Dropout Prevention for Students with Disabilities: What The Research Tells US

Sandra Covington Smith Clemson University

Objectives
1. Increase participants awareness and understanding of dropout and its effect on students with disabilities. 2. Provide participants with an overview of recent research on the causes and risk factors associated with dropout. 3. Identify effective practices that increase student engagement, family engagement, and school completion.
2

What the Research Tells Us:

I. What Is Dropout?
3

Activity 1

Discussion

1. What is dropout? 2. When does dropout occur? 3. What does dropout mean to you? 4. Who does dropout effect?
4

Dropout: A Process of Disengagement

Not an isolated event Elementary years, process begins
Elevated dropout rates reported among children who were rated as highly aggressive by their 1st grade teachers (Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992). Dropouts could be distinguished from graduates with 66% accuracy by the third grade using attendance data; and Identification of dropouts can be accomplished with reasonable accuracy based on review of school performance (behavior, attendance, academics) during the elementary years (Barrington & Hendricks, 1989) .

Students who had repeated a grade as early as K 4th grade were five times more likely to drop out of school (Kaufman & Bradby, 1992).
5

Predictors of Dropout
(Balfanz & Herzog, 2005; 2006)

1. The four strongest predictors determined by the end of sixth grade

1. Poor attendance 2. Poor behavior 3. Failing math 4. Failing English

2. Sixth graders who do not attend school regularly, receive poor behavior marks, or fail math or English
10% chance of graduating on time 20% chance of graduating a year late

Predictors of Dropout
3. Students who repeated middle school grades are 11 times more likely to drop out than students who had not repeated 4. A student who is retained two grades increases their risk of dropping out of high school by 90% (Roderick, 1995). 5. Transition between schools
Middle school/junior high school to high school

Predictors of Dropout
(Balfanz & Herzog, 2006)

6. Students who enter ninth grade two or more grade levels behind their peers have only a one in two chance of being promoted to the tenth grade on time 7. Ninth grade retention is the biggest predictor of dropouts 8. The biggest fall off for students is between ninth and tenth grade

Predictors of Dropout
(Balfanz & Herzog, 2006)

Poor attendance

14% graduated ontime or with one extra year 16% on-time graduation rate 17% on-time graduation rate 21% on-time graduation rate
9

Failed English Bad behavior records Failed math

Understanding Dropout:

II. What Do We Know?

10

Activity 2

What Do You Know About Dropout? 1. How would your life be different if you had not completed high school? 2. What motivated you to stay in school and not drop out?
Factors/variables (e.g., people, experiences, goals)

3. How can you use your experiences to promote school completion?

11

What Do We Know?
Early school departure has been a prominent national issue for the last two decades. Dropping out of school presents a serious national, state, and local problem. School completion has become a high-stakes issue for schools and school districts. Approximately 1 in 8 children in the U.S. never graduate from high school. One high school student drops out every nine seconds (180 days of seven hours each).
12

Something of a National Obsession

(Finn 1989, p. 117)

-Dropout -

High costs
Society Individuals who drop out Their future families

Students who do not complete sch cost taxpayers billions of dollars

HOW IS THIS MONEY SPENT?
13

What Do We Know About Dropping Out?

Certain groups of students are at greater risk of dropping out of school as compared to their peers. On average, students with disabilities are at great risk of dropping out of school. One of the most vulnerable populations for school dropout consists of students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are twice as likely to drop out as compared to their non-disabled peers.
14

What the Research Tells Us:

III. Causes and Risk Factors

15

Causes

Reasons for Disengagement

16

Activity 3

Discussion

1. Why do SWD drop out of school?

2. DO YOU AGREE?
Schools (i.e., administrators and educators) bear some responsibility for students who dropout.

Why or Why not?

