Dropout Prevention and Service-Learning

Source: RMC Research Corporation, October 2008

In 2001, the U.S. Department of Labor estimated that 5.2 million young people, aged 16-24, had not completed high school, were unemployed, and were not serving in the military. These "disconnected" youth represented 15% of their age category. The majority were from racial and ethnic minority groups, and most came from families with parents who had not graduated from high school or from families that faced stress in the form of unemployment, poverty or low income, and violence. Given the No Child Left Behind goal of 100% of students graduating on time, researchers have concluded that the "pipeline to college is leaking badly, particularly for minority and low-income youth" (Allen, Almeida, & Steinberg, 2004, p. 3).

Disconnected young people face a bleak future. During economic downturns, those without high school diplomas are most vulnerable to layoffs. Dropouts are more likely to experience mental health problems and display more antisocial behaviors. They earn far less than their peers who graduated from high school and are far more likely to be adjudicated or incarcerated.

Profile

A profile of dropouts reveals the following:

• Large city, urban youth are more likely to drop out than non-urban youth;
• Hispanic/Latino students are more likely to drop out than African American students, and both of these groups are more likely to drop out than White or Asian students;
• Nearly one fourth of Hispanic youth drop out with about half of them leaving school by the eighth grade;
• Of all students who drop out of school, about 50% leave by the tenth grade;
• About 25% of dropouts have changed schools 2 or more times;
• About 50% of dropouts missed 10 or more days of school in a school year;
• and About one third of dropouts were previously put on probation or were suspended from school.

Preventing dropout—and re-engaging youth in school within a short period after they have dropped out—substantially reduces the negative personal and societal impacts. Young people who obtain a high school diploma or its equivalent within two years of leaving school are nearly as likely as their peers who graduated on time to be employed and unincarcerated, though they do not earn as much on average. Re-engaging youth is estimated to save the country billions of dollars in recovered revenue, employment, and crime prevention.

The challenge of re-engaging young people so that they complete school has been addressed by many groups including public school systems, institutions of higher education, and community-based organizations. Educators and researchers have addressed the problem by trying to gain an understanding of the characteristics of those students who drop out of school and the programs needed to keep them engaged in their education (Monrad, 2007).

Dropout Prevention

A recent study by Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison (2006) found that most of the young people who dropped out could have successfully completed high school if they had been exposed to the right types of interventions. In a telephone survey, students who had dropped out reported that if their school had been more supportive of them, they would have worked harder. Students claimed that they lacked motivation, classes were boring, they needed to care for a family member, or they needed to work to earn money. They recommended that schools change in the following ways:

• improve teaching and curricula to make school more engaging;
• improve instruction and supports for struggling students;
• build a better, more inviting school climate for learning;
• make more connections between school and work;
• ensure strong relationships in school between students and at least one adult;
• and improve the communication between schools and parents;

Other key components of proven strategies and interventions were identified by the National High School Center (2007) and included:

• more closely monitoring student attendance, behavior, and progress;
• offering more tutoring and counseling;
• creating small learning communities for greater personalization;
• sponsoring more academically engaging courses to help students "catch-up";
• having ninth-grade academies; making tiered interventions available so students could work at their own levels and receive more customized support;
• ensuring access to rigorous coursework and high expectations for all students;
• engaging the community as partners; sponsoring transition programs;
• and providing career/college awareness.

As discussed in a recent American Youth Policy Forum brief (2008), many youth drop out in the ninth grade both because they are failing or have low test scores and because they are not adjusting well to high school. In fact, Balfanz (2008) noted that many of the eventual dropouts can be identified as early as sixth grade because they show predictable indicators such as low attendance rates, behavioral problems, and course failure. Balfanz reported that course failure is a better predictor of dropping out than test scores. He suggested that early warning systems should be developed to help respond to students who display the characteristics associated with dropout, and specifically mentioned that having national service organizations, such as City Year or AmeriCorps, or using integrated student support providers, such as Communities in Schools, could help address the challenge by providing more mentoring and personal support to students.

Allensworth (2008) also found that credit accumulation matters, and found that almost all students with a D or F grade average as a freshman failed to graduate. She, too, advocates for targeting students to ensure that they come to school and pass their courses, and particularly emphasizes the need to target students' academic behaviors in class. Jerald (2008) summarized recently conducted research to examine the risk factors used by federally funded dropout prevention programs and showed that these programs often target the wrong students. He, too, agreed that passing courses and being on track for graduation was the best predictor of graduating.

