Abstract
Schools are tasked with the challenge of not only raising graduation rates for students with and without disabilities but also preparing these students to meet college and career readiness standards. Recent studies and reviews of the literature suggest promising practices to ensure that educators meet these goals by increasing students’ engagement in school. This article provides an overview of the research on evidence-based drop-out prevention practices organized within the framework of the six recommendations provided by the Institute of Education Sciences. After an explanation of each drop-out prevention intervention component, implications for practice are highlighted, with particular emphasis on academic and behavioral practices that can be readily implemented to prevent students with and without learning and behavioral disabilities from dropping out of school.
One of the most serious and pervasive problems facing education is the drop-out epidemic. Approximately 75% of the nation’s students graduate high school in 4 years (Chapman, Laird, & KewalRamani, 2010). Considerably fewer, 55% of students with disabilities, graduate high school with a standard diploma (Data Accountability Center, 2008). Notably, each year about 40% of students with learning disabilities (LD) and 65% of students with emotional disturbances (ED) drop out (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Students with disabilities are disproportionally affected by the drop-out crisis, and as a result, millions of these young adults lack a high school diploma and therefore face great challenges to securing a stable future.
Accountability mandates from the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) require schools to improve graduation rates and address the achievement gaps of subgroups of students. These indicators of progress serve as evidence of school performance and the engagement of students with disabilities and their typical peers. A more recent federal initiative, the Civic Marshall Plan, aims to increase the high school graduation rate to 90% and have students complete at least 1 year of postsecondary education or training by 2020. This requires states to increase their graduation rate by almost 2% per year over the next 10 years (Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore, & Fox, 2010). To further support this effort, the Common Core State Standards (Common Core, 2010) provide students, parents, and teachers with standards that strengthen the rigor of the current state standards and align them with college and work expectations to prepare students to succeed in a global economy and society. These initiatives mandate that schools immediately respond to the drop-out crisis by implementing effective drop-out prevention practices to steadily graduate more students while preparing them to be college and career ready.
Preventing students from dropping out should begin as early as students show signs of withdrawal and disengagement from school, which may be during the first years of schooling (Balfanz et al., 2010). In addition, students whose grades drop significantly at major transition times (e.g., between eighth and ninth grades) are at a greater risk of dropping out (Roderick, 1993). More specific indicators of risk can be used to guide intervention efforts. Disengagement, exhibited by increased rates of behavioral infractions, low performance or failure of academics, absenteeism, and retention, are among the significantly predictive risk indicators of dropping out of school (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007; Gleason & Dynarski, 2002; Kennelly & Monrad, 2007; Rumberger, 2004).
Preventing students from dropping out of school almost always requires a multiple component intervention (Dynarski et al., 2008). The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) reviewed the available research on drop-out prevention and provided six recommendations in a recently released drop-out prevention practice guide (Dynarski et al., 2008). The recommendations are divided into three categories: (a) diagnostic processes for identifying student-level and schoolwide dropout problems (Recommendation 1), (b) targeted interventions for a subset of middle and high school students who are identified as at risk of dropping out (Recommendations 2, 3, and 4), and (c) schoolwide interventions designed to enhance engagement for all students and prevent dropout more generally (Recommendations 5 and 6). Organized within the framework of the six recommendations from IES (Dynarski et al., 2008), this article provides an overview of the recent research on evidence-based components of drop-out prevention, followed by implications for practice that can be readily implemented to prevent students from dropping out of school as well as drop-out prevention online resources (see Table 1).
Dropout Prevention Website Resources
Identify Students Most at Risk of Dropping Out
Accurately determining which students are most at risk for dropping out should be a priority for schools. This is a critical first step to be able to provide timely intervention for students who need it most. Monitoring all students’ performance will systematically assist schools in identifying at-risk students early as students enter a phase of withdrawal or disengagement.
Develop a comprehensive, longitudinal, student-level database to determine if students are on or off track to graduate (Heppen & Therriault, 2008). A longitudinal database will allow teachers to track student progress over time. It should include student failures in any course, disaggregated by failures of core academic courses, credits earned in each grading term, and accumulated credits. It is especially critical to track this information during ninth grade, a transitional time, because course failures and high school drop-out rates at this grade exceed those for all other grade levels (Herlihy, 2007).
Identify students at risk of dropping out using data on grade retention, student absences, academic achievement, and disengagement—including behavioral infractions (Gleason & Dynarski, 2002). Accurate and ongoing identification of at-risk students can help schools appropriately allocate intervention resources, which are often scarce.
Collect and document accurate information when students are absent for an extended period of time or when they officially withdraw (Engberg & Gill, 2006). School personnel can intervene promptly if they know when and why a student is absent or withdrawn. Detailed information can serve to inform the intervention practices if the student returns or reenrolls in his or her current school or at his or her subsequent school placement.
