National Center on Secondary Education and Transition: Creating opportunities for youth with disabilities to achieve successful futures.

Dropout and Graduation

Frequently Asked Questions

Updated May 14, 2004

How are dropout rates measured?

Various formulas are used to calculate dropout rates within school district, state, and national databases. Three kinds of dropout statistics are generally used. These include event or annual rates, status rates, and cohort rates. Each has a different definition and produces varying rates, resulting in a slightly different picture of the dropout problem.

The event or annual rate measures the proportion of students who drop out in a single year without completing high school. This measure yields the lowest estimate of the dropout rate.
The status rate measures the proportion of students who have not completed high school and are not enrolled at a single point in time, regardless of when they dropped out.
The cohort rate measures what happens to a single group (or cohort) of students over a period of time. This measure yields the highest estimate of the dropout rate.

How serious is the dropout problem?

Today, nearly all students are expected to graduate from high school. Yet, hundreds of thousands of students in the United States leave school early each year without a diploma. The expectation stated in Goals 2000 was to reach a 90% school completion rate by the year 2000. The most recent report indicates only 17 states have reached this goal (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Recent statistics indicate the percentage of eighth-grade students who graduate five years later range from a low of 55% in Florida to a high of 87% in New Jersey (Greene, 2002). The rate of dropout for students of Hispanic descent is greater than for other young adults (64% of Hispanic youth ages 18-24 complete school compared with 84% of African-American students and 92% of Caucasian students) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). On average, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are at increased risk of not completing school. The rate of dropout is 10% for low-income students, 5.2% for middle-income students, and 1.6% for high-income students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). On average, students with disabilities are at greatest risk of dropping out of school. Only 57% of youth with disabilities graduated with regular diplomas during the 1999-2000 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

What risks do dropouts face?

Our nation’s dropout rates are particularly alarming, because in today’s society there are few employment opportunities that pay living wages, and benefits are rare for those who have neither completed a high school education nor acquired necessary basic skills. On average, youth who drop out are more likely than others to experience negative outcomes such as unemployment, underemployment, and incarceration. High school dropouts are 72% more likely to be unemployed as compared to high school graduates (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003). Nearly 80% of individuals in prison do not have a high school diploma (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995). According to the National Longitudinal Transition Study of special education students, the arrest rates of youth with disabilities who dropped out were significantly higher than those who had graduated (Wagner et al., 1991). Three to five years after dropping out, the cumulative arrest rate for youth with serious emotional disturbance was 73% (Wagner, 1995).

In addition to the costs incurred by individuals who drop out of school, the social costs associated with the incidence of dropout are immense. Students who do not complete school cost taxpayers billions of dollars in lost revenues, welfare, unemployment, and crime prevention and prosecution (Joint Economic Committee, 1991). Students who graduate from high school earn an average of $9,245 more per year than students who do not complete school (Employment Policy Foundation, 2001). In light of the negative consequences for society and individuals, facilitating school completion for all students must be a priority for educators, administrators, and policymakers across the country.

Which students are most likely to drop out of school?

Many studies have identified predictors and variables associated with dropout. In recent years, these variables have been categorized according to how much they can be influenced. Status variables are difficult and unlikely to change (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES], academic ability, family structure). On the other hand, alterable variables (e.g., attendance, identification with school) are those that are easier to change and have become the focus of efforts to improve graduation rates.

Status Variables Associated With Dropout Risk

Age. Students who drop out tend to be older compared to their grade-level peers.
Gender. Students who drop out are more likely to be male. Females who drop out often do so due to factors associated with pregnancy.
Socioeconomic status. Students who drop out are more likely to come from low SES.
Ethnicity. The rate of dropout is higher on average for African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American youth.
Native language. Students who come from non-English speaking backgrounds are more likely to drop out.
Region. Students are more likely to drop out if they live in urban settings as compared to suburban or non-metropolitan areas. Dropout rates are higher in the South and West than in the Northeast region of the United States.
Mobility. High levels of household mobility contribute to increased likelihood of dropping out.
Ability. Lower scores on measures of cognitive ability are associated with higher rates of dropping out.
Disability. Students with disabilities (especially those with emotional/behavioral disabilities) are at greater risk of dropping out.
Parental employment. Students who drop out are more likely to come from families in which the parents are unemployed.
School size and type. School factors that have been linked to dropout include large school size and type (e.g., public vs. private).
Family structure. Students who come from single parent families are at greater risk of dropout.
(MacMillan, 1991; Rosenthal, 1998; Rumberger, 1995; Wolman, Bruininks, & Thurlow, 1989).

