Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

School failure is an important worldwide issue, leading to underemployment (unemployment or job dissatisfaction) and a lower quality of life. The overall dropout rate in the United States is 10–25 %, depending on how it is reckoned. But it is common for the most struggling high schools to lose 25–50 % of their students between 9th and 12th grade, and on any given day, 10–20 % of the student body will be absent from school. Overall, rates of dropout and truancy have declined somewhat over the last decade, but not in some areas, such as in low-income families and among other subpopulations. Many methods of keeping adolescents in regular attendance at school are widely reported but not thoroughly evaluated.

Definitions

We describe issues of school failure in terms of dropout and truancy. The term to drop out is widely used in reference to the phenomenon of youth who do not “finish” high school. As a noun or adjective it is one word, dropout. That raises the question, What does it mean to finish? In the United States, students are expected to complete 12 grades. Students in 12th grade (usually aged 17 or 18 years) who meet standards set by their local education authority receive a graduation diploma or a certificate of completion. It is different in other parts of the world. In many countries, the last 3 years of high school are optional. There are often national examinations, at different levels, in these years, enabling youth aged 15 or 16 to leave school with viable credentials. Thus in countries where schooling is readily available, the term dropping out may refer either to leaving school before passing any recognized exams, or to leaving unqualified to pursue employment opportunities of personal fulfillment. In developing countries, schooling is limited. For example in Liberia, where I (first author) have first-hand experience, schools have rooms and teachers sufficient for only one-third of children wanting to attend.

Even within a single country, how and when dropout and truancy are measured greatly influences the reports of incidence and the perceived magnitude of the problem. Moreover, dropout should not be seen as a single event. Although there is a moment of time when circumstances meet some criterion for dropout, it is usually the culmination of a long-term process of increasing alienation from the school system.

Most high schools in the United States set goals of 90–95 % average daily attendance; struggling schools typically reach about 88 %. Within the broad spectrum of absenteeism, the term truancy simply means being absent from school without permission—also referred to as absenteeism. It is the interpretation of “permission,” and its vagaries across schools and age groups, that creates confusion. For example, one school district may expect a parental letter of explanation for an absence of up to 3 days, and a physician’s note beyond that. Another may set different time limits or require different levels of explanation. (In my last year at high school, I [first author] would write “please excuse Peter’s absence” [without saying why] and sign it myself, as I was privately boarding away from my parents and all the teachers wanted was a letter on file.) Thus thousands of days may not be counted that might otherwise be included under strict definitions and monitoring of truancy. While nearly all schools diligently document absences, most will pursue issues of truancy only when it is a significant and obvious problem for individual students. Up to one-third of all absences may be classified as truant, depending on the local definition. In the United States, students who have higher absenteeism generally have lower scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading assessment (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).

As noted, this chapter focuses on dropout and truancy. More generally school failure may be defined as dropout in any form, truancy, being suspended or expelled, failing, or repeating classes, or not “graduating” by age 19 (or 22 with certain disabilities) in the US public school system, or the equivalent outcomes elsewhere.

Incidence of Dropout

The US Department of Education reported a “status completion” rate of almost 90 % in 18–24 year olds in the year 2009, meaning that 90 % of 18–24 year olds who are not enrolled in high school have obtained a high school diploma or alternative credit (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). The implied converse figure, a 10 % dropout rate, is socially important—because it indicates how many young adults for whom school has been unsuccessful. Even if some of these individuals enroll in high school in their 40s and complete a General Education Development (GED) award, as some do, the publicly mandated school system has failed to provide fundamental education in a timely way. Other ways to measure this phenomenon include the “event” dropout rate, referring to the percentage of students aged 15–24 in 10th–12th grade who left school in the past year, without a certificate (3.4 %). This (lowest) measure is favored by school districts (Kemp, 2006). All these rates fell by about one-third in the 1960s but reverted by a few percentage points in the 1970s. Since then, rates have been decreasing gradually (NCES, 2012). Another way to measure graduation and dropout is the averaged “freshman” graduation rate (AFGR), which is an estimate of the number of regular diplomas issued in a given year divided by an estimate of the averaged enrollment base for the incoming class 4 years earlier (4 years is US-specific; number of years used to calculate will vary depending on the number of years of secondary education). According to Afterschool Alliance (2009), approximately 7,000 students on average drop out of school every day.

Another socially important way to measure dropout is to track those entering ninth grade who quit school within the subsequent 4 years (“cohort” rate). Approximately 25 % of students who entered 9th grade in the class of 2007–2008 did not graduate with their class 4 years later. This method of measurement is favored by some (e.g., Fitzpatrick & Yoels, 1992), because it indicates a failure by the school system even though at least one-third of such dropouts are temporary. On the other hand, this measure overlooks those who drop out before ninth grade, an incidence that can be significant for some populations (e.g., migrant farm workers; Martinez & Cranston-Gingras, 1996). Interstate differences are large; recent AFGR of public high school students varied from 65 % (New Mexico) to 91 % (Wisconsin). Dropout is significantly greater in the southern and western United States (NCES, 2011). It would seem investigations of state differences would tell us much about risk and protective factors in school failure, but little causal analysis is available except that the status completion rate is 63 % among foreign-born Latino youth, compared to US-born Hispanics at 84 % for “first generation” Hispanics and increasing for higher generations (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). The NCES methods of reporting dropout, especially for African Americans, have been seriously challenged by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (Greene, 2002), who put the graduation rates much lower based on differences in definition and sampling.

An appreciation of the incidence of dropout is further complicated by the practice of school districts’ typically identifying a student as dropped out by such definitions as “absent for 30 consecutive school days without a request for transcripts from another school.” While such criteria are functional for schools, they are simply different from those used by NCES in national reports.