Access to an Adult Advocate
Providing trained adult advocates to at-risk students has proven to be an effective component of drop-out prevention when combined with other components (Dynarski et al., 2008). Advocates can implement individualized interventions for students as they may play various roles within and outside of a school setting. This personalized relationship, therefore, should extend beyond addressing students’ academic and behavioral concerns to emphasizing the linkage between school and home as well as simultaneously promoting a relationship of trust and respect. Whoever serves in this role (e.g., a teacher, counselor, social worker, paraprofessional, mentor, administrator, or another caring adult) should consistently convey a message of the importance of the student staying in school, progressing in school, and ultimately completing school.
Assign at-risk students to trained adult advocates (Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998). To the extent possible, caseloads should not be larger than 15 students to allow for advocates to build a trusting relationship and be able to work with students, parents, and school staff to address multiple facets of students’ life (Dynarski et al., 2008). Other studies reported a range of 40 to 48 elementary students (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004) and an average of 50 secondary students (Sinclair et al., 1998). In the event that advocates have large caseloads, data can be used to divide caseloads into tiered intervention levels.
Provide targeted interventions using current monitoring data on student attendance, behavioral infractions, credits earned, and academic achievement (Sinclair et al., 1998). An advocate should regularly check student data to inform efforts to establish and maintain connections with students, parents, school staff, and other necessary support personnel. Although checking data is a necessary part of the intervention process, efforts should be made to make this as efficient as possible so that instead of spending a majority of time on data collection, actual intervention time with students is maximized.
Besides assigned advocates, it is possible to build capacity within the whole school so all staff are cognizant of and know how to interpret student data and adequately respond to students with various risk indicators (Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). School staff members who show concern and individual attention to students and consistency in rules and procedures for the collective student body improve student attendance and academic achievement as a result of building feelings of school connectedness and trust in teachers (Allensworth & Easton, 2007). Responsive practices for appropriately serving students with disabilities and students who are culturally and linguistically diverse should be implemented.
Communicate regularly with students’ parents or guardians regarding their students’ progress (Smith & Bost, 2008). Strong relationships between students and parents can increase students’ grades and attendance and decrease the likelihood of dropping out of school (Balfanz et al., 2010). In the secondary grades, advocates can encourage students to communicate regularly with their parents about school expectations, their educational goals, and their progress in regard to meeting their goals. The PACER Center (see Table 1) offers resources to help families make informed decisions regarding their students’ education and supportive services.
Academic Support
High-quality instruction is essential for all students at every grade level. When students demonstrate academic risk indicators of dropping out, targeted interventions should be implemented promptly. Presenting content in various ways, offering students flexible methods to exemplify their knowledge, and providing multiple ways to engage students may enhance access and understanding of academics through these principles of universal design for learning (UDL; Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011). Supporting students’ academic progress is essential to preventing students from dropping out, particularly for students who exhibit an LD that impedes their academic achievement. If academic struggles result in failing a class, the consequence is compounded by being behind in credits, thus rendering the student off track for graduating on time and at an increased risk of dropping out (Allensworth & Easton, 2005). An essential component of a drop-out prevention intervention must include academic support to remediate students in areas of need (Smith, 2008).
Actively engage students in instructional tasks by matching curriculum to students’ instructional level, culture, and interest and provide effective instruction that is scaffolded, explicit, and strategic with multiple opportunities for successful experiences to encourage students’ potential for learning (Bost & Riccomini, 2006). Teachers can create a learning environment that promotes improved outcomes in content and skills where students demonstrate competency in areas of difficulty. Even small measures of success may academically engage students and motivate them to improve performance. Students with disabilities can take ownership of their academic support needs by learning to advocate for themselves so that they reach the goals outlined in their individualized education program.
Offer small-group or individual support in study skills, test-taking strategies, and content area classes to increase student success in courses and ultimately earn credits toward graduation (Smith & Bost, 2008). Self-questioning, mnemonics, and paraphrasing are examples from the evidence-based learning strategies curriculum (University of Kansas, 2011) developed to teach students to acquire information, demonstrate their knowledge, and express their understanding. Additional instruction in English language development for English learners may be necessary, as well as accommodations or modifications for students with disabilities. The type and length of support may vary and can be embedded within the school day or provided after school.
Advise students who are at risk of failing a promotion or graduation test well in advance and provide them with appropriate instruction that would improve their chances of passing (Johnson, Thurlow, & Stout, 2007). Failure of high-stakes promotion or graduation tests increases the drop-out rate among the lowest achieving students, potentially requiring additional resources and intensity of instruction for these students (Jacob, 2001).
Provide extra study time and opportunities for credit recovery and accumulation (Williams & Richman, 2007). Discuss the importance of credit accrual and the positive and natural consequences of earning passing grades and progressing in school. Earning more than one failing grade in a core content area and earning fewer than five full course credits by the end of freshman year are key indicators that a student is not on track to graduate (Allensworth & Easton, 2005).
Behavioral Support
Teachers can model, practice, and reinforce expected behavioral and social skills to implement schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS; Sugai, Horner, & Lewis, 2009). Instructing students how to appropriately interact and communicate positively with peers and adults in and outside of the classroom has shown promise in drop-out prevention interventions (Dynarski et al., 2008). Because students with ED are at a higher risk of dropping out due to their increased number of absences and course failures compared to students with and without disabilities (Gwynne, Lesnick, Hart, & Allensworth, 2009), these layers of behavioral support are the foundation for creating a safe and orderly school climate where students feel welcomed and accepted.
