States: 2011. US department of
Commerce. Retrieved from [Link]
DePaoli, J. L., Fox, J. H., Ingram, E. S., Maushard, M., Bridgeland, J. M., Balfanz, R., & ...
Alliance for Excellent, E. (2015). Building a Grad Nation: Progress and Challenge in
Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic. Annual Update 2015. Civic Enterprises,
Finnan, C., & Kombe, D. (2011). Accelerating Struggling Students' Learning Through Identity
Redevelopment. Middle School Journal, 42(4), 4.
Garnier, H. E., Stein, J. A., & Jacobs, J. K. (1997). The Process of Dropping out of High School:
A 19-Year Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, (2). 395.
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
21
Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students' intentions to persist in,
versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 347-356.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.347
Hickman, G. P., Bartholomew, M., Mathwig, J., & Heinrich, R. S. (2008). Differential
Developmental Pathways of High School Dropouts and Graduates. The Journal of
Educational Research, (1). 3.
HMH (2015) The Read 180 Experience. Houghton Mifflin HarCourt. Retrieved from
[Link]
NCES (2015). Fast facts: Dropout Rates. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from [Link]
Rampell, C. (2013). It takes a B.A to find a job as a file clerk. The New York Times. Retrieved
from [Link]
Schmookler, J. (n.d). American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century
(Book). American Economic Review,52(5), 1134.
Shannon, G. S., Bylsma, P., & Washington Office of the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, O. (2005). Promising Programs and Practices for Dropout Prevention Report
to the Legislature. Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Shannon, G. S., Bylsma, P., & Washington Office of the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, O. (2006). Helping Students Finish School: Why Students Drop Out and
How to Help Them Graduate. Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Simon, K. A. & Grant, V. W., (1965). Digest of Educational Statistics, Office of Education
THE DROPOUT CRISIS
22
Taylor, G. R. (1951). The transportation revolution.
Tecumseh Consortium, S. O. (1990). School Drop-Out Intervention for at Risk Youth. Final
Report.
Thelin, J. R., Edwards, J. R., Moyen, E., (2016). Historical development in Higher education in
the United States: Historical developmental, system, retrieved from
[Link]
Theunissen, M., Griensven van, I., Verdonk, P., Feron, F., & Bosma, H. (2012). The early
identification of risk factors on the pathway to school dropout in the SIODO study: a
sequential mixed-methods study. BMC Public Health,12(1), 1033-1040.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1033
(2008) DropOut Prevention. What Works Clearing House. Retrieved from
[Link]
