Evaluating the risks of school dropout amongst children in the care of the French child protection system: An exploratory study

Abstract

The aim of this pilot study is to identify the best way of preventing and assessing the livelihood and risk of school dropout amongst children entrusted to the care of the French child protection system in the Département of Rhone. The sample comprised 91 children and adolescents aged 4- to 17-years-old, of whom 45 were girls. The data were gathered using a unique report including the items evaluating sociodemographic data and the School Dropout Risk Evaluation Questionnaire. The results show that the older these children get, the more they see their academic problems as revolving around themselves. The youngest amongst them attribute their problems to the quality of approach adopted in the environment while the older children tend to view themselves as the reason for their failure. Collaborative efforts are therefore necessary between all actors in order to prevent school dropout and to provide intervention as early as possible.

Keywords

Foster children French system protection school dropout social work institution

School dropout is a problem at both European and global levels (De Witte & Rogge, 2013) and constitutes a constant challenge for society and governments, irrespective of cultural context (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004). Research in Europe has shown that the issue is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon (Andrei & Baciu, 2011), which the Europe 2020 Strategy has set itself the goal of reducing across the continent (Blaya, 2010). In France, over 150,000 young people leave the school system each year without a qualification. School dropout has been a concern for the French education system since the 1990s, and much thought has been devoted to the introduction of measures designed to counter it as far as possible. However, despite the ad hoc and partial results achieved by the various initiatives, the problem is so multi-dimensional that a solution continues to remain elusive.

Beyond the question of mere academic aptitude, researchers have identified a number of frequently interlinked factors that create a risk of school dropout, including in particular: Gender (Caille, 1999; Chevet, 2006; Rumberger, 1983), age (Coudrin, 2010; Forget, 2002) personal and psychological problems (Blaya, 2010; Finn and Rock, 1997; Fortin, Royer, Potvin, Marcotte, & Yergeau, 2004; Jimerson, Egeland, & Sroufe, 2000; Malo, 2007); belonging to an ethnic minority (Hauser, Simmons, & Pager, 2004; Lofstrom, 2007); socio-economic milieu (Hauser et al., 2004; Lofstrom, 2007; Mac Neal, 1999); family background (Benabou, Kramarz, & Prost, 2004; Coudrin, 2010; Fortin et al., 2004; Hauser et al., 2004; Unterreiner, 2011); academic aptitude (Caille, 1999, Rumberger, 2004); and the school environment itself (Duru-Bellat, 2003; Janosz, Le Blanc, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 2000; Hamre and Pianta, 2005; Rumberger, 1995). Other studies (Bardou, Oubrayrie-Roussel, & Lescarret, 2012) have shown the impact of self-esteem on school dropout rates.

Our clinical research and practice over more than a decade with children placed in the care of the French child protection system and in children's homes on account of family problems have shown that, above and beyond the difficult family situations, a number of other factors can create vulnerability and place children at even greater risk of dropout (Derivois, 2004; Derivois, 2005; Derivois, 2006; Derivois, 2008; Derivois, 2010; Derivois & Guillier, 2009; Derivois & Guillier, 2011; Karray-Khemiri & Derivois, 2012). These children are in fact caught between three different institutions supposed to be responsible for their psycho-affective and socio-cognitive development: The family (parents), school (teachers) and the children's home (educators). In many cases their sense of shame at having been placed in a home is only compounded by stigmatization at school (Melin, 2010). They are often seen as academic failures. The educators who take care of them are often unable to cope with the burden of helping these children with after-school homework (Derivois, Barros Leal, Franc, Guillier, & Terrade, 2013). It is therefore important to evaluate the risk of school dropout amongst these children for whom links not only to the school system but also to the family and institutions surrounding them are broken.

In this research, school dropout is seen as a complex (De Witte & Roggie, 2013) and long-term (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004) process. The aim of this pilot work is therefore to identify the best ways of preventing and assessing the likelihood and risk of school dropout amongst children entrusted to the care of the French child protection system in the Département of Rhône.