Teach students how to positively interact and effectively communicate with peers and adults (Smith, 2008). It is also effective to teach students, especially those with ED, how to recognize and respond to problems, set and monitor goals, plan and organize, anticipate challenges, and express emotional responses in an effective manner (Riccomini, Bost, Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2005).
Promote constructive problem solving (Larson & Rumberger, 1995). Students who exhibit high-risk behavior should participate in immediate problem-solving sessions to develop conflict management skills to respond appropriately (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005).
Include cognitive components in behavioral interventions (Cobb, Sample, Alwell, & Johns, 2005). In addition to teaching students to problem solve, teachers can role-play and model how to become self-aware, self-instruct, deescalate, and communicate effectively (Cobb et al., 2005). Teachers can teach students how to conduct positive self-talk in an effort to stay focused.
Establish attainable behavioral goals or contracts and recognize students when they accomplish them (Larson & Rumberger, 1995). Individualize contractual agreements to help students determine realistic goals and provide frequent, positive incentives as students follow through with the necessary steps to make educational progress. When available, align students’ goals with preexisting behavior intervention plans. Student buy-in of contracts may be increased if teachers involve students when setting goals and developing the contracts.
Personalize Instruction
Developing a sense of self-efficacy and membership in the learning environment, developing a sense of belonging to peers or adults, and engagement in extracurricular activities can engage and motivate students to believe they can succeed, particularly struggling learners (Margolis & McCabe, 2006; Smith, 2008). Variations of personalizing the learning environment may exist within each classroom and across a school site, although establishing small learning communities and interdisciplinary teaming is significantly associated with lower schoolwide drop-out rates (Kerr & Legers, 2006). Two notable resources that synthesize effective drop-out prevention practices for students at risk and students with disabilities, respectively, are the National Drop-Out Prevention Center and the National Drop-Out Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (see Table 1).
Vary instructional methods to engage students by structuring different formats for grouping or participating in learning (Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Elbaum, 2001). Classwide tutoring (Greenwood & Delquadri, 1995) and peer-assisted learning strategies (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, 1999) are two effective practices that allow teachers to individualize feedback and pacing and engage students in shared learning experiences. In addition, students will likely experience improved engagement in learning if teachers are able to expose them to the use of assistive or learning technologies, particularly within a UDL framework (Edyburn, 2010).
Provide student choice in curricula, time schedules, and assessments to increase motivation and self-efficacy (Margolis & McCabe, 2006). Teachers can encourage student involvement to enhance learning through student voice and choice. Familiarize students with procedures and routines to ensure understanding of expectations and recognize when students meet expectations through the use of schoolwide PBIS, in addition to behavioral supports aforementioned.
Rigorous and Relevant Instruction
Preparing students for success in postsecondary education or training requires that teachers are adequately trained to provide rigorous and relevant instruction to ensure students have the skills necessary to complete high school and to prosper in college or the workplace (Dynarski et al., 2008). Schools can expose all students to a career pathway curriculum to create learning that is of interest and has purpose for their future endeavors.
Design instruction to engage students in active participation in activities, enhance the rigor of assignments, and align curricula with standards (Quint, 2006). Teachers should receive ongoing professional development to allow them to collaborate and improve their practices (Smith & Bost, 2008).
Incorporate career-related curricula and opportunities for students to apply essential concepts and skills for a functional purpose (Kemple & Snipes, 2000). Present students with opportunities to specialize in a specific skill set or career theme by applying skills to work-world problems on and off campus (Dynarski et al., 2008). Align students’ interests or pathways with individual transition plans to integrate functional and practical learning opportunities.
Provide accessible information to students about their disability, their rights, and their responsibilities and bring awareness to students regarding how their disability affects their daily activities (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). A relevant outcome for students with disabilities is that they can become self-advocates and articulate how their disability may affect their postsecondary options. Guide students through the planning and preparing of a service, college, or employment application, informing students how to qualify for additional financial assistance when applicable.
Conclusion
Inexcusably, approximately 7,000 students drop out every day, which equates to approximately 1.3 million students who will not graduate high school within 4 years (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). Students with disabilities are among the most at risk for dropping out and continuously perform below their peer subgroups, warranting immediate intervention. Drop-out prevention is of national concern, and schools are in need of resources to implement practices associated with improving academic progress and school completion of all students.
Research on evidence-based components of drop-out prevention suggests that schools can prevent students from dropping out, including students with LD and emotional disabilities, by using data to identify which students are most at risk for dropping out and then providing these students with access to an adult advocate who can implement academic and behavioral support in a school climate that promotes personalized and relevant instruction. It is possible to identify, monitor, and intervene based on students’ risk indicators to maximize student engagement, thereby increasing students’ ability to progress in school, stay in school, and complete school.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
This research was supported in part by Grant 2556661 from the Greater Texas Foundation, Grant R324A100022 from the Institute of Education Sciences, and Grant R324B080008 from the Institute of Education Sciences Postdoctoral Research Training Program.