17

SWD Report Reasons for Disengagement

Particular classes (perceived lack of relevance, level of difficulty, and failure; e.g., algebra and biology) Particular teachers (negative and demeaning interactions) Loss of personal freedom to make choices (while in class)

18

What Students Say

Students report that HS academic classes are boring and lack relevance in their view Less than 10% can tell you how their academic classes relate to their future Over 75% of youth report thinking about dropping out before 8th grade Less than 5% report talking to someone at school about dropping out
19

What Students Say

Most report leaving due to academic problems or difficulties with teachers When asked about their favorite teacher, over 90% of students descriptions fall into one of three areas:
(1) positive or individual encounters (2) helped me to learn in some way (3) I knew they cared about me
20

10

Why Students Drop Out

One-third were put on in-school suspension, suspended, or put on probation; & 15% were either expelled or told they could not return (Schwartz, 1995). NLTS data suggest that 38% of students with disabilities who left school did so by dropping out.
38% enrolled in HS but did not finish; 8% dropped out before entering HS; 3% aged out
21

Why Students Drop Out

55% of youth with ED (Wagner, 1995). 17% to 42% of students with LD & 21% to 64% of students with BD (Scanlon & Mellard,
Tardiness/poor attendance Lack of interest Disability-based difficulties/behavior problems Poor relationships with peers or adults Poor/limited academic skills Movement from school to school
22

2002).

11

Risk Factors Identified in Previous Research

23

Risk Factors
Education, Sociology, and Economics
Demographic characteristics and family background Past school performance Personal/psychological characteristics Adult responsibilities School or neighborhood characteristics

24

12

Risk Factors
Demographic Characteristics
African American and Hispanic youth

Family Background
Family income, SES, family involvement, families who receive welfare, parents educational attainment, single parent home, limited English proficiency, parent or sibling dropped out
Students from SES families are four times more likely to drop out than their high SES peers

Past School Performance

Low grades, poor test scores, retention & age, disciplinary problems, truancy, spending little time on homework

25

Risk Factors
Personal/psychological characteristics
Commitment to schooling and ability to follow through on this commitment, low self-esteem & locus of control, low educational expectations or plans

Adult responsibilities
Employment, caring for a child
Working >20 hr/wk positively associated with dropping out Pregnancy positively associated with dropping out

School or neighborhood characteristics

Poor neighborhoods vs. wealthier neighborhoods Higher in urban schools; rural; suburban
26

13

Taking a Closer Look

Pull and Push Effects

27

Activity 4

Discussion

Define the following terms related to dropout:

Pull Effects

Push Effects

28

14

Pull Effects That Lead to Dropout

Pull Effects
Reported by students Compete with the goal of regular school attendance Compete with successful school completion as a first priority or Have to be performed in conjunction with attending school
29

Push Effects That Lead to Dropout

Push Effects
Reported by students Located within schools Cause students to feel unwelcome Students resist or altogether reject schooling Manifest disruptive behavior, chronic absenteeism, and completion cessation of academic effort
30

15

Activity 5

Can you identify the pull and push effects that lead to dropout?

Unscramble the following words and identify each word as either a pull or push effect.
crgpnaney ermagair snoisuspen rtteennio emyplotmen eerp ssurerep ylimaf ssneill epxulnios dismentengage aliennatio
31

Pull Effects That Lead to Dropout

Pull Effects
Had to get a job Had to support family Became pregnant Wanted to have a family Wanted to travel Friends dropped out Got married, or planned to get married Had to care for family member due to illness
32

16

Push Effects That Lead to Dropout

Push Effects
Did not like school Could not get along with teachers/students Suspended too often Expelled too often Did not feel safe at school Did not belong Could not keep up with school work/failing school
33

Taking a Closer Look

Status and Alterable Variables

34

17

Status Variables variables associated with dropout that are difficult and unlikely to change

Age Gender SES Ethnicity Native language Region

Mobility Ability Disability Parental employment School size and type Family structure

35

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2002)

Status Variables

Students, ages 18-24 who completed school

64% Hispanic 84% African American 92% White

On average, students from low-income families are at increased risk of not completing school
10% for low income 5.2% for middle income 1.6% for high income
36

18

Students with Disabilities

Status Variables
Low SES English as a second language Students with E/BD Age Parents who are unemployed Parents who are dropouts

37

Alterable Variables variables associated with dropout that can be changed

Grades Disruptive behavior Absenteeism School policies School climate Parenting

Sense of belonging Attitudes toward school Educational support in the home Retention Stressful life events
38

19

Students with Disabilities

Alterable Variables
High rates of absenteeism High rates of tardiness Low grades History of course failure Alcohol and drug problems Negative attitudes toward school High levels of school mobility Grade retention
39

Alterable Variables
Students want 5 things to help them be successful
1. Help with identifying what they want to do in life -basis for a productive adulthood Relevance 2. Classwork that they see as connected to their lives or future - Relevance 3. Engagement in the learning process - Rigor 4. Positive interactions with adults Relationships 5. A certain level of enjoyment during their high school years - Revelry 40