Method

Participants

The sample comprised 91 children and adolescents, of whom 45 were girls (49.45%), aged 4- to 17-years-old, with an average age of 12.42 (SD = 3.51) and divided into three groups: (1) 35 junior school children including 17 girls (48.57%), with an average age of 8.71 (SD = 1.85); (2) 34 lower secondary school students including 19 girls (55.88%) aged 12- to 17-years-old with an average age of 14.36 (SD = 1.31); (3) 22 upper secondary school students including nine girls (40.90%) aged 13- to 17-years-old with an average age of 15.84 (SD = 1.90). The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) the participants had been placed in a children's home (MECS)¹ in the Rhône-Alpes region; (2) the researchers had obtained the informed consent of a parent or guardian. The study was finalized with an overall response rate of 99.3% of students who agreed to participate.

Procedure

The data were gathered by two researchers at six institutions belonging to three associations (ADAEAR, Le PRADO, Le VALDOCCO) in the Département of Rhône. For the youngest participants, the questionnaires were completed with the help of the researchers. The oldest participants completed their questionnaires directly or returned them to us by post, or via the educators working in the institutions.

Assessment

The data were gathered using a unique report form including the items evaluating sociodemographic data and the School Dropout Risk Evaluation Questionnaire (QERDS)² presented below.

The School Dropout Risk Evaluation Questionnaire (QERDS)

In undertaking the research project, we noticed a gap in the existing school dropout risk evaluation questionnaires designed for young people entrusted to the child protection system. There are several types or modalities of assessing school dropout – primarily surveys, questionnaires, and/or interviews. However, there are only few standardized tools based on sound criteria and a valid conceptual starting point. These include, for example, the School Dropout Assessment Questionnaire (DEMS)³, (Potvin, Doré-Côté, Fortin, Royer, Marcotte, & Leclerc, 2003). There is also the ‘My feelings vis-à-vis school’ Questionnaire (2003)⁴ and the Assessment package for Potential School Dropouts (TEDP-2007)⁵ that resulted from the work of the Canadian School Environment Research Group (GRES – M. Janosz, Montreal University).⁶

We therefore developed and used the QERDS, which was inspired by North American research, particularly the work of Potvin and Pinard (2010), and Levesque and Jonosz (2008) in Quebec. This questionnaire initially sets out to assess the likelihood and risk of school dropout amongst junior school pupils, lower secondary and upper secondary school students and young people still in formal education. The second, long-term phase attempts to identify certain typologies of potential dropouts in order to develop a broader and deeper approach to the prevention and handling of dropout cases.

The QERDS is a 60-item questionnaire that assesses the likelihood and risk of school dropout based on five factors:

The child's or adolescent's self-perception as a student: This contains 14 items designed to assess the self-perception of the child as a student on the one hand, and to assess their investment in school activities and motivation on the other.

The child's intersubjective relationship with school, i.e. their relationships with other pupils (classmates), teachers, and other adults who play supporting roles in their schooling, as well as the perception of these relationships in terms of their academic commitment. This sub-scale comprises 16 items.

The relationship between schooling and the children's home: Given that the study was conducted with children in both children's homes and care homes, (MECS), this 11-item section was important in that it means the relationship between the child and their educators can be assessed in terms of schooling, asking for help when in need, and the follow-up conducted by educators in order to support that academic success.

The schooling/parent relationship. This nine-item section is designed to assess the child's perception of their relationship with their parents in terms of schooling. It also involves an assessment of the role and importance of parental perception and supervision vis-à-vis the child's commitment to their schooling.

Finally, the child's relationship to school. This 11-item sub-scale attempts to assess the child's perspective on knowledge and learning, their perception of school teaching methods, and their attitude and interest in learning, and their own perception of their academic performance.