Rates vary considerably across schools and social conditions (Dowrick & Back, in press). In small high schools in stable communities, over 90 % of students finish; in large high schools in less stable, low-income communities, fewer than 50 % complete in 4 years. Youth living in families with incomes in the lowest 20 % are 5 times as likely as their peers from the top 20 % in the income distribution to drop out of high school (NCES, 2012; the gap is 15 % less than in 2005). Youth with disabilities are even more likely to drop out, at five times the overall average. Dropout rates also vary across the major ethnic and linguistic groups. Asian Americans have lower status dropout rates than Whites, though not significantly lower. The rate for African Americans is over 50 % higher; for Latinos and Native Americans, two or three times higher (NCES, 2012). Boys are less likely to graduate than girls, and this difference increases within the settings and groups most at risk.

Internationally, the education system varies in regard to requirements, curricula, and resources. Success in school is highly dependent on what the country can afford and on government priorities. Industrialized countries tend to have rates comparable to those in the United States; for example, the Netharlands has a net secondary school enrolment rate of 88 %, the same as the USA (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2012). Many other countries do not have free and widely accessible schooling. In these places, high school attendance may be as low as 5 % of any age group, favoring the (wealthy) boys, especially where the girl’s job in life is to procreate and support family. In the two most populated countries in the world, China and India, high school attendance for girls in rural areas is extremely low—less than 5 %—although educational prospects are far better in the cities (Bhakta, Hackett, & Hackett, 2002; Hu, 2012). In Rwanda, the net secondary school attendance rate is 5 % for both boys and girls (UNICEF, 2012).

Implications

For individuals who do not finish or regularly attend school, there is an expected lower quality of life; nationally, there is lost productivity. Those who finish high school are more likely to get well-paid jobs, to gain higher education of their choice, and to participate in the democratic process (Dowrick & Back, in press). In Norway, high school dropouts have a significantly higher risk of unemployment, and therefore other risks, such as not receiving medical benefits, than those who graduated from high school (De Ridder, Pape, Johnsen, Westin, Holmen, & Bjorngaard, 2012). Those who do finish high school are more likely to be in good health. Whereas the dropout rate has decreased from the levels of 40 years ago, the consequences have increased in that the earning power of educationally unqualified youth has been halved in that time. Youth who drop out have higher rates of unemployment, are at greater risk of drug and alcohol excesses or criminal activity, but are more likely to have been enrolled in adult education and training programs. Youth who drop out spend more time in jail and less time in shopping malls (personal spending is a major factor in economic growth). If a program that costs $825,000 prevents one dropout, it breaks even with the costs to the individual and society (lost wages, public and private benefits). It is estimated that in the United States that the financial costs per high school dropout range from $700,000 to $1,000,000 (Cohen & Piquero, 2009; 2011 dollars). If that would-be dropout were also diverted from becoming a heavy drug user and career criminal, $2,000,000 would be a fair price (based on Cohen, 1998; 2011 dollar equivalents). Consequences of dropout also put significant strain on domestic programs, in addition to individuals and families, thereby costing the nation extensively (Amos, 2008; Cohen & Piquero, 2009).

Theories to Guide Prevention and Practice

Adolescents become truant or likely to drop out when they dislike school, combined with either (a) weak incentives to stay or (b) strong incentives to leave (Dowrick & Crespo, 2005). Many risk and resilience factors contribute to liking or disliking school, and to the incentives to stay or leave. Most published research indicates that combinations of factors, never single factors, are needed for school failure to occur.

Why might youth dislike school? The most important reasons are being academically unsuccessful (Kemp, 2006) and/or experiencing negative social outcomes. The two can overlap because poor grades and repeating classes are damaging when the failure results in shame or separation from a peer group, especially when literacy skills are well below par. For youth in trouble at school, there emerges a vicious cycle, in which the institutional response to an aberrant behavior sets up a negative emotional reaction to create more trouble.

When are there weak incentives to attend school? The value of school seems less important when one’s parents and family members have little education, unless the family is outspoken in promoting more education. Incentives to stay in school are weakened when pupils’ anticipations of the future are bleak or empty (Dowrick, Tallman, & Connor, 2005). Failing and expecting failure are interrelated, as the theory of self-efficacy makes clear (Bandura, 1993). As a consequence, teachers encourage or discourage their students on the basis of their own (i.e., the teachers’) self-belief in working with struggling pupils. Many youth who believe in the value of education find their school incompatible and hostile toward their goals (Dowrick, 2007).

What are the incentives to be somewhere other than school? Peers are a significant influence, as truancy is seldom a solitary activity (Corville-Smith, Ryan, Adams, & Dalicandro, 1998). Sometimes immediate needs or short-term opportunities will tip the balance for students who are discontent (Jordan, Lara, & McPartland, 1996). These opportunities can range from openings to earn just minimum wages in a local retail franchise, to life-changing enticements to sell illicit drugs. For students who drop out because classes are uninteresting or do not offer real-world learning, an education is less important than work experience (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007). Girls may skip school or leave because of pregnancy. Youth in low-income families may feel a responsibility to contribute a regular paycheck to the household. Such is frequently true in low-income communities and among migrant workers.

Individual Factors

There has been considerable research on the factors contributing to dropout. From the individual’s viewpoint, the most general risks posed to succeeding in school are academic performance (poor grades, repeating a grade, low literacy), misconduct and drug use (Dowrick, Leukefeld, & Stodden, 2005), and incompatibility with school (ethnic, linguistic, social; Vitaro, Larocque, Janosz, & Tremblay, 2001). See Table 21.1 for a list of risk and resilience factors believed to have the greatest influence on school success or failure.

Table 21.1 Factors of risk and resiliency in school failure (dropout and truancy)
Full size table

Special populations have additional risk factors. Although disabilities are predictive of school failure, low intelligence measured by IQ is not as predictive as the risks listed above. In the United States, the term “learning disabilities” refers, not to overall cognitive deficits as it does in most other countries, but to an uneven development in which there is a discrepancy between core academics and other areas of performance. There is little evidence that learning disability, on its own, leads to failure in school. Other risk factors—from the individual, family, school, or community—are necessary to act in combination with learning difficulties to produce negative outcomes.