20

Examples of Status and Alterable Variables

Class of Variables
Student Family Peers School

Status Variables
Disability (e.g. LD, EBD) Structure (e.g. single parent family) Intelligence (e.g. low IQ) Socioeconomic Status (e.g. living in poverty) Geographic Features (e.g. urban)

Alterable Variables
Attendance (e.g. sporadic)
Supervision of free time (e.g. rarely occurs)
Identification with school (e.g. alienated)
Monitoring of Student Progress

(e.g. consistently occurs)

Community

Support Services (e.g. available)

Source: Christenson, Sinclair, & Hurley (2000) 41

Activity 6

Discussion: Causes and Risk Factors

1. Identify and list two alterable variables that are present within your school/district. 2. For each alterable variable identify and list:
1. 2. 3. One goal that would serve as your target as you work to influence and change the alterable variable; Strategies that may be effective in addressing and changing each alterable variable; and The overall desired outcome(s) as a result of the change.
42

21

What the Research Tells Us:

IV. Differential Outcomes for Youth Who Dropout

43

Differential Outcomes
The lives of dropouts
DAmico, 1992).

Students with disabilities who dropout are less likely to earn a GED than others (Marder & Dropouts earnings lag far behind those of degree holders, even when they work full time (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 1999). Dropouts are less likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education (NTLS2, 2006).
44

22

Differential Outcomes
(Data from NLTS2)

Dropouts are significantly less likely to be engaged in school, work, or preparation for work shortly after high school than are school completers; two-thirds of dropouts have been engaged in these activities, compared with almost seven in eight school completers. Not surprisingly, the forms of engagement of dropouts are unlikely to include postsecondary education. Controlling for other differences between dropouts and completers, including their functional cognitive abilities and previous academic achievement, dropouts with disabilities are 18 percentage points less likely to have enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college shortly after high school than are school completers. Eight percent of dropouts have attended vocational, business, or technical schools, and 1% have attended a 2-year college at some time since leaving high school.
45

Differential Outcomes
(Data from NLTS2)

The rate of holding a paid job since high school among both dropouts and school completers is about 85%. However, dropouts with disabilities tend to work more hours per week (an average of 34 vs. 27 for school completers). Because dropouts and school completers earn quite similar hourly wages, the longer hours worked by dropouts result, in the short run, in their total earnings being higher on average than those of completers. Dropouts are more likely to support independent households and children than are school completers. More than one-fourth of dropouts with disabilities are living independently with a spouse or partner, and one-fifth are parenting, rates of independent living and parenting that are more than four times those of youth with disabilities who completed high school.
46

23

Differential Outcomes
(Data from NLTS2)

Dropouts are less likely than school completers to have such supports for independence as a drivers license or a checking account, and they are much less likely to be registered to vote. More than one-third of dropouts with disabilities have spent a night in jail, three times the rate of youth with disabilities who finished high school. Controlling for other differences between them, dropouts are 10 percentage points more likely to have been arrested than youth with disabilities who finished high school.

47

Differential Outcomes
(Justice System)

The arrest rates of youth with disabilities who drop out are significantly higher than for those who graduate.

82% of crimes are committed by people who have dropped out of school (APA Commission on Youth Violence, 1993).
Three to five years after dropping out, the cumulative arrest rate for youth with serious emotional disturbance is 73%.
48

24

Differential Outcomes
(Gang Membership)

SWD who have a low commitment to school, receive low grades, come from troubled families, or low SES are more likely to join gangs (depending on geographical area may simply form bonds with individuals who display antisocial behavior, criminal behavior). Students with low academic achievement were 3.1 times more likely to join gangs as compared to better achieving students.
49

Differential Outcomes
(Gang Membership)

SWD tend to form relationships within their academic track or set of courses. Having a learning disability is one of the highest risk factors for joining a gang, not controlling for availability of drugs . Not feeling attached (twice as likely) or committed to school (1.8 times as likely) are strong predictors of joining a gang.
50

25

Differential Outcomes
(Welfare System)

Students who drop out of school tend to have a very difficult time finding jobs and are more likely to need assistance from governmental agencies. Due to limited income or employment status, many students decide not to work and will instead will receive governmental assistance at some point.
51