Three separate versions of the questionnaire were drawn up according to academic level. The first was devised for junior school pupils, the second for pre-teens, and the third for adolescents and upper secondary school students. The items were presented as a Likert scale: Yes; Mostly yes; Mostly no;, No, from 1–4.

The QERDS examination of psychometric properties is a long-term endeavour designed to assess the likelihood and risk of dropout, but also attempts to establish a typology of children, adolescents, and young people in order to predict and prevent potential dropout. However, the questionnaire boasts a very high internal consistency coefficient with a Cronbach alpha of 0.84 for the entire questionnaire and varying from 0.73 to 0.81 across all sub-scales.

Results

The results show that the subjects as a whole posted an average score of 170.30 (SD 28.39) in the QERDS. They are not marked by significant gender differences in terms of the final score, with the girls averaging 172.82 (SD = 27.93) while the boys averaged 167.83 (SD = 28.92), t(88) = 0.18, p < 0.40. Neither is there a significant difference in the other sections, except in terms of the relationship with the care home or children's home. In this section, the results showed that girls enjoyed better relationships with the educators in the home with an average score of 32.22 (SD = 5.98) while the boys scored an average of 28.35 (SD = 7.17), t(88) = 4.04, p < 0.01.

Given that the higher the score, the less the risk of dropout, we noted that the average scores were 187.71 (SD = 17.98) for junior school pupils, 160.89 (SD = 30.88) for lower secondary school students and 157.59 (SD = 24.60) in upper secondary school students. The ANOVA is influenced by the category of participants (junior, lower secondary, upper secondary), F(2,90) = 13.85, p < 0.0001 (see Table 1). Thanks to the multiple comparison test (Student-Newman-Keuls), we observed that this effect was caused primarily by the participants from the junior school group (therefore younger) whose score proved to be significantly higher than the lower and upper secondary school groups, Ms = 27.13, p < 0.0001; Ms = 30.12, p < 0.0001.

Table 1.

Synthesis of the results of the five dimensions (N = 91)

	Junior (N = 35)	Lower Secondary (N = 34)	Upper Secondary (N = 22)	ANOVA
	$\bar{X}$ (ET)	$\bar{X}$ (ET)	$\bar{X}$ (ET)
Self-perception of children as pupils	45.09 (7,13)	43.26 (10,87)	43.32 (9,07)	F(2.90) = 0.42, p < 0.66
Intersubjective relationship with school	48.29 (7,08)	42.62 (8,40)	40.86 (7,84)	F(2.90) = 7.53, p < 0.0001
Relationship between schooling and care home	35.40 (4,16)	28.03 (6,97)	25.54 (4,65)	F(2.90) = 26.31, p < 0.0001
Relationship between schooling and parent	27.31 (3,05)	21.73 (6,07)	21.86 (7,89)	F(2.90) = 10.20, p < 0.0001
Child's rapport with school	31.63 (5,43)	24.94 (7,22)	26 (7.69)	F(2.90) = 9.57, p < 0.0001
Total	187.71 (17.98)	160.89 (30.88)	157.59 (24.60)	F(2.90) = 13.85, p < 0.0001

If we consider these results from a general perspective, we note that most junior school participants tend to attribute their academic difficulties to the methods used by teachers (62.86%) and a lack of academic support (62.86%), while 48.57% cite a lack of motivation and 42.86% learning difficulties. Specifically, junior school pupils attribute 74.28% of their problems to the methods used by teachers.

Likelihood of dropout: When the children see themselves as potential dropouts. Children's self-perception

Forty percent of the junior school pupils perceived themselves as experiencing severe academic problems, 8.57% considered their problems to be of average seriousness, 8.57% saw their problems as unimportant and 42.86% considered they had no problems of this nature; 14.28% of these children were seriously considering leaving school. Table 1 presents these results in more details.

The results also point to a negative correlation coefficient between the total scores and the participants' age, r = −0.33, p < 0.01. Table 2 presents the other correlation coefficients between the various dimensions. In general, they are also negative with regard to the age of the participants.