Many studies have examined the large representation of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in the dropout statistics, and have found EBD to be a significant predictor of dropout and truancy in studies of at-risk high school students (e.g., Suh, Suh, & Houston, 2007). Youth with EBD, especially conduct disorders, experience school failure in more ways and more often than students in any other category (Rylance, 1997). Students with EBD also get into more fights in school, a significant predictor of dropout among at-risk youth (Suh et al., 2007). These youth also experience the worst postschool outcomes, such as unemployment, criminal involvement, or family dysfunction. This is true in many countries. For example, a Portuguese study of male offenders who dropped out of school indicated that emotional and behavioral difficulties played a significant role in early school dropout (Saraiva, Pereira, & Zamith-Cruz, 2011).

Research on high school failure in mainstream families also indicates the complexity of contributing factors. For example, in a study of hundreds of “middle class dropouts” by Franklin and Streeter (1995), there were high rates of mental health disorders, substance abuse, family problems, learning disorders, and difficult relationships at school. Involvement with drugs or other delinquency often occurs among truant youth and increases the risk of dropping out of school. Despite debate, recent research illustrates that drug use does contribute independently to dropout, as opposed to simply presenting a symptom of a larger issue. When drug users and non-users are matched on a wide array of characteristics, drug use is associated with dropping out, controlling for all other factors (Gasper, 2011). Similarly, in a study of high school students in Cape Town, South Africa, there was a significant association between methamphetamine use and high school non-attendance, compared to students who were not using substances (Pluddemann, Flisher, McKetin, Parry, & Lombard, 2010).

However, many students experiencing failure do stay in school and “complete.” Results of research in this area are typified in a classic study by Finn and Rock (1997), who studied 1,800 high school students from ethnic minority families in low-income neighborhood friends, systematically sampled from a large number of schools. They measured “school engagement” (i.e., liking school) for students identified as succeeding in school (vs. failing), while eliminating other personal and family differences. They found large, significant differences in the levels of engagement, with evidence for disliking school being a strong predictor of skipping school and/or dropping out. Although school engagement is an arguably multidimensional construct, measures of global engagement (including behavioral, cognitive, and psychosocial aspects of engagement) reliably predict school dropout in longitudinal (e.g., Archambault, Janosz, Fallu, & Pagani, 2009; study in Quebec, Canada).

In many countries, immigrants who speak another language are much more likely to drop out of school. Studies in Canada have found dropout rates up to 75 % for second-language learners, rates correlating inversely and positively with proficiency in the language of instruction (Worrell, 1997).

There is much research reporting on the importance of self-efficacy—belief that one can succeed—and perseverance in the face of adversity. Having a specific positive image of the future may be crucial to remain engaged in a challenging situation (Dowrick, 1999, 2012). For example, Dowrick, Tallman and Connor (2005) found superior outcomes for special needs students when they made videos explicitly of the youths’ future life plans to show what their lives could look like in 5 years’ time. In an extensive review of positive youth development programs, Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, and Hawkins (2002) expressed disappointment that few well-documented interventions addressed the resilience factor of positive futures (although nearly all addressed self-efficacy). The multiple ways in which learning from the future may be emphasized to support success at school (Dowrick & Back, in press) are topics for further research.

Family Factors

The family environment has a considerable influence on academic success. Of the many family factors contributing to risk and resiliency, most are related to the child’s developmental progress and socioeconomic environment. Factors such as social and economic status (SES) and employment status of parents are key to a student’s risk of failure. Children often achieve education equal to that of their parents and siblings. In general, instability in the family environment is a significant risk factor. Adolescents from unstable families are more likely to engage in problem behaviors, including truancy (Fomby & Sennott, 2013). Family stability is important—more important than status. Children of parents who remain unemployed and on welfare are more likely to succeed than children of parents who fluctuate between employment and joblessness. Research on teenagers in foster care indicates a higher than usual rate of personal problems and difficulty in school such as suspension, expulsion, and repeating a grade (e.g., Zima, Bussing, Freeman, Yang, Belin, & Forness, 2000).

Parents’ involvement in their children’s education can have a positive effect. Large data studies have indicated a positive influence of parental involvement on youth staying in school, even when the youth have low academic achievement or are from low-income families (e.g., Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). Boys are likely to get less educational support (than girls) from their parents (Carter & Wojtkiewicz, 2000). Parent involvement and child outcomes are affected by parenting style and by the family’s socioeconomic status. Often parents from foreign or low-SES backgrounds will defer to the teacher’s authority in making decisions regarding their child’s education and avoid advocating for change in the school setting (Fischer & Dowrick, 2003). Children who lack parental involvement from either biological parent have the worst outcomes in terms of dropout (Song, Benin, & Glick, 2012).

Being a teenage mother increases the risk that she will drop out of school. In a recent study of people who dropped out of high school, 25 % of participants cited pregnancy and parenting as the reason they were forced to stop their education (Meeker, Edmonson, & Fisher, 2009). This risk is carried over to the next generation, as children of teenage mothers also perform poorly in school.

However, the level of risk generated by having a child while in high school also depends on the available support system and the mother’s values and academic goals (Stevenson, Maton, & Teti, 1998). If there is family support available to the mother, including some childcare, the mother is more likely to return to school. Success then depends largely on the mother’s previous academic success and educational goals. Children whose mothers gave birth to them as teenagers are more likely to perform poorly on academic tests and to be held back a grade in school. Teenage parenthood is related to factors such as low SES and larger family size, which affect the academic success of children. However, the impact of the risk is only half as great for the child as it is for his or her teenage mother (Levine, Pollack, & Comfort, 2001).

Social and Community Factors

Where a family lives has an influence on risk and resiliency. Neighborhoods with low socioeconomic status are associated with increases in school dropout and truancy. Low-SES areas have limited employment opportunities, high family mobility, and many adults with low educational attainment. Communities in which educational attainment is not valued and consequently not achieved are communities in which school children are more likely to fail (South, Baumer, & Lutz, 2003). The reverse of these factors also promotes resiliency. Community examples of high educational participation and attainment serve as protective factors for youth. Schools that serve these neighborhoods are often fraught with poor teaching and high attrition, leading to students’ feeling detached from school and more attracted to deviant behaviors.

