School Dropout Issues

Abstract

In the twenty-first century brain-based economy, where academic skills are valued, increasing the graduation rate has become a top policy issue among educators. High dropout rates are associated with systemic issues such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Dropout programs address various risk factors associated with dropping out of high school. Dropout programs may include add-on programs such as after-school programs or may attempt to get at deeper roots of the issue through systemic reforms.

Overview

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the high school dropout rate in the United States was estimated to be hovering around 90 percent (Schargel & Smink, 2016, p. 4). In 1983, A Nation at Risk, a report from The National Commission on Excellence in Education, was published. The authors called for education reform in America, stating that it would be impossible for the United States to continue to be economically competitive in a rapidly advancing and changing world. The report called for immediate action—raising student achievement and high school graduation rates through state and federal reforms. Between the turn of the century and A Nation at Risk, the United States economy had become more "brain-based," requiring increased levels of education in the workforce. The use of technology has skyrocketed, and thus, graduating with a high school diploma is a minimum requirement for most jobs in the twenty-first century.

The National Center for Education Statistics approximates that the status dropout rate—the percentage of sixteen through twenty-four-year-olds who were not enrolled in school and who had not earned a high school diploma or equivalency credential—declined from 7.4 percent in 2010 to 5.3 percent in 2020, a historically low rate (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Other estimates vary. However, researchers and policymakers insist that even the best picture displays a dropout rate much too high for an industrialized nation like the United States. In 2020, two million individuals were estimated to be in dropout status. Additionally, 7 percent of Whites, 14.5 percent of Blacks, 9.7 percent of Asians, and 7.6 percent of Hispanics were neither participating in the workforce, nor in school (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023).

Experts have varying opinions on the exact causes behind increased national graduation rates overall. Some attributed the higher percentages of graduating students to the strict accountability stipulations of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed in 2001, while others argued that Barack Obama's administration's focus on aiding struggling schools (including administering waivers for meeting certain NCLB requirements) and the passage of legislation, such as the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, could be responsible. Still, others noted that while the national numbers may have increased, gaps still existed in dropout and graduation rates between states ("Graduation rates rise for all," 2017).

Negative Effects of Dropping Out. Imed Bouchrika (2023) listed several problems and conditions associated with dropping out of high school. High school graduates earn $162 more weekly than dropouts and are much more likely to experience unemployment. Additionally, among dropouts in 2021,

• 56.8 percent smoked cigarettes
• 41.6 percent drank alcohol
• 32.3 percent binged alcohol
• 31.4 percent used illicit drugs

Seventy-three percent of state prison inmates and 59 percent of federal inmates are high school dropouts (Harlow, 2003). Furthermore, only 60 percent of those who drop out are employed within one year of leaving school (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1991). In 2001, only 55 percent of dropouts reported being employed, while high school and college graduates reported a 74 percent and 87 percent employment rate, respectively (Sum, 2002). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between October 2015 and October 2016, the unemployment rate for high school dropouts was 31.9 percent, while those who had graduated with a high school diploma and were not enrolled in college reported a jobless rate of 19.3 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017).

These statistics have a ripple effect that influences more than the individual. Levin (2007), an economist, used economic analysis to estimate the gains of dropout prevention. He hypothesized, using very conservative estimates, that if the United States were to spend $82,000 on each student through successful intervention programs that increased the graduation rate, every individual who graduated would contribute $209,000 in additional tax revenues, and lower their need for health care, social welfare, and the justice system by $70,000 over the course of their lifetime. Levin's analysis was still relevant in the 2020s, as the dropout cost to the US economy climbed to an estimated $272,000 based on tax contributions, and increased reliance on Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare (Bouchrika, 2023). Once dropouts do enter the workforce, they typically earn much less than an individual who has a high school diploma. The unemployment rate for dropouts in 2022 was around 18.5 percent. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2021, a high school dropout's median weekly earning was $626, while an individual with a high school diploma's median weekly earning was $809 ("Education pays," 2022).