Alternative Schools

One common way that school districts try to prevent students from dropping out is to assign them, or allow them to enroll in, an alternative school. Estimates of the number of alternative education sites in the United States vary depending upon the definitions being used. Current estimates of the number of alternative education schools and programs range from 10,900 to 20,000. Alternative education sites can be found in 39% of all public school districts. Urban districts that served more than 10,000 students, school districts in the southeast, and school districts with a high percentage of minority students and/or students who qualified for free or reduced price meals are most likely to have alternative schools or programs. Of those districts with alternative education sites, about 65% have only one alternative school or program and 35% have multiple alternative education sites.

Alternative education sites are most likely to serve high school students, although not all high school students who wish to enroll are able to be accommodated. In fact, more than half of the alternative education sites report that during the past three years, demand was higher than capacity. The number of students eligible to be served by alternative education recently rose significantly due to increases in zero tolerance policies, changes in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, increases in school violence and school failure, and better knowledge of the types of developmental processes related to antisocial behaviors and school dropout.

Students in alternative education settings are disproportionately poor, from non-English speaking families and/or minority groups, and/or are individuals with disabilities. In general, the student population served in alternative education programs is very fluid, and students enter and exit programs on an individualized and daily basis. Nearly 80% of districts with alternative education allow students to return to the traditional high school, mostly because they improved their attitudes or behaviors. Students in several studies, however, said that they preferred to remain in the alternative school setting rather than be returned to their sending school. These students disliked the large size, impersonal nature, peer status issues, and lack of differentiated instruction that characterized the sending schools.

One of the factors distinguishing alternative schools' approach to academic preparation from that of comprehensive high schools is their reliance on youth development principles as organizers for curriculum and instruction (MacLellan & Curran, 2001). These organizing principles include a focus on essential competencies and skills as well as on content. Curriculum in alternative programs may be individually prescribed, and is frequently differentiated. The content usually focuses on the basic content areas—language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. Occasional additions to the curriculum include career exploration; work or service experience; life and social skills, such as goal-setting, parenting, and teambuilding; and transition support to either work or postsecondary education.

Programs leading to a diploma are smaller than programs in comprehensive high schools, usually no more than 400 students total. They provide more access to counseling, more personalized attention, and better links with social services (Dynarski & Gleason, 1998). Hands-on instruction and contextual learning increase student interest in the content. Business internships and in-school employment opportunities increase the likelihood of graduates' later economic stability.

The climate of alternative programs is less formal than in a regular high school (Dugger & Dugger, 1998), with an emphasis on positive relationships and a de-emphasis on individual competition. Classes tend to be small; often instruction is totally individualized. Rules tend to be few, simple, and consistently enforced. Counseling may be an important component of the program (Dynarski & Gleason, 1998).

Dropout Prevention and Service-Learning

Reviews of the literature have shown that service-learning is a promising strategy for dropout prevention (Billig, 2000; Billig, Root, & Jesse, 2005; Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Wulsin, 2008). Service-learning activities address various components or strategies identified as important to dropout prevention such as engaging teaching and curricula, connections between school and work, adult and student relationships, communication skills, and community engagement.

A recent telephone survey of high school students showed that:

• Over 80% of students who participated in service-learning said they had more positive feeling about attending high school;
• Over 75% of students who were currently or had in the past participated in service-learning programs agreed that service-learning classes were more interesting than other classes;
• About 45% of students who participated in service-learning believed that service-learning classes were more worthwhile than their other classes; and
• Over 75% of service-learning students said that service-learning had motivate them to work hard.

Resources Related to Dropout Prevention

The Alliance for Excellent Education
www.all4ed.org
This organization focuses on at-risk middle and high school students and their preparation for college and success in life.

Center for Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR)
www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/index.htm
CRESPAR focuses on research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of information on school and community-based programs that help students reach their full potential.

National Center on Education Outcomes (NCEO)
www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/
This organization works on assuring participation of students with disabilities in state and national assessments, setting standards, and requirements for graduation.

National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (NCPC/N)
www.dropoutprevention.org
A clearinghouse for information on dropout prevention, which has a database for promising programs. The NCPC/N conducts research, offers professional development activities, and produces reports.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
A source of information on what works in education. Information is based on high-quality scientific research.

Resource Publications

© 2008 Learn and Serve America's National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.
Photocopying for nonprofit educational purposes is permitted.