Peer educational behavior has an important influence on academic success. A student whose peers are frequently truant or have already dropped out of school is more likely to participate in the same activities. That is, affiliation with deviant or dropped-out peers has a strong effect, presumably through modeling and engagement in activities incompatible with school-based education. Youth whose peers attend school regularly and graduate are likely to do the same. At-risk Latino students cite peer pressure as a primary reason for dropout (Behnke, Gonzalez, & Cox, 2010). Low social acceptance by peers has been identified as a risk factor in some studies and not in others—it may be a marker of behavior and academic problems or it may be a summary of them.

Conversely, teachers and peers influence resiliency. Teaching can improve achievement when it is culturally relevant and conducted in a way in which students are supported but moderately challenged. Teaching in a culturally relevant way results in a higher level of student engagement in school activities (Nation et al., 2003). Education requires working with, rather than against, cultural norms. Bergeron (2008) stresses the importance of culturally responsive teaching, which encourages the teacher to respond to students in ways consistent with their culture that build and sustain meaningful, positive relationships. Minority students begin school with enthusiasm, but these feelings are often lost early, and by high school it can be too late.

Social and environmental surroundings have a great deal of influence in the risk and resiliency of adolescent school failure. Collective school efficacy (administrators and teachers’ beliefs that they can achieve good academic outcomes) is just as important as the self-beliefs of students (Bandura, 1993). For example, a comparison across 79 elementary schools showed that students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds, based on family income, education, and ethnicity, performed significantly better in schools in which staff reported high levels of belief that they could produce excellent academic standards of student achievement. A study of 522 ethnically diverse, low-income urban youth, indicated that teachers’ high expectations had a generative effect on youth academic outcomes, while teachers’ low expectations had a disruptive effect (Benner & Mistry, 2007). Similarly, in a study of reasons for dropping out, two-thirds of respondents cited low expectations from teachers; slightly more (70 %) said they were confident they could have graduated if more had been demanded of them (Balfanz et al., 2007). The same is true in Britain: many young people who are truant cite poor relationships with teachers, particularly low expectations from those teachers (Attwood & Croll, 2006).

School size can affect the achievement of students. “Optimal” high school size has been found to be dependent on community factors such as SES. Schools in poorer communities benefit from being even smaller than those in more affluent communities. High schools of four grades/years are best limited to 1,000 pupils. In low-SES areas, schools should be even smaller, around 600, to achieve equity in student success (Howley, Strange, & Bickel, 2000). Note that many high schools with significant high school failure problems have 2,000–5,000 students.

Students benefit from having positive relationships with adults in the community, although mentoring alone has demonstrated mixed effects. Youth involved in high-quality, secure relationships are more independent, more persistent and more socially competent (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). In a study in the Netherlands, “mentoring and coaching” was found to have a mixed impact on individual dropout decisions (De Witte & Cabus, 2013). Mentoring can be detrimental to failing students when they are introduced to new peers who are also doing poorly. But mentoring is helpful when it includes positive role modeling, genuine caring, and skill building. Naturally occurring mentoring relationships, for example, with relatives or teachers, are often mentioned by at-risk students as a reason that they succeeded in school. In a study of natural mentoring for urban Latino high school students, the number of reported mentors predicted fewer absences, higher educational expectations, and a greater sense of school belonging for students (Sánchez, Esparza, & Colón, 2008).

Neither schools nor community settings function independently. A study of the Boston Urban Youth Foundation, a community-based afterschool truancy prevention program for urban middle school youth, demonstrates the impact of committed individuals in a community (Rodriguez & Conchas, 2009). The program emphasizes individual case management, mentoring by an adult in the community, academic skill building, a positive peer group, and vision casting of individual goals. Students involved in the program identified four dimensions of the program that influenced their (re)engagement with school: (a) the importance of a space that promotes peer relations, (b) a program incentive structure, (c) social networks, and (d) youth advocacy.

Community members, culture, and schools are all intertwined in adolescents’ educational experience. Communities that provide encouragement and models for school success can influence children to complete high school and contribute to their plans for postsecondary education or employment. Overall the findings remind us of the need for multiple characteristics and events to be present for truancy and dropout to occur, or to be prevented.

Evidence-Based Treatment Interventions in Community Settings

Individualized assistance of some intensity may be necessary for youth most at risk, most difficult to support, who have not dropped out so much as “been dropped,” for example, expelled or placed in a restrictive institution (VanDenBerg & Grealish, 1996). In the early 1990s, MacFarquhar, Dowrick, and Risley (1993) collected data from 15 programs in 12 states through structured interviews with experts in the field. These programs were for the most seriously emotionally disturbed youth, who required multiple agency support and were frequently sent to out-of-state institutions. The average youth had four prior psychiatric hospitalizations and up to 100 % had quit school at least once after extensive truancy, although most were attending an institutionally provided school program. The objectives of these individualized assistance programs are to return the child to his or her home community and a regular public school by providing suitable “wrap-around services.” This level of support is complex and demanding (McGinty, McCammon, & Koeppen, 2001). Hence it is available much less than recommended.

The programs whose staff and administrators were interviewed reported high levels of success. For example, the Alaska Youth Initiative reported all 35 youth placed out of state were returned to community-based living in Alaska in 1991–1992, at one-third the cost of institutional placement. Within 4 years, over 30 of these youth were maintained in the community until they aged out of the child mental health system. Nationwide, 75 % of administrators identified the top factor in success as using either an interagency team or the talent and commitment of staff.

Program leaders concurred in identifying the following 13 key features:

  1. 1.

    Program services are tailored to fit the youth, not the youth fit into the existing services.

  2. 2.

    Services are youth and family centered.

  3. 3.

    Flexible funding to permit flexibility in programming.

  4. 4.

    Programs work under a policy of unconditional care.

  5. 5.

    Collaborative planning and management.

  6. 6.