Alterable Variables Associated With Dropout Risk

Grades. Students with poor grades are at greater risk of dropout.
Disruptive behavior. Students who drop out are more likely to have exhibited behavior and disciplinary problems in school.
Absenteeism. Rate of attendance is a strong predictor of dropout.
School policies. Alterable school policies associated with dropout include raising academic standards without supports, tracking, frequent use of suspension, and various instructional practices.
School climate. Positive school climate is associated with lower rates of dropout.
Parenting. Homes characterized by permissive parenting styles have been linked with higher rates of dropout.
Sense of belonging. Alienation and decreased levels of participation in school have been associated with increased likelihood of dropout.
Attitudes toward school. The beliefs and attitudes (e.g., locus of control, motivation to achieve) that students hold toward school are important predictors of dropout.
Educational support in the home. The extent to which students receive educational support for learning in the home is associated with dropout.
Retention. Students who drop out are more likely to have been retained than students who graduate. In the National Educational Longitudinal Survey of 1988, being held back was identified as the single biggest predictor of dropout.
Stressful life events. Increased levels of stress and the presence of stressors (e.g., financial difficulty, health problems, early parenthood) are associated with increased rates of dropout.
(MacMillan, 1991; Rosenthal, 1998; Rumberger, 1995; Wolman et al., 1989).

What factors are associated with dropout risk for students with disabilities?

There are fewer research studies examining correlates and predictors of dropout for students with disabilities than those examining dropout for the general school population. However, the research that has been conducted points to status variables associated with dropout that are similar for both groups of students. Status variables associated with greater likelihood of dropout for students with disabilities on average include a low SES, non-English speaking, or Hispanic home background (Wagner et al., 1991). Additionally, students with emotional/behavioral disorders who drop out tend to be older, have parents who have been unemployed, and have less education (Lehr, 1996).

Alterable variables associated with dropout have also been identified for students with disabilities, and many are similar to those identified for students without disabilities. Alterable variables associated with increased risk of dropout include high rates of absenteeism and tardiness (Zigmond & Thornton, 1985); low grades and a history of course failure (Thompson-Hoffman & Hayward, 1990); limited parental support, low participation in extracurricular activities, alcohol or drug problems (Jay & Padilla, 1987); and negative attitudes toward school (MacMillan, 1991). High levels of mobility (Sinclair, Christenson, Thurlow, & Evelo, 1994) and retention (being “held back”) are also associated with dropout for students with disabilities. One study found that 90% of students with learning disabilities who repeated a grade dropped out (Zigmond & Thornton, 1985).

The level of services received (e.g., amount of time designated for special education service), the way services are delivered (e.g., pull-out or mainstream) and the kinds of services being provided (e.g., counseling, vocational guidance) have also been studied and associated with dropout risk for students with disabilities (Wagner, 1995). Students with emotional/behavioral disorders were less likely to drop out if they spent more time in regular classrooms, received tutoring services, and were in schools that maintained high expectations of special-education students. Lower rates of dropout are also associated with receipt of instruction emphasizing independent living skills and training for competitive employment (Bruininks, Thurlow, Lewis, & Larson, 1988). In addition, high numbers of school transfers (mobility) and frequent changes in the level of services received have been associated with increased likelihood of dropout (Edgar, 1987; Wagner, 1995).

Why do some at-risk students choose to stay in school?

Few studies have been conducted on students’ reasons for staying in school. However, the following list has been developed based on a variety of studies (Christenson, Sinclair, Lehr, & Hurley, 2000):

Supportive, nurturing family and home environment;
Interaction with and the involvement of committed, concerned educators and other adults;
Development of perseverance and optimism;
Improved attitude toward school and increased motivation to obtain a diploma;
Positive, respectful relationships between staff and students;
Satisfaction with the learning experience (e.g., social and instructional climate, school course offerings, and school rules);
Relevance of curricula; and
Fair discipline policies.

When asked, students with disabilities indicate a desire for instruction in a challenging and relevant curriculum to prepare them for life after school. The lack of a relevant high school curriculum appears repeatedly as a primary reason given by students with and without disabilities for dropping out of school or pursuing alternative education services (Guterman, 1995; Lichtenstein, 1993). In addition, comments from individual student interviews suggest that changes in personal attitude or effort, changes in attendance and discipline policies, and more support from teachers might facilitate staying in school (Kortering & Braziel, 1999). Recommendations based on student perspectives with respect to keeping students in school included increased positive attitudes toward students from teachers and administrators and improvements in curriculum and instruction (e.g., additional assistance, better teaching, more interesting classes, better textbooks). Students also indicated that their own attitudes play an important role in the decision to remain in school or exit school early.

What types of intervention programs are effective?