Reasons for Dropping Out. Students who drop out do so for a variety of reasons. The 1960 Project Talent Survey (Combs & Cooley, 1968, as cited by Roderick, 1993) found that dropouts had lower levels of measured achievement, lower levels of aspirations when questioned about job or work prospects, had more negative attitudes towards school, lower self-esteem, and lower participation rates in school sponsored activities than those individuals who graduated high school. Similarly, the Youth in Transition Survey (Bachman et al., 1971, as cited by Roderick, 1993) surveyed sophomores that dropped out compared to those who did not. The study found significant differences between the groups in academic achievement, participation in extracurricular activities, and attitudes towards school and learning. They additionally found that youths who had repeated grades prior to high school were up to 40 to 50 percent more likely to drop out, and the likelihood of dropping out soared to 90 percent when students repeated two or more grades. Similarly, the High School & Beyond survey data found that the more difficulties youth have in school, the more likely they are to drop out (Roderick, 1993). This remained true through the twenty-first century, as students who could not read well by the third grade were found to be more likely to drop out of school than their peers. Additionally, those who missed too many school days, desired to obtain an educational diploma, or were failing a class were the most common school-related reasons for dropping out in 2021 (Bouchrika, 2023).

Socioeconomic status has continually had a large impact on an individual's likelihood of dropping out of school. One study found that students from low-income families were nearly three times more likely to drop out of school than their more affluent peers (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1993). In 1997, the Department of Education reported that students from families in the lowest 20 percent of the income bracket were seven times more likely to drop out than those from families in the highest 20 percent (Schargel & Smink, 2016). In 2014, students aged fifteen to twenty-four from low-income families dropped out of school at a rate of 9.4 percent, while those from high-income families dropped out at a rate of 2.6 percent (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). In the 2020s, family related reasons such as having to stay home to take care of a family member, having to work to support the family, or becoming pregnant were still prevalent reasons for dropping out. These reasons are directly linked to family income (Bouchrika, 2023).

In 2011, over 40 million Americans had never graduated from high school, and most dropouts were Hispanics and Blacks (Sanchez & Wertheimer, 2011). By 2019, the status dropout rate was 9.6 percent for American Indian/Alaska Natives, 8 percent for Pacific Islanders, 7.7 percent for Hispanics, 5.6 percent for Blacks, 5.1 percent for those who self-identified as more than one race, 4.1 percent for Whites, and 1.8 percent for Asians. A 2019 study found evidence that part of the reason for the existence of this difference between ethnic groups could be the prevalence of White teachers, who minority students fail to connect with (Bouchrika, 2023).

Decreasing the Dropout Rate. Starting in the 1980s, a variety of state and federal programs surfaced and aimed to decrease the high school dropout rate. The most common programs were add-on programs such as preschools, pilot programs such as full-service schools, and programs promoting an increase in testing (Schargel & Smink, 2016). These types of programs had various rates of success. However, the high school dropout problem did not seem to be changing. If anything, according to many researchers, the problem was becoming more and more prevalent, especially among the poor or disadvantaged (Orfield, 2004). However, between 2010 and 2019, the retention rate of high school students increased consistently, and by 2021, the rate was around 5 percent, considering all students (Bouchrika, 2023).

There are other factors linked to dropout rates, including socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity, and the conditions of a school and how a student feels about his or her teachers and administrators. Experts have found that predicting dropout is no easy task. However, Bouchrika (2023) reported that, while only 3 percent of high-income students drop out, 11 percent of low-income students drop out of school.

Further Insights

Calculating & Defining "Dropout." The actual high school dropout rate in the United States is uncertain because there is no single accepted definition of the term. Dropout rates are calculated in various ways. This discussion will include how the term "dropout" is defined and calculated by four different organizations, the Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau, and the Cumulative Promotion Index., as well as the strengths and weaknesses of reporting data using these methods.

Department of Education Calculations. According to Schargel and Smink (2016), the Department of Education defines dropout rates four different ways:

• Event,
• Status,
• Cohort, and
• High school completion.

Event dropout is calculated by the percentage of students who leave high school, even if they receive a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) later. Status dropout rate is calculated within a specific age range. For example, a status dropout rate might be recorded as, "On January 1, 2007, fifteen percent of all students ages sixteen through twenty-four were either not enrolled or had not completed high school." A cohort rate is calculated when the same group of students is followed over time, such as, "In the 1997 cohort, 85 percent of students graduated high school." Finally, the Department of Education calculates high school completion rate as the proportion of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds who have completed high school, or received a GED (Schargel & Smink, 2016).

While the Department of Education gathers dropout data, there is no federal supervision of data reporting. Orfield (2004) cautions that much of the available graduation data is grossly misrepresented and inaccurate due to the vagueness of the definitions, as well as the lack of oversight in enforcing the accuracy of reporting.

NCES Criteria. The National Center for Education Statistics defines a dropout through the following criteria:

• The individual was enrolled in school during the previous school year, but was not enrolled by October 1 of the current school year, and was expected to be;
• The individual did not graduate high school or complete a GED;
• The individual did not transfer, was not ill, and was not deceased.