    Normalization is emphasized throughout all treatment.

  7. 7.

    Use a community-based care approach.

  8. 8.

    Intensive case management.

  9. 9.

    Funding must be extensive enough to provide whatever services are needed for significant effect with an individual.

  10. 10.

    Treatment planning and implementation strive toward less restrictive alternatives.

  11. 11.

    Accountability.

  12. 12.

    Services based on appropriate outcome data.

  13. 13.

    Specifically trained and supported staff.

Evidence-Based Treatment Interventions in Residential Settings

A completely different approach is the use of alternative schools (which may or may not be residential) provided in about 40 % of school districts, often presented as a last chance before being expelled (NCES, 2002). Some students become less “at risk,” but many do not return to their home schools, let alone finish. Losing the gains on returning to the home school occurs thanks to a lack of effort to transfer the new skills to the home environment, and the likelihood of negative peer influence.

By contrast, some minority groups do well in alternative settings (Nyberg, McMillin, O’Neill-Rood, & Florence, 1997). For children of migrant farm workers (Latinos), the US Department of Education had a residential program that was once popular and effective (Martinez & Cranston-Gingras, 1996). This program was essentially a boarding school offering strong support in bilingual education. Given that it was government sponsored and the population has unique features (extreme transience, in particular), it seems difficult to generalize its success to other settings.

One form of alternative schools, used internationally, emphasizes career and technical skills, often called Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs in the United States. Because traditional high school curricula were developed with very specific goals, often leading to university-level education, CTE programs offer alternative courses and qualifications to enable students with differing goals to participate in high school courses and graduate with a useful qualification. In general, those countries with higher graduation rates (e.g., Germany, Sweden, Austria) also have higher rates of CTE program graduates. The converse is true in countries with lower graduation rates, such as Italy and Spain (Lamb, 2011).

Psychopharmacology

Some medications are widely used for mental health disorders that interfere with succeeding in school. For example, amphetamines (such as methylphenidate/Ritalin) are widely used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; fluoxetine/Prozac is used for teenage depression; risperidone/Risperdol for conduct disorder. Adolescent disorders amenable to psychopharmacology are not listed among the main predictors of school failure, with the exception of conduct disorder. In our review of the literature, we could find no systematic attempts to incorporate medications into treatment programs for dropout or truancy.

The Prevention of School Failure

What Works

There are a number of recent reviews of prevention programs that bear on this topic. For example, Wilson, Lipsey, Tanner-Smith, Huang, and Steinka-Fry (2011) conducted a meta-analysis, including 548 reports describing 167 studies, of prevention and intervention programs aimed at primary and secondary students for increasing school completion or reducing dropout. Catalano et al. (2002), with support from a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant and a number of notable consultants, reviewed 77 “positive youth development” programs with published field research. They identified 25 programs that met standards for high-quality evaluation research with adequate size and design, outcomes statistically reckoned to be effective in comparison conditions. Other reviews related to the prevention of school failure include those by Klima, Miller, and Nunlist (2009), ICF International and National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (2008), Hammond, Linton, Smink, and Drew (2007), Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, and Christenson (2003), Prevatt and Kelly (2003), South et al. (2003), Baker, Derrer, Davis, Dinklage-Travis, Linder, and Nicholson (2001), Hatch (2000), Goldschmidt and Wang (1999), Orthner and Randolph (1999), and reviews by Greenberg et al. (2003) and Nation et al. (2003). In taking a close look at the original prevention studies, only a handful report findings in terms of dropout data (and only one with truancy data; Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995, for Big Brothers Big Sisters).

It is notable that no prevention program with dropout data has been thoroughly evaluated three times in experimental designs with published replications. However, some interventions such as the Valued Youth project have one solid evaluation reported, with additional claims of replications and “comparable evaluations” that are not published. Other interventions, such as the Seattle Social Development Project (O’Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, & Day, 1995), have been replicated with promising data related to school success, such as better educational attainment, mental health, and sexual health (Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill, & Abbott, 2008)—but not specifically dropout. According to Wilson and colleagues (2011), dropout prevention and intervention programs, regardless of type, are likely to be effective if they are implemented well and are appropriate for the local environment. Our analysis is that effective programs to improve attendance and staying in school, as supported by data, include at least five of the seven design features listed below. That is, if programs are defined by their characteristics, not by their labels, then we can identify replications of effective programs.

Characteristics that work.

  1. 1.

    Instruction in academics and other learning with high-quality individualized mentoring.

  2. 2.

    Activities valued by youth, indicating positive futures.

  3. 3.

    Additional resources with dollars and community connections.

  4. 4.

    Family involvement, plus cultural respect and adaptations.

  5. 5.

    School-wide policies and emphasis on subsets of local risk and resilience factors, promoting high expectations and appropriate support.

  6. 6.

    Strategies based on theory and best practices, in which implementation is sustained and data driven, with fidelity.

  7. 7.

    Youth choices and self-determination.

The effective programs, with above characteristics, are comprehensive in two ways. First, they systematically include most if not all the possible constituents. That is, programs in some way include (1) the school (policy, structure, administrators); (2) the classroom (teachers, aides, curriculum); (3) the family; (4) the community (agencies, businesses); and (5) students and their peers. Secondly, effective programs are customized to the individuals and the settings. That is achieved by another list of five must considerations: (1) cultural differences and cultural enhancements; (2) social, emotional, and physical climate, and “personal value”; (3) creating futures and self-efficacy; (4) finances, resources, and opportunities; and (5) standards, performance, and accountability. These strategies are not distinct from a school’s institutional mission; rather, these strategies facilitate a collaborative, supportive school culture that prevents problems, promotes strengths, and provides equal opportunities for success (Center for Mental Health in Schools (CMHS) at UCLA, 2010). See Table 21.2 for the application of these findings as a means to develop local best practices.