Differential Outcomes
(Welfare System)

The employment rate of persons with disabilities remains under 40% (75% 80% for persons without disabilities). Employment rate drops over half for school dropouts, especially for SWD. By dropping out, most students forfeit the opportunity for a secure, well-paying career and productive adulthood, especially SWD.
52

26

What the Research Tells Us:

V. Theoretical Models of Prevention

53

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Finn, 1993)

School Completion = Engagement in School and Learning

KEY ELEMENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. Student Participation Identification with School Social Bonding Personal Investment in Learning
54

27

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Fashola & Slavin,1998)

1. Incorporating personalization by creating meaningful personal bonds between students and teachers and among students; 2. Connecting students to an attainable future; 3. Providing some form of academic assistance to help students perform well in their coursework; and 4. Recognizing the importance of families in the school success of their childrens achievement and school completion.
55

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Dynarski, 2000)

1. Creating small schools with small class sizes; 2. Allowing teachers to know students better (building relationships, enhanced communication); 3. Provision of individual assistance (academic and behavioral); 4. Focus on helping students address personal and family issues through counseling and access to social services; and 5. Orientation toward assisting students in efforts to obtain GED certificates.
56

28

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Christenson, 2002)

1. Help students develop connections with the learning environments across a variety of domains 2. Engagement is viewed as a multidimensional construct involving four types of engagement and associated indicators
57

Four Types of Engagement & Associated Factors

(Christenson, 2002)

1. 2.

Academic engagement refers to time on task, academically engage time, or credit accrual Behavioral engagement includes attendance, avoidance of suspension, classroom participation, and involvement in extracurricular activities Cognitive engagement involves internal indicators including processing academic information or becoming a self-regulated learner Psychological engagement includes identification with school or a sense of belonging
58

3.

4.

29

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Lehr et al., 2003)

1. Personal/affective (e.g., retreats designed to enhance self-esteem, regularly scheduled classroom-based discussion, individual counseling, participation in an interpersonal relations class); 2. Academic (e.g., provision of special academic course, individualized methods of instruction, tutoring);
59

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Lehr et al., 2003)

3. Family outreach (e.g., strategies that include increased feedback to parents or home visits); 4. School structure (e.g., implementation of school within a school, re-definition of the role of the homeroom teacher, reducing school size, creation of an alternative school); and 5. Work related (vocational training, participation in volunteer or service programs)
60

30

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Principles for Keeping Kids in School: Kortering, 2004)

Increase the Holding Power of Schools for SWD

Principle 1 Students must have a reason to want to complete school. They must understand the relevance of graduation to their future. Principle 2 Students need and want to access an adult who will encourage them to stay in school and help them to succeed. This does not have to be a parent, and in many cases, students who are at risk of not graduating may not have a parent to fill this role.

Theoretical Conceptualizations for Preventing Dropout and Promoting School Completion

(Principles for Keeping Kids in School: Kortering, 2004)

Principle 3 Students need to have skills necessary for succeeding in todays high schools, including knowledge of how to learn. Schools must provide strategies that promote success on todays measures of performance. Principle 4 Students who stay in school often have found a way to become engaged in the nonacademic side of school (sports, clubs, or other groups).

31

Activity 7

Discussion: Theoretical Models

Review:
Finn, 1993 Fashola & Slavin,1998 Dynarski, 2000 Christenson, 2002 Lehr, 2003 Kortering, 2004

Reflect: How is each model unique? Record: Which model or combination of models is a better-fit for your school or district? Explain why.
63

What the Research Tells Us:

VI. Effective Interventions and Models

64

32

Interventions
Practitioners and policymakers in search of empirically supported intervention strategies need to rely on studies that examine secondary indicators of dropout prevention, such as reduction in problem behavior through positive behavioral supports (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005).

65

Interventions
More experimental research and evaluation studies are needed on the effectiveness of prevention and intervention strategies directly in relation to the impact on dropout and school completion rates (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005).