Table 2.

Association among the variables (N = 91)

	Age	1	2	3	4	5
1. Self-erception of children as pupils	0.04
2. Intersubjective relationship with school	−0.25*	0.49***
3. Relationship between schooling and care home	−0.51***	0.40***	0.62***
4. Relationship between schooling and parent	−0.33**	0.006	0.32**	0.42***
5 Child's rapport with school	−0.24***	0.64***	0.61***	0.60***	0.35***
Score total	−0.33**	0.73***	0.83***	0.80***	0.51***	0.86***

Perception of the likelihood of dropout according to the child's perception of the views of educators and parents

In children's homes, 65.71% of the junior school children, 26.47% of the lower secondary, and 36.36% of the upper secondary group thought that their educators believed they were failing at school. In the junior group, 25.71% stated that their educators thought they would end up dropping out, as against 26.47% of the lower secondary and 36.36% of the upper secondary group. In respect of parents, 88.57% of the junior school children, 35.29% of the lower secondary, and 31.82% of the upper secondary group stated that their parents did not think they could make a success of school.

Discussion

This study gives rise to discussion at several levels. We will focus here on three aspects: Dropout and breakdown with age, the causal attribution of dropout and the impact of the status of ‘child placed in care’.

The results show that the older these children get, the more they see their academic problems as revolving around themselves. It would be tempting to ascribe this attitude to the processes of adolescence, whereby young people tend to challenge parental figures, reject authority, distance themselves from their family and adults, and seek out the company of peers. Presenting themselves as the agents of their own academic failure can be seen as a way of asserting their identity, standing out and affirming a certain mastery, albeit negative, of their academic life. A number of authors (e.g. Marcelli & Braconnier, 2000) have shown that in order to distance themselves in a constructive way from their families, adolescents need to have lived in solid family structures. However, children entrusted to care homes have often lived in vulnerable and fragile family environments with little stimulus. Given the educative and familial roles adopted by educators in the children's homes, could this also be an adolescent phenomenon, or rather amount to a refusal to be stigmatized (Melin, 2010)? It seems to us that the answer may be a combination of the two explanations.

The educative role played by educators during the placement in care comes to be seen as symbolic of the deficiencies of the family. The adolescents therefore find it increasingly difficult to take advantage of the support offered by the placement. Furthermore, the younger the children, the more dependent they are on the approval of adults (parents and/or educators). However, it remains the case that the placement serves to remind even the younger children of the deficiencies of their family life and therefore to ‘label’ them as children deprived of family support. By ascribing their academic difficulties to the teaching methods, they express their need to be supported, cared for (no doubt more than others), and to receive the commitment of others if they in turn are to commit to their learning.

Moreover, it should be noted that even if these children and adolescents placed in care receive educational attention from the teaching team at the institution that is currently caring for them, is this attention itself not relatively fragile and precarious in contrast to regular schooling? As shown in our previous research into the violent nature of cohabitation in children's homes (Derivois et al., 2011), the monitoring of homework and schoolwork by educators is inevitably different from the same tasks performed by parents, as the educators have to divide their time between several children. The lack of time allocated to each child and the educational aids (academic coaches, etc.) mount up, occasionally proliferating, and the child's commitment can be rapidly exhausted, because the approach adopted by the institution fails to make sense in the child's eyes – a situation compounded by the apparent interchangeability of the teachers. Likewise, a number of educators attempt to ‘dedramatize’ the situation when talking to the youngsters in their care, sometimes even going as far as to say that ‘School's useless for them’ or ‘They're not cut out for education’! The impact of such talk on the academic work of the children in their care is in itself deserving of study. Another possible explanation for the increase in school dropout with age: In our clinical experience and based on the results of this research, we suggest the fact that these young people find difficulty in committing to their education, or give up their schooling – or even abandon it altogether – because they are caught up in other psychological, intersubjective, family, and social issues which impinge severely on the mental space they can devote to their education. As if their early lives, family relationships, and occasionally consecutive placements occupy their minds to the exclusion of all else. The adolescents occasionally imply or actually say as much: ‘We’ve got other things on our minds!’. In other words, they are occupied and sometimes preoccupied with other things – their other experiences take priority in their minds.