Table 21.2 A matrix for the development of best practices in the prevention of school failure and the promotion of success
Full size table

Published reviews and specific studies contribute to these findings. Gottfredson (2001) indicates that multilevel studies show student outcomes are up to 35 % better on the basis of a school effect; that is, school effects often swamp intervention effects, with implications for improving school organization and management, perhaps even before considering special programs for youth. Jordan and Nettles (2000) studied out-of-school effects. They found a positive effect (in 10th–12th grade) from structured time with adults, and a negative effect from “hanging out” with peers. Effectiveness requires intensive or sustained programming. Interventions to address even highly specific risk factors are ineffective if they are 10 h or less (Tobler, 2000). We have found 40 h, with the willingness to provide twice that, is necessary to take many students out of the at-risk category (Dowrick & Yuen, 2006).

In a specific intervention evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP), Hahn, Leavitt, and Aaron (1994) tracked randomly selected youth going into ninth grade from (primarily) single-parent, minority families on welfare. The program included peer tutoring, computer-assisted instruction, service/job opportunities, mentoring and family skills, and futures planning. Four years later, 63 % of the QOP youth graduated versus 42 % of the control group; the QOP youth earned five times as many awards, and the following year two and a half times as many went to college. Other programs with similar elements have had comparable results. For example, Graber, Amuge, Rush, and Crichlow (1995) reduced dropout from 33 to 15 %. While these programs do not have replications to qualify as “proven,” collectively they contribute by their overlapping findings to the general model of what works presented here.

Numerous reports on programs for students with disabilities, with some consistency, identify the most effective strategies to be curriculum options (vocational training, internships), other school organization (e.g., class size), and family participation (e.g., Stodden, Dowrick, Gilmore, & Galloway, 2003). Parent involvement is effective when there are specific roles such as paid aide positions, voting membership of committees, or bringing cultural expertise to the classroom. These responsibilities require support and training to be effective. Youth at risk can develop educational roles that eventually serve themselves and others. For example, students who lack literacy development can develop their own skills in reading while becoming peer coaches for other students (Dowrick & Yuen, 2006).

Hundreds of programs related to the prevention of school failure have been developed, demonstrated, and either shelved or replicated without data or comparison conditions. Very few have been adequately documented to meet the “what works” criterion of this book. However, the following four programs have many of the key elements noted at the beginning of this section and in Table 21.2.

The Teen Outreach (TO) program, implemented multiple times in the past decade, has been consistently found to reduce school failure (and pregnancies) in high school (e.g., Allen & Philliber, 2001). It is designed with an emphasis on reducing (unwanted) pregnancies while keeping at-risk youth at school, so it is interesting that pregnancy and academic failure are not directly addressed in the content of the program. Activities include volunteering (at least 20 h), from peer tutoring to working as hospital aides; classroom small group discussion on topics selected to be of interest to teenagers. The study by Allen and Philliber included about 3,200 participants, half of them “no treatment” controls. Teen Outreach participants were self-selected, and the control group was partly matched through nominations. Teen Outreach discussion groups were held in health or social studies classes, or after school. The authors claimed strong program effects on pregnancy, course failure, and suspensions. As noted, these outcomes are highly predictive of reducing school failure; unfortunately, dropout and attendance were not directly reported.

The Valued Youth Program has been implemented extensively with indications of considerable effects on dropout, especially among Latino youth with English as a second language. While the designers of the program identified 12–15 “critical elements” from the literature (Montecel, Supik, & Montemayor, 1994), the main feature is to train middle school youth with high risk factors (including poor reading levels) to become reading tutors for elementary school students. The program also fosters school-business relationships to provide financial support. Note that the evaluations appear to be self-published and that the early implementations (1984–1988) and evaluations were sponsored by Coca Cola. Montecel et al. (1994) describe a study from the late 1980s that included approximately 200 youth, half of whom were assigned to a no-treatment control condition. (It is not clear if they were truly randomly selected, or just from two different school districts.) The youth assigned to be tutors were active for 2 years, sustaining 1 % dropout, compared with 12 % in the control group. Tutors received pay (minimum wage), training, field trips, and public recognition for their “valued” contribution. The authors claim to have carried out comparable evaluations in numerous replications in multiple states.

A program to improve school climate by affecting adult-student relationships is Check and Connect (Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998). It features dropout prevention through mentoring, monitoring, and building effective transitions from middle to high school. It is “proven” in the sense that it and a number of other programs with similar features have been evaluated, producing good outcomes by lowering dropout rates and risk factors associated with learning disabilities and EBD. Overall, the procedures were shaped by the collaboration of school personnel, and family and other community members, including university researchers and the pupils.

There are five features of note. First, adults with good cooperative skills are assigned as mentors or monitors for 25 students each. Secondly, the mentors check on the status of risk factors (attendance, conduct, academics) known to affect engagement with school. Thirdly, the mentors provide regular support for all students by means of feedback on progress and encouragement to stay in school. They also provide structured training in problem-solving for risk situations (e.g., tardiness). Fourthly, in situations where the monitoring indicates elevated risk, the students are provided with additional intensive problem-solving, including parent participation—on the basis of which they can receive specific academic support, or recreational or community opportunities. For example, tutoring could be arranged, if classes were being avoided because of difficult content. Finally, the system is initiated in seventh grade and continued in eighth grade on to high school (ninth grade).

The results typical of this type of program indicate significantly positive outcomes for attendance and assignment completion, with modest effects on grades, conduct, and self-reported attitude toward school. Thus, such programs are helpful but by no means the entire answer.

One program to improve school outcomes with an academic overhaul, and also addresses some specific risk factors, is the Seattle Social Development Project. It has been well evaluated, beginning with young children and extended to all ages. It is a multiyear program addressing schools and families in low-income communities. Compared with controls, children in a 6-year evaluation showed greater school commitment and class participation; girls experimented less with drugs; boys improved their school work and social skills (O’Donnell et al., 1995). In a follow-up nonrandomized controlled trial of participants versus non-participants at 24 and 27 years old, researchers found significantly better educational attainment, mental health, and sexual health (Hawkins et al., 2008).