66

33

Interventions
(U.S. DOE OSEP, 2006)

Number of states using evidence-based programs increased from 4 in 2004 to 15 in 2005 Number of states developing initiatives using a combination of research-based strategies that address individual risk factors related to dropout prevention increased from 18 in 2004 to 34 in 2005 Reliable data collection will require consistent definitions and calculations for dropout and graduation
67

(Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995)

Interventions

Funded by OSEP
Early 1990s Three projects Prevent dropout among SWD at greatest risk LD & E/BD Students were tracked
Who continued in school Who dropped out

Five intervention strategies used

68

34

(Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995)

Interventions

1. Persistency, Continuity &Consistency - these were always provided concurrently to show students that there was someone who was not going to give up on them or allow them to be distracted from school; that there was someone who knew the student and was available to them throughout the school year, the summer, and into the next school year, & that there was a common message about the need to stay in school
69

(Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995)

Interventions

2. Monitoring the occurrence of risk behaviors (e.g., skipped classes, tardiness, absenteeism, behavioral referrals, suspensions, poor academic performance) was consistently tracked, as were the effects of interventions in response to risk behaviors

70

35

(Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995)

Interventions

3. Relationships a caring relationship between an adult connected to the school and the student was established 4. Affiliation a sense of belonging to school was encouraged through participation in schoolrelated activities 5. Problem-Solving Skills skills students need for solving a variety of problems were taught and supported so students were able to survive in challenging school, home, and community environments
71

Interventions Influenced by Educators

Focus on factors linked to dropout
Attendance Behavior Academic performance Student engagement Adult/peer interactions Safe school environment Evaluate policies and procedures regarding dropouts

Implementation of evidence-based strategies/interventions Interventions must be matched to student needs

72

36

Interventions
Approaches with limited effectiveness Short-lived approaches Punishment-oriented approaches Approaches not focused on engaging students in school Effective approaches to increase school completion Approaches focused on engaging students Strength-based approaches Approaches matched to student needs Long-term approaches Approaches involving various contexts
73

Interventions
Strategies are focused on student engagement Interventions occur over time, usually months or years Interventions involve a family or parent component Interventions should be strength based and involve a variety of contexts
74

37

Effective Models
(Cobb, 2005)

Synthesis of the evidence-based research associated with instructional interventions that reduce dropout for youth with disabilities Systematic review of the literature published between 1984 2003 related to discovering what works in transition from school to post-school environments for youth with disabilities
75

Effective Models
(Cobb, 2005)

Approximately 560 studies were reviewed and subjected to rigorous screening This process reduced the number of studies included in the review to 30
16 Cognitive Behavioral Interventions 7 Applied Behavioral Analytic Interventions 7 Counseling Interventions

Samples were exclusively youth with disabilities or were, in part, youth with disabilities Ages 12-22 enrolled in public or private schools, residential treatment centers or day treatment centers
76

38

Effective Models
Original Study Outcomes
(Cobb, 2005)

Staying in school; retention in support programs designed to keep students in school Attendance Engagement with school Physical or verbal aggression Self-concept; self-esteem
77

Effective Models
(Cobb, 2005)

Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI)

Curriculum training in problem solving, selfinstruction, and situation self-awareness, including mentoring, teacher and peer modeling

Key studies
Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998 Presely & Hughes, 2000 Barkley, Edwards, Laneri, Fletcher, & Metevia, 2001

Equally effective with younger and older adolescents and in schools as well as in residential and day treatment centers
78

39

Effective Models
(Cobb, 2005)

Applied Behavioral Analytic Interventions (ABA)

Designed to help students learn; frequency and intensity of interventions are increased in order to reach optimum learning; response cost interventions

Key studies
Licht, Gard, & Guardino, 1991 Myaard, Crawford, Jackson, & Alessi, 2000

Programs focused on behaviors that lead to adolescents exiting school early (voluntary and involuntary)
79

Effective Models
(Cobb, 2005)

Counseling/Therapeutic Interventions

Key studies

Individual, group, family, and psycho-educational counseling along with vocational education, behavioral contracts, social skills training, individual psychotherapy, and wrap-around services Hess, Rosenberg, & Levy, 1990 Sinha & Kapur, 1999

Counseling programs embedded within the school that generalized to all of the students environments, especially for students with emotional disorders
80

40

Conclusions
(Cobb, 2005)

FINDINGS
Cognitive-behavioral Interventions (YES)
Appears best for high incidence disabilities

Applied Behavior Analytic Interventions (Cautious Yes)

Appears useful to reduce verbally and physically aggressive behavior and both high and low incidence disabilities

Counseling Interventions (No Judgment Can Be Made)

Appears useful specifically for students with emotional disorders

81

Conclusions
(Cobb, 2005)