Many states use these criteria to define a dropout and calculate graduation data. However, Orfield (2004) points out that this formula "relies heavily on underestimated dropout data, and significantly overestimates graduation rates compared to other methods" (p. 8). For example, schools may report students who dropout as transfers instead, or fail to count students who are over the age required to attend school as dropouts, even if they never graduated. Furthermore, the NCES data is often incomplete because they only represent certain districts—they do not take samples in every school district nationwide.

Cumulative Promotion Index. The Cumulative Promotion Index uses statistical averages of groups who matriculate year to year. This method tracks students year to year so that students cannot get lost in the shuffle; however, it is still not a 100 percent perfect measure of dropout rates.

Dropout Prevention Strategies. Dropout programs may target students of lower socioeconomic background. Less affluent students are more likely to have parents who have completed high school and have decreased parent supervision. It is also known that youth from single-parent families are much more likely to drop out of school (Roderick, 1993), and that divorce is a huge contributor to a decrease in wealth. Schargel & Smink (2016) report that the single-parent family is the fastest growing class of family group, and the largest population living in poverty in the United States is children. Schools and add-on programs may focus on improving the lives of economically disadvantaged youth through services such as tutoring, mentoring, or counseling.

Studies of mentoring programs such as Big Brother/Big Sister show that successful mentoring leads to decreased drug and alcohol use, improvement in grades, and a decrease in skipping classes, as well as reporting fewer behavioral problems in school (Schargel & Smink, 2016). Additionally, other programs address other issues that plague many low-income families: lack of supervision, lack of family involvement, school preparation, and violence. Family-outreach programs have played an important role in many initiatives. Studies show that parent and family involvement in education has a direct effect on achievement, which is related to the likelihood a student will drop out. These types of programs attempt to reach out to families and connect them more closely to the schools (Schargel & Smink, 2016).

Other strategies for preventing dropout have focused on early childhood education programs such as Head Start or preschool. One of the best-known studies on early childhood programs is the Perry Preschool Project, in which high-risk black preschool students were divided into two groups: "preschool" and "no preschool." Follow-up studies at various ages showed the "preschool" group had higher graduation rates, in addition to other positive outcomes (Weikart, Bond, & McNeil, 1978).

Disadvantaged families may also face issues in the communities. Thus, other initiatives may target issues in a neighborhood, such as decreasing violence, or teaching conflict resolution. Students who are afraid to go to school or attend schools where they do not feel safe are much more likely to drop out before graduation (Bryk & Thum, 1989). Programs that target disadvantaged students often combine a variety of the tactics discussed.

Race & Ethnicity.

Growing diversity comes hand in hand with an increased number of students speaking a variety of languages. Studies have found that students who have limited proficiency in English are more likely to drop out, with minority groups having the highest rate of limited English speakers. However, there is an important distinction: Roderick (1993) cites research that has shown coming from a non-English speaking home is not a factor in increasing dropout rates—the youth's own proficiency at English is. Furthermore, most variations in dropout rate across various ethnic groups can be attributed to socioeconomic status. Between 2010 and 2019, the only group that did not experience a decrease in dropout rates was Pacific Islanders, which remained at 9.6 percent or nearly double the average. Despite the increase in high school graduates among other minority groups, these students were much more likely to lack resources and advantages that encourage academic success (Bouchrika, 2023).

School Characteristics. The organizational structure and characteristics of schools also have an impact on the dropout rate. In short, the environment matters. Research has found that schools have lower dropout rates when the students report feeling safe and feel the teachers and administrators are committed to their well-being (Schargel & Smink, 2016).

Schargel & Smink (2016) report that schools that track students are more likely to have higher rates of dropouts. Tracking entails placing students in groups based on their ability to do the work, as determined by testing or other procedures. Tracking is common in many schools across the country, and the tactics vary, but many schools who track find that students are racially divided into tracks, with minority students more likely to be placed in tracks such as remedial or special education. Furthermore, minority students who are just as talented academically are much more likely to end up in lower-level courses and tracks than their white peers (Burris & Welner, 2005). Schools that teach students from a wide variety of backgrounds—socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and a variety of levels of academic courses experience higher dropout rates. This may be due to the concentration of resources towards the most capable group, and tracking systems that tend to be present in larger schools (Bryk & Thum, 1989).

Another factor to consider is how schools are organized. One of the most crucial transition periods for students regarding dropping out is the transition to high school from middle school. In a study of Maryland public schools, Kerr & Letger (2004) found that schools that focus on easing the transition to high school using tactics such as creating small learning communities and interdisciplinary teaming (teaming teachers across different disciplines to teach the same students) had a positive effect on reducing dropouts in high poverty areas.