The program is designed to decrease risk factors on academic failure, low commitment to school, early conduct disorders, family management problems, and involvement with antisocial peers. It is also designed to improve resilience factors: positive social bonds to school and family, through active involvement; belief in family and school values, through consistent reinforcement.

The program has recently been extended into middle and high schools. Teachers are trained in proactive classroom management, interactive teaching, cooperative learning, and problem-solving. This approach improves predictability of teacher–student interactions and increases the amount of praise, modeling, and appropriate student involvement. Youth are provided individual social skills interventions. Parents are offered skills training related to behavior, drugs, and homework. Overall results have been positive, if moderate, with respect to dropout per se. Teachers improved their skills. Some of the children at risk benefitted academically, and some reduced their risky behavior (e.g., drug involvement).

A program designed to improve school climate and academic outcomes by addressing some specific risk factors is Take Stock in Children (Clark, Shreve, & Stone, 2004). For Florida’s at-risk children, this program seeks to address poverty, delinquency, violence, gang activity, and ultimately educational failure. Each student is assigned a volunteer adult mentor for middle and high school, as well as an advocate/case manager to monitor academic progress. Both mentors and advocates/case managers provide individualized academic and behavioral support and motivation. Parents of students who participate in this program must develop relationships with teachers, mentors, and school administrators, and play an active role in the education of their children. Of 17,000 students who have participated in this program, 92 % have graduated from high school. Program participants have a high school graduation rate 21 % higher than Florida’s average, and 61 % higher than their at-risk peer group (Clark et al., 2004).

Another program used to improve school climate and address other risk factors is Safe Measures. A student-led action research process enables students and teachers to work together to combat bullying, and improve school safety and learning environments. Students and teachers collect and analyze data, reflect, and develop and implement solutions to problems. The Safe Measures programmers indicate that improving schools through collaborative research is effective in lowering dropout rates, reducing bullying, improving safety, preventing violence, and improving educational practices. Achievement test scores have been indirectly improved in at least some (c. 10 %) of the struggling schools that have used this program (National Dropout Prevention Center, 2012).

Smaller learning communities in schools. High school size of 600–1,000 pupils correlates with the lowest rates of dropout (Howley et al., 2000). Given that many high schools now have enrollments of 1,500–5,000, the US Department of Education has called for initiatives to restructure these large schools with freshman academies, career tracks, block scheduling, etc., to reduce the negative effects of size. While this type of intervention is not a program per se, it incorporates most of the seven characteristics that work at a practical level. Evaluations have not been done with experimental designs, but through grant reporting and site reviews. The Department of Education describes “buy in” from all constituents involved in any kind of school reform; that is, the objectives and the spirit of the school reform must be understood and endorsed by the school administrators, teachers, students, families, and local community agencies (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004).

What Might Work

This book provides testimony to the number of prevention programs for issues likely to affect school performance (e.g., drug abuse, unwanted pregnancy). Many such programs appear to have an impact on school attendance and performance, but without quantifying dropout and truancy outcomes. Thus they can provide information on promising but unproven interventions for school failure or success. Promising practices may also be found in programs in elementary schools, given that school failure is a cumulative process almost always with its roots in the early grades. Such programs include First Step to Success (Walker et al., 2009) and Effective Behavior Supports (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998), which are aimed at early intervention with childhood aggression in schools, thus improving the school climate and academic success of all students. Additional clues for improving interventions to prevent or treat school failure include:

  1. 1.

    Small programs may be twice as effective as large ones (Tobler, 2000).

  2. 2.

    Intervening early is frequently advocated, as it is more efficient to address risk factors before several accumulate (e.g., Suh & Suh, 2007). For example, teaching literacy should be implemented before a child starts to fail at other subjects (Dowrick, Power, Manz, Ginsburg-Block, Leff, & Kim-Rupnow, 2001). For teenagers at risk, many of whom read below fifth-grade level, it is never too early and never too late to help.

  3. 3.

    Peers may be better teachers than teachers, for social and emotional learning programs (Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998). Youth can develop educational roles that eventually serve themselves and others. For example, students who serve as tutors for younger or less capable students gain leadership and skills in the subject matter (e.g., literacy; Dowrick & Yuen, 2006).

  4. 4.

    Expand the use of school locations: Schools have the potential to become community learning centers, in which outside organizations can provide on-campus support and expertise in prevention programs. A well-evaluated British project for school-based family social services has demonstrated a 50 % reduction in truancy (Pritchard & Williams, 2001). Some Native Hawaiian schools have impressive retention of at-risk students by using hula kahiko (ancient dance) and war’a (ocean-going canoes) to teach sustainability and sailing, with science, mathematics, and history curricula (Kahapea, McCulloch, Kaai, & Dowrick, 2004). A longitudinal study of involvement in afterschool programs in Los Angeles found significantly lower dropout rates compared with those who did not participate (Huang, Kim, Cho, Marshall, & Perez, 2011).

  5. 5.

    Social skills training is widely used, with much justification but modest outcomes. Generalization is notoriously poor for social skills learned by role play in school settings; applications in daily life, as with cross-age mentoring, and digital technology to provide feedforward of these skills give promising results (e.g., Embry & Biglan, 2008).

  6. 6.

    Special populations (e.g., ethnic minorities) may benefit more than others from an interactive approach that sets high expectations (Nyberg et al., 1997).

  7. 7.

    Effective Transition Programming includes school retention with the attainment of a suitable exit qualification along the way. For example, Video-Based Futures Planning is a program shown to work in terms of participant enjoyment and positive individual outcomes (Dowrick, Tallman & Connor, 2005). In this program, the student collaborates with peers, families, and outside agencies to develop scenarios of him or her as a 22-year-old. These scenes are then created in video form, starring the student. These “video futures” then guide educational planning.

There are a number of straightforward approaches that should not be overlooked in the prevention of truancy. Examples include simple incentives (contingency management) and group counseling (Brooks, 2001), teachers’ showing interest and empathy in students’ lives, asking families to take an interest (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005) and rapidly reporting absences directly to parents (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002).