RECCOMMENDATIONS
Cognitive-behavioral interventions, like Check and Connect, can be relied upon to work well under a variety of contexts provided they are implemented with fidelity and over extended periods of time Compared to the transition and academic literature, the dropout prevention literature is extremely limited in special education more focus on this outcome area In particular most of the commonly perceived effective interventions in the general literature have not been tested in special education
82

41

Dropout Intervention Models

Intervention Program/Strategy
Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success (ALAS)

Intervention Description
A collaborative approach involving the student, family, school, and community. Strategies include problem-solving training, coaching, attendance monitoring, increased feedback to parents, parent training in school participation, and increased awareness and use of community resources. Employs a combination of career and academic training for students considered at-risk. The focus of career academies varies (e.g., health, technology).

Outcome Variables
dropout absenteeism on tract to graduate credit accumulation achievement grade point average attendance credits retention courses passed student engagement credit load enrollment status assignment completion on tract to graduate reading grades self-esteem attitude/school self-concept dropout

Career Academics

Check & Connect

Promotes student engagement via a monitor/mentor who maintains regular contact with the student, family, and teachers. Students receive basic or intensive interventions based on monitoring risk factors.

Coca Cola Valued Youth Program

Helps to build the self-esteem and selfconcept of at-risk youth by giving them the responsibility of being tutors to younger children.

83

Dropout Intervention Models

Intervention Program/Strategy
Project COFFEE School Transitional Environment Project (STEP) Support Center for Adolescent Mothers (Family Growth Center) Teen Outreach Program (TOP)

Intervention Description
Offers individualized instruction through an alternative occupational education program. Addresses the academic, social, emotional, and occupational needs of students at risk for dropout. Intended to help students during the transition period from one school to another. Alters the environment of the school, modifies the role of the homeroom teacher, and works to enhance communication between home and school. Created for first-time mothers to decrease dropout and discourage repeat teen pregnancies. Incorporates a significant community component.

Outcome Variables
attendance grade point average dropout dropout grade point average absenteeism academic environment

dropout pregnancy

Designed to prevent dropout and teen pregnancy through volunteer and educational experiences and discussion of life-skills topics using the Teen Outreach Curriculum.

suspension dropout pregnancy problem behaviors course failure 84

42

Effectiveness Ratings for Dropout Prevention Programs in Three Domains

Intervention ALAS (Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success) Career Academies Check & Connect Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School High School Redirection Middle College High School Project GRAD Quantum Opportunity Program Talent Development High Schools Talent Search Twelve Together Key Staying in school Progressing in school Completing school

+? +? + +? ?

+? +? +? ? +? ? ? +? +? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

+? +? ? -

?
Potentially positive effects: evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence No discernible effects: no affirmative evidence of effects Negative effects: strong evidence of a negative effect with no overriding contrary evidence

+ -?

Positive effects: strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence Mixed effects: evidence of inconsistent effects Potentially negative effects: evidence of a negative effect with no overriding contrary evidence

Source: What Works Clearinghouse (2007) http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/dropout

85

Activity 8 Homework

Action Plan

Groups will work together to develop an action plan tailored to meet the individual needs and concerns of their school, considering the information provided in Module 2. The action plan will initially assist and guide personnel with identifying tasks, delegating responsibilities, identifying resources, developing a timeline, and identifying process indicators for the first steps to address school completion.
86

43

Activity 8 Homework

Action Plan

Groups are encouraged to begin with tasks that will allow them to effectively identify and examine:

An example is provided as a guide.

Present risk factors and alterable variables that increase SWD risks for dropping out (-) Present policies or procedures (push effects) that may impede school completion for SWD (-) Interventions, strategies, or programs in place to support SWD at risk for dropping out of school (+) Current strategies or practices implemented to promote parent engagement (+)

87

Major Lessons Learned

Dropout is COMPLEX there is no one solution the costs are substantial Dropout does not occur overnight SWD are at considerable risk We must identify and address risk factors Educators can influence risk factors Evidence-based practices are essential

88

44

CONSIDER GRADUATION AS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME!!

89

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.

- Frederick Douglas

90

45

Thank You!
www.ndpc-sd.org

91

Contact Information:
Sandra Covington Smith, PhD sandras@clemson.edu NDPC-SD 209 Martin Street Clemson, SC 29640 864-656-1817

92

46