Another factor involving self-esteem relates to the vulnerability of the family and the fact of having been placed in care. The results show that the younger the children, the more they tend to think they are experiencing academic problems. The question remains as to whether this perception is not in fact the result of the lack of early supervision and affective scaffolding, as we stressed earlier. If there is a lack of early affective bonding (the main cause of children being placed in care), what is most likely to cause these children to drop out later on in life? The content of the learning or the poor quality of their bonds with adults (parents, teachers, educators)? It is important to note that besides the affective deficiencies, these children have often also experienced educational gaps in their early environment. No doubt this ‘experience of a lack of education’, so to speak, has an inevitable impact on these children's view of education, but also on schooling and any kind of educational input in the strongest sense of the word. In addition to this, a new study on the perspectives on education of the teachers and parents themselves could shed further light on the matter, exploring and analysing the relationship to education of these educators and the parents themselves.

The results lead us to think that the problem of school dropouts is not exclusively linked to cognitive difficulties but that the quality of the family, academic, and institutional environment all play an important role. These various environments impact on the children's and adolescents' self-esteem and hamper their access to learning. This self-esteem is already undermined by social representations of their status as children in care. Our results show that these children's and adolescents' self-esteem and self-perception resonate with what they think their educators and parents think of them, of their education, and particularly of their academic problems. While the youngest among them remain confident in their abilities, generally ascribing their academic problems to the teaching methods and other decisions and constraints imposed from outside, the increasing tendency to focus on the self as the source of the problem outlined above can also be seen as a possible attempt by these adolescents to regain control of their own lives, in a sort of passive-active reversal whereby they attempt to reclaim what they have previously experienced or been subjected to. But alongside these attempts, the sense of disillusionment with regard to the future remains strong, as suggested by the answers given by the adolescents regarding the possibility of one day dropping out of secondary school.

Qualitative studies would enable us to refine these initial explorations. Nevertheless, our results point to the need to institute preventive measures in order to reinforce the self-esteem of school children. It is also important to consider measures enabling parents, educators, and teachers to work together for the benefit of the child or pupil. Collaborative efforts are therefore necessary (Andrei & Baciu, 2011) between all actors in order to prevent school dropout and intervene as early as possible.

However, there are certain limits to this study. Given the size of the sample, we were unable to conduct a broader analysis. Likewise, as there was no control group, it was not possible to assess to what extent dropout depends on family and school ties. Besides qualitative studies, other comparative studies with a group of children not placed in state care would be necessary to assess whether the dropout of children in state care has specific qualities. It could also be important to be able to consider such questions for children and adolescents placed in foster families and thus identify the specificities and differences in the likelihood of school dropout amongst these children. This comparison of the likelihood of dropout amongst children placed in care, those placed in institutions and those placed in foster families could shed significant light on the basis of their investment in education and the psychological and intersubjective issues involved in being placed in care.

Footnotes

Notes

Author biographies

Daniel Derivois, PhD, is Clinical psychologist, Associate Professor and research director in the Psychopathology and Clinical Psychology Research Centre EA 653, University of Lyon. His research intrest are in juvenil violences, traumatism, child welfare and protection, fragilised and vulnerable children and adolescents.

Nathalie Guillier-Pasut, is Clinical psychologist, PhD-student in the Psychopathology and Clinical Psychology Research Centre EA 653, University of Lyon. Her research interest are in child protection system, children, parentality and family vulnerability.