Investing in teachers may be another effective method in reducing the number of dropouts. Research shows that dropping out is related to low academic performance. Of all the ingredients needed for academic success, studies have unequivocally shown that teacher quality is the single most important predictor for student success (Darling-Hammond, 1998). High quality teaching can bridge the gap between issues such as wealth and poverty or lessen the impact of other such risk factors. Thus, investing in the professional development and retention of quality teachers has been identified as one way to correct the dropout problem.

Viewpoints

Dropout Program Options. Preventing dropout has been a significant education policy issue. There are many strategies and programs aimed at dropout prevention. These programs may include initiatives directed at improving the family and school connection, child-directed programs such as increasing early childhood education, reducing class sizes, and providing mentoring and tutoring to students. Other strategies may be aimed at improving instruction—providing professional development to foster openness to a diversity of learning styles and teaching differentiated instruction strategies. Finally, dropout prevention may aim to improve the communities that struggle most with high dropout rates—providing career education to those populations or conflict resolution and violence prevention in these areas (Schargel & Smink, 2016).

Schargel & Smink (2016) state that "schools continue to fail where they have always failed—with students with low expectations, students with otherwise committed parents, students with physical and mental handicaps, students who are not interested in the present educational environment. And that number is growing" (p. 10). Similarly, Martin & Halperin (2006) argue that current standards-based reform continues to "assume that what works well for the one-third of students who are well-prepared for college will succeed for the two-thirds majority. This is patently not the case" (p. 164). These researchers, and others, have called out for reform that targets populations most prone to dropout—the economically disadvantaged, members of minority groups, and those with limited English proficiency. There have been many types of dropout programs including after-school programs, alternative schooling, and early intervention programs.

School-age children only spend so many hours in school. Thus, out-of-school time has become a topic of interest in helping students achieve, including preventing dropout. Research on out-of-school programs is limited; however, it has been shown that students who participated in after-school supervised programs showed positive results. Successful programs may vary widely, focusing on improving core academic skills such as literacy, or involve mentoring by adults (Schargel & Smink, 2016).

Another option that has been explored is alternative schools, either within regular schools or as separate entities. Dynarski (2004) evaluates a key study funded by the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program, in which nearly 10,000 students were followed for up to three years. The program hosted three different types of services aimed at reducing student dropout: low-intensity supplemental programs such as tutoring, alternative middle schools, and alternative middle schools within regular schools, which typically housed smaller classes and counseling services. While the supplemental programs had little effect, the alternative middle school programs succeeded in keeping students in school longer.

Early prevention is essential in increasing the rate of school completion, as younger students are more open to support, while older students are more doubtful about accepting assistance. Suh & Suh (2007) identified various risk factors to dropping out. The presence of a variety of risk factors substantially increased the risk. The three risk factors that they focused on: poor academic performance, low socioeconomic status, and behavioral and social problems, were best treated with dropout programs that targeted and addressed all the risk factors rather than just a single one. In 2016, Rural Dropout Prevention Project launched to aid particular public schools in creating dropout prevention and reentry programs that will be effective in their area. Additionally, the National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) continued to offer classes, resources, and support concerning dropout prevention needs throughout the 2020s.

Terms & Concepts

Alternative Schools: A different option for high schools that try to meet special needs of their students through strategies such as smaller classes or the availability of counseling.

Differentiated Instruction: A type of classroom instruction in which teachers teach a variety of ability levels in one classroom.

Out-of-School Time: Refers to the time a student spends outside of their school. Most students spend only a third of their day in school.

Retention: Occurs when a student repeats a grade.

Risk Factors: Factors in one's life or personality that put an individual at risk for dropping out of school.

Socioeconomic Status: A measure of wealth.

Tracking: A practice used by schools to divide students into various groups by ability.

Bibliography

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2003). Fact sheet: The impact of education on health and well-being. Author.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2004). Kids count data book. Author.

Bachman, J.C., Green, S., & Wirtanen, I.D. (1971). Dropping out - problem or symptom? Youth in Transition (Vol. 3.). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Barton, P. E. (2005). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities. Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.

Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. A. (2012). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity, and specificity. High School Journal, 96, 77–100. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87647488

Bryk, A.S. & Thum, Y. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: An exploratory investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 353-383.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, April 27). College enrollment and work activity of 2016 high school graduates. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023, April 26). College enrollment and work activity of high school graduates. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.toc.htm

Burris, C., Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 594-598. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16692985&site=ehost-live

Combs, J. & Cooley, W.W. (1968). Dropouts: In high school and after high school. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 343–363.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Investing in quality teaching: State-level strategies 1999. Education Commission of the States.