Promising strategies are similar internationally, except where the issues are strikingly different. For example, in one part of Namibia the goal is to ensure that children stay in school at least 3 years and learn basic reading skills. Here they use a community-responsive approach to reduce discrimination by teachers and to accommodate the local language and culture (Pfaffe, 1995). In the Netherlands, a recent policy increased the compulsory education age as a straightforward way to prevent students from leaving school early. Results demonstrate a reduction in dropout by 2.5 % (Cabus & De Witte, 2011).

What Does Not Work

In the United States, and other countries where 85 % of the population spends approximately 12 productive years in school, there is little evidence that small-scale or unitary approaches have much promise for preventing students from leaving school (Adelman & Taylor, 2007). For example, providing additional academic support for failing students will have little effect on dropout if other risk factors are not addressed. This situation is amply illustrated in a report by Hamovitch (1999). He describes a failed “afterschool compensatory” program for low-income African American students, attributing the failure to the emphasis on tutorials after school (more of the school day), without reflecting local culture and needs. Despite recommendations based on previous research for systemic, embedded school climate change, many schools still struggle: dropout policies are often fragmented (CMHS, 2010). In the United States, there has been reported evidence that supplemental education must look and feel different from class-as-usual (Dowrick, 2007; Rao, Dowrick, Yuen, & Boisvert, 2009). An ignorance of culture or context can make implementing an empirically supported prevention intervention extremely difficult or impossible.

Attempts to address drugs and violence also have weak possibilities of preventing dropping out of school, although many of the positive youth development programs reviewed by Catalano et al. (2002) included reductions in alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana as part of their goals. These issues are tough to address, and programs have struggled to show an impact when linked to school difficulties (Dowrick, Leukefeld & Stodden, 2005).

Currently fashionable approaches of “zero tolerance” and adjudication do not work, whether for the youth or their parents. The US rate of youth incarceration is dismally the greatest among developed nations: five times greater than the next two highest (South Africa and New Zealand), and 3,000 times greater than Japan(!)—see Mendel (2011). The state of Missouri has shown promise by reducing the 3-year recidivism rate to 16 %, about one-third the national average, using small treatment-oriented facilities, but we have had difficulty locating studies of effective impact on success either in correctional education or on returning to a community school.

Recommendations

Prevention and intervention strategies to reduce school failure must improve pupils’ appreciation of school (how much they like school), and concurrently increase the incentives to stay and/or decrease the incentives to leave. That can be achieved by a comprehensive approach that includes consideration of:

  1. 1.

    Culture

  2. 2.

    School climate

  3. 3.

    Community/neighborhood context

  4. 4.

    Self-efficacy

  5. 5.

    Adding resources

  6. 6.

    Performance

At the same time, consideration is given to all constituents: students, the school, teachers, family, and the community. Table 21.2 provides the highlights of our recommendations for practice. It provides a school community with a simple tool to develop as comprehensive or as focused an approach to promoting school success as desired. As indicated, a school-based team would use the matrix annually to revise its goals and to plan what programs would meet those goals. The row and column headings, and the other considerations, are intended to ensure that the main elements from proven and promising practices are included in the plan. Although the matrix has 25 elements, in practice only, say, about half would need objectives/activities; just five, marked with an asterisk, are essential.

We recommend putting local effort into the following:

  • Adequate assessment of where individual schools are in terms of criteria 1–5 above, and where the priorities and current resources are, to take appropriate action. If school climate is good, but the outcomes (e.g., grades, competitions) are poor, then that suggests refocusing on new objectives of performance. If the school is succeeding, then there may be personal life problems to be addressed.

  • More data on what works and what does not. A number of programs are widely implemented but lack adequate data. There has been too little research that really addresses the causal relationships between efforts for improvement and the outcomes.

  • Redistribute money and resources into at-risk communities. In a study of policy and school structure, Fitzpatrick and Yoels (1992) found spending per pupil to have the greatest effect of all factors on staying in school.

  • Recognition that different programs for at-risk children and youth have considerable overlap. The chapters of this book provide the basis for a synthesis of programs, addressing such issues as drug abuse, delinquency, violence, and teen pregnancy, with those for school dropout and truancy. Eighty percent of prevention programs for personal or community issues in adolescence (drugs, etc.) have a major school-based component (Catalano et al., 2002).

  • A huge effort in the United States in the last 15 years has gone into addressing dropout and related issues for students with disabilities, and the analysis of findings has remarkably little overlap with the recommendations from general education. The field would benefit from a synthesis here, too.

  • Recognition that much of creating a good school is basic: a healthy environment and effective teaching. There have been big strides in knowledge of what makes an effective curriculum (design and expectations), how it is taught, and school-wide reform that could be more consistently and conscientiously applied.

Some major changes could be made with the stroke of a legislator’s pen or an executive action by a school district. These changes include:

  • Building smaller high schools. If it is more expensive to build three campuses for 900 students than to maintain one campus for 2,700, it would be money well spent. There is growing advocacy to replace the separate levels of schools, which breed transition and school size problems, with K-12 schools (Howley et al., 2000).

  • Change the hours of the school day to begin at 9:00 am and end at 3:30 pm, with universally available after-school sports practices and other activities. Most juvenile crime, pregnancies, and other risky behavior occur between 2:30 pm and dinner time.

  • Make “Prevention of School Failure and the Promotion of Success” an ongoing effort with emphasis on applying currently proven or promising strategies with integrity. Prevention programs will not be successful as magic bullets, but must become a way of doing business.

There are considerable international differences in how “dropout” is perceived and valued. There are also differences in approach. Broadly speaking, (a) in the Americas most effort has gone into academics, vocational preparation, and cooperative behavior of students. In (b) Europe there has been more emphasis on attitudes and friendships. In (c) Asia and Africa the most effort has been in creating opportunities socially and institutionally to attend school. These differences may then be characterized as (a) succeeding in schoolwork, (b) enjoying school, and (c) school availability/access. In any school system, all three considerations are essential, with emphasis depending on the local or national situation.