Amira Karray, PhD, is Clinical psychologist, researcher in the Psychopathology and Clinical Psychology Research Centre EA 653, University of Lyon. Her research interest are in school violence and school difficulties, cognitive and psychdynamic models articulation, vulnerability in adolescence particularly in educational environment.

Jude-Mary Cénat, PhD, is in post-doctoral position in UQAM and associate researcher in the Psychopathology and Clinical Psychology Research Centre EA 653, University of Lyon. His research interest are in resilience, trauma and vulnerable children and adolescents.

Lisbeth Brolles, PhD, is Clinical psychologist, associate researcher in the Psychopathology and Clinical Psychology Research Centre EA 653, University of Lyon. Her research area are in children with school problems clinical approach and clinical psychological evaluation.

Hanae Mastuhara, is Clinical psychologist. Her research area are in children and adolescents with school and social difficulties.

References

Andrei

Baciu

E-L.

(2011) Skills supply and skills demand among youth: Object of concern or object of hope? Social Work Review 4: 85–101.

Bardou

Oubrayrie-Roussel

Lescarret

(2012) Estime de soi et démobilisation scolaire des adolescents. Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfance et de l'Adolescence 60(1): 435–440. doi: 10.1016/j.neurenf.2012.07.003.

Benabou

Kramarz

Prost

(2004) Zones d'éducation prioritaire: Quels moyens pour quels résultats? Une évaluation sur la période 1982–1992. Economie et Statistiques 380: 3–34.

Blaya

(2010) Décrochages scolaires. L'école en difficulté, Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.

Caille

J.-P.

(1999) Qui sort sans qualification du système éducatif ? Note d'information de la DPD.99–30.

Chevet

(2006) L'impact du genre dans la relation entre enseignant-e-s et apprenant-e-s. Etudes de linguistique appliquée 142(2): 163–174.

Christenson

S. L.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2004) Keeping kids in school: Efficacy of Check & Connect for dropout prevention. NASP Communiqué 32(6): 37–40.

Coudrin

(2010) Le devenir des élèves neuf ans après leur entrée en sixième, Paris: MEN-DEPP. Note d'information.

De Witte

Rogge

(2013) Dropout from secondary education: All's well that begins well. European Journal of Education 49(1): 131–149. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12001.

10.

Derivois

(2004) Psychodynamique du lien drogue-crime à l'adolescence. Symbolisation et répétition, Paris: L'Harmattan.

11.

Derivois

(2005) Quand L'enfant place s'identifie au pere incarcere. In: Gaillard

(eds) Les violences en milieu scolaire et educatif, Rennes: De L'Université De Rennes, pp. 409–417.

12.

Derivois

(2006) Le trajet de la violence a l'ecole. Spirale, Revue De Recherches En Education 37: 39–48.

13.

Derivois

(2008) La traversee traumatique de l'enfant place en institution. Pratiques Psychologiques 14(3): 339–356. doi: 10.1016/j.prps.2008.05.003.

14.

Derivois

(2010) Les adolescents victimes/delinquants. Observer, ecouter, comprendre, accompagner, Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.

15.

Derivois

Barros Leal

Franc

Guillier

Terrade

(2011) Violence de la cohabitation en maison d'enfants a caractere social : Observation clinique au retour de l'école. Annales Médico-psychologiques 171(4): 226–231. doi: 10.1016/j.amp.2011.09.016.

16.

Derivois

Guillier

(2009) Tu me garderais si on ne te payait pas? Le coût psychique du placement. Dialogues, Journal de l'A.D.A.E.A.R (Association Départementale d'Aide à l'Enfance et à l'Adolescence du Rhône) 32: 8–9.

17.

Derivois

Guillier-Pasut

(2011) La charge traumatique chez l'enfant placé en institution. Clinique d'une menace d'effondrement. Revue Internationale de Victimologie 9: 413–427.

18.

Duru-Bellat

(2003) Les apprentissages des élèves dans leur contexte: Les effets de la composition de l'environnement scolaire. Carrefours de l'Education 16(2): 182–206. doi: 10.3917/cdle.016.0182.