Dynarski, M. (2004). Interpreting the evidence from recent federal evaluations of dropout- prevention programs: The state of scientific research. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation crisis (pp. 255–268). Harvard Education Press.

Education pays. (2022). Career Outlook, US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2022/data-on-display/education-pays.htm

Employment projections: Unemployment rates and earnings by educational attainment, 2016. (2017, October 24). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep‗chart‗001.htm

Graduation rates rise for all, experts differ on causes. (2017). Education Week, 37(15), 1–14. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=126855287&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Harlow, C.W. (2003). Education and correctional populations, bureau of justice statistics special report. US Department of Justice.

High school dropout rates. (2012). Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=high-school-dropout-rates

Kerr, K.A., & Letger, N.E. (2004). Preventing dropout: Use and impact of organizational reforms designed to ease the transition to high school. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation crisis (pp. 221–242). Harvard Education Press.

Khalkhali, V., Sharifi, R., & Nikyar, A. (2013). Students' intentions to persist in, versus dropout of high school: What self-determined motivation tells us about it? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 282–290. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90408079

Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., & Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout rates in the United States: 2005 (NCES 2007-059). US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from National Center for Education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Landis, R. N., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 220–249. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=98811777.

Levin, H. (2007). The costs and benefits of an excellent education for all of America's children. Teachers College: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education.

Lynch, M. (2014). The true costs of social promotion and retention. International Journal of Progressive Education, 10, 6–17. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87499679.

Martin, N., & Halperin, S. (2006). Whatever it takes: How twelve communities are reconnecting out-of-school youth. American Youth Policy Forum.

McPartland, J.M., & Jordan, W.J. (2004). In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation crisis (pp. 269–288). Harvard Education Press.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1991). Youth indicators 1991: Trends in the well-being of American youth. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/dropout/ind‗01.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Fast facts: Dropout rates. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Fast facts: Dropout rates. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Contributors: Advocates for Children of New York, The Civil Society Institute.

Prothero, A. (2014). For dropouts, multitude of factors drive them away from school. Education Week, 33, 6. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=96171714.

Roberts, S. (1995) Who we are: A portrait of America based on the latest US Census. New York: USA.

Roderick, M. (1993). The path to dropping out: Evidence for intervention. Auburn House.

Sanchez, Claudio, & Wertheimer, Linda. (2011, July 24). School dropout rates add to fiscal burden. NPR Special Series: School’s Out, America’s Dropout Crisis. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138653393/school-dropout-rates-adds-to-fiscal-burden

Schargel, F.P., & Smink, J. (2016). Strategies to help solve our school dropout problem. Routledge.

Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional School Counseling, 10, 297–306. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25435721&site=ehost-live

Sum, Andrew et al. (2002). Left behind in the labor market: labor market problems of the nation's out-of-school, young adult populations. Alternative Schools Network. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.nupr.neu.edu/2-03/left_behind.pdf.

US Census Bureau. (2002). Educational attainment in the United States. Author.

US Census Bureau. (2004). The face of our population. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from US Census Bureau http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp9_race_ethnicity

US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Condition of Education 2013: Status Dropout Rates. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

Wang, M., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85, 722–737. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=94956130

Weikart, D.P., Bond, J.P., & McNeil, J.T. (1978). Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade. High/Scope Press.

Suggested Reading

Bowers, A. J., & Sprott, R. (2012). Examining the multiple trajectories associated with dropping out of high school: A growth mixture model analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 105, 176–195. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73982512

Capuzzi, D., & Gross, D.R. (2019). Youth at risk: A prevention resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (7th ed.). American Counseling Association.

Dryfoos, J.G. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society. Oxford University Press.

Hickman, G. P., Sabia, M. F., Heinrich, R., Nelson, L., Travis, F., & Veri, T. (2017). Predicting high school freshmen dropout through attentional biases and initial grade point average. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 20(2), 45–54. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=126012997&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation crisis. Harvard Education Press.

Pletka, B. (2007). Educating the next generation: How to engage students in the 21st century. Santa Monica Press.

West, L.L. (1991). Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth. Aspen Publishers.

Zajacova, A. (2012). Health in working-aged Americans: Adults with high school equivalency diploma are similar to dropouts, not high school graduates. American Journal of Public Health, 102(S2), S284–S290. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74566968