Programs that have been designed to prevent dropout vary widely. In a literature review of effective interventions designed to address dropout, Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & Christenson (2003) categorized successful interventions as follows:

Personal/affective (e.g., retreats designed to enhance self-esteem, regularly scheduled classroom-based discussion, individual counseling, participation in an interpersonal relations class);
Academic (e.g., provision of special academic courses, individualized methods of instruction, tutoring);
Family outreach (e.g., strategies that utilized increased feedback to parents or home visits);
School structure (e.g., implementation of school-within-a-school, re-definition of the role of the homeroom teacher, reducing class size, creation of an alternative school); and
Work-related (e.g., vocational training, participation in volunteer or service programs).

What is the role of student engagement?

The most effective interventions to reduce the dropout rate and enhance school completion address core issues associated with student alienation and disengagement from school. Helpful interventions address underlying problems and teach students strategies and skills they can use to successfully meet the academic, behavioral, and psychological demands of the school environment.

Christenson (2002) defines engagement as a multi-dimensional construct involving four types of engagement and associated indicators:

Academic engagement refers to time on task, academically engaged time, or credit accrual.
Behavioral engagement includes attendance, suspension, classroom participation, and involvement in extracurricular activities.
Cognitive engagement involves internal indicators including processing academic information or becoming a self-regulated learner.
Psychological engagement includes identification with school or a sense of belonging.

Indicators of engagement are influenced by context. For example, school policies and practices such as a positive climate or the quality of a teacher-student relationship can affect the degree to which a student is engaged in school. Similarly, when parents or family members provide academic or motivational support for learning, students’ connection with school is enhanced, and successful school performance is more likely. Enhancing the factors that promote school engagement is a promising approach to promoting school completion. Recent studies have highlighted the complex interplay between student, family, school, and community variables in shaping students’ paths toward early school withdrawal or successful school completion (Hess & Copeland, 2001; Velez & Saenz, 2001; Worrell & Hale, 2001).

What are key components of effective dropout prevention programs?

In the past decade, six published reviews have identified components of effective dropout prevention programs. The key components identified by each of these reviews are listed below.

1. Based on findings from an evaluation of 20 programs funded by the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (Dynarski, 2001):

Creating small schools with smaller class sizes;
Allowing teachers to know students better (building relationships, enhancing communication);
Providing individual assistance (academic and behavioral);
Focusing on helping students address personal and family issues through counseling and access to social services;
Assisting students in efforts to obtain GED certificates.

2. From a review of six dropout prevention and college attendance programs for students placed at risk (Fashola & Slavin, 1998):

Incorporating personalization by creating meaningful personal bonds between students and teachers and among students;
Connecting students to an attainable future;
Providing some form of academic assistance to help students perform well in their coursework; and
Recognizing the importance of families in their children’s achievement and school completion.

3. From an evaluation of dropout prevention and reentry projects in vocational education funded under the Cooperative Demonstration Program (CDP) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act (Hayward & Tallmadge, 1995):

Smaller, more personal school environment;
Vocational education that has an occupational concentration;
A formal counseling component that incorporates attention to personal issues along with career counseling and life-skills instruction;
Formal, ongoing coordination of the academic and vocational components of participants’ high school programs;
A structured environment that includes clear and equitably enforced behavioral expectations; and
Personal, supportive attention from adults, through mentoring or other strategies.

4. From a review of dropout prevention programs and interview data from students who dropped out of school (McPartland, 1994):

Providing opportunities for success in schoolwork (e.g., intensive reading instruction in early grades, tutoring, curriculum modification to increase relevance);
Creating a caring and supportive environment (e.g., use of adult mentors, expanding role of homeroom teachers, organizing extra curricular activities);
Communicating the relevance of education to future endeavors (e.g., offering vocational and career counseling, flexible scheduling and work-study programs); and
Helping students with personal problems (e.g., on-site health care, availability of individual and group counseling).

5. From a body of work and program database generated by the National Dropout Prevention Center (Schargel & Smink, 2001):

Early intervention includes a comprehensive family-involvement initiative, early-childhood education and strong reading and writing programs.
Basic core strategies promote opportunities for the student to form bonding relationships and include mentoring/tutoring, service learning, alternative schooling, and out-of-school enhancement programs.
Making the most of instruction includes providing opportunities for professional development, openness to diverse learning styles, using technology to deliver instruction, and providing individualized learning.
Making the most of wider communities includes linking with the community through systemic renewal, community collaboration, career education and school-to-work programs, and offering conflict resolution and violence prevention programs to enhance effective interpersonal skills.

6. Based on key components of three interventions designed to increase engagement and school completion for middle-school youth with learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities, funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (Thurlow, Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thornton, 1995):

Persistence plus (persistence in maintaining a focus on student educational progress and engagement with school; continuity in recognizing and attending to student needs across years via a personal connection with the student; delivery of a consistent message by involved adults: “do the work