19.

Finn

J.-D.

Rock

D.-A.

(1997) Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(2): 221–234. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221 .

20.

Forget

J.-M.

(2002) L'échec scolaire à l'adolescence, pour garçons et filles, même combat? Journal français de psychiatrie 15(1): 38–39.

21.

Fortin

Royer

É.

Potvin

Marcotte

Yergeau

É.

(2004) Prediction of risk for secondary school dropout: Personal, family and school factors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 36(3): 219–231. doi: 10.1037/h0087232.

22.

Hamre

B.-K.

Pianta

R.-C.

(2005) Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure. Child Development 76(5): 949–964.

23.

Hauser

R. M.

Simmons

S. J.

Pager

D. I.

(2004) High school dropout, race/ethnicity, and social background from the 1970s to the 1990s. In: Orfield G

(ed.) Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group, pp. 85–106.

24.

Janosz

Le Blanc

Boulerice

Tremblay

R. E.

(2000) Predicting different types of school dropouts: A typological approach on two longitudinal samples. Journal of School Psychology 38(6): 525–549. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.171 .

25.

Jimerson

Egeland

Sroufe

L.-A.

(2000) A prospective longitudinal study of high school drop outs examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology 38(6): 525–549. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00051-0.

26.

Karray-Khemiri

Derivois

(2012) La violence scolaire du point de vue des professionnels des maisons d'enfants à caractère social: Une étude exploratoire. Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfance et de l'Adolescence 60(7–8): 516–521. . En ligne. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.neurenf.2012.05.550.http://www.emconsulte.com/article/765161/article/la-violence-scolaire-du-point-de-vue-des-professionnels.

27.

Levesque

Jonosz

(2008) La trousse d' évaluation des décrocheurs potentiels: Un outil de dépistage économique, efficace et valide de prévention ciblée du décrochage scolaire, Crefe. Quebec.

28.

Lofstrom

(2007) Why are Hispanic and African American dropout rates so high? IZA Discussion Paper. n°3265. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.0042-7092.2007.00700.x.

29.

Mac Neal

R. B.

(1999) High school dropouts: A closer examination of school effects. Social Science Quarterly 78(1): 209–222. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1045-3830.23.2.199.

30.

Malo

(2007) Y a-t-il un lien entre le décrochage scolaire et le décrochage social chez les jeunes présentant des troubles de comportement? Revue de Psychoéducation 36(2): 329–339.

31.

Marcelli

Braconnier

(2000) Adolescence et psychopathologie, Paris: Masson.

32.

Melin, V. (2010). Souffrance et violence à l'école: Le décrochage scolaire, une forme de résistance? Revue internationale de recherche biographique 1, Téraèdre, p. 85–97.

33.

Potvin

Doré-Côté

Fortin

Royer

É.

Marcotte

Leclerc

(2003) Dropout Assessment Tool, CTRQ: Québec.

34.

Potvin

Pinard

(2010) L'alliance possible entre deux approches en prévention du décrochage scolaire au Québec: L'approche scolaire et l'approche périscolaire, Communication présentée au 16e Congrès de l'AMSE: Monterrey, Mexique31 mai au 4 juin 2010.

35.

Rumberger

R.-W.

(1983) Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and family background. American Education Research Journal 20(2): 199–220. doi: 10.3102/00028312020002199.

36.

Rumberger

R.-W.

(1995) Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Education Research Journal 32(3): 583–625. doi: 10.3102/00028312032003583.

37.

Rumberger

R.-W.

(2004) Why students drop out of school. In: Orfield

(ed.) Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group, pp. 131–155.

38.

Unterreiner

(2011) La moindre performance scolaire des enfants de couples mixtes en France. Un éclairage par les méthodes quantitative et qualitative. Sociologie 2(1): 51–71. doi : 10.3917/socio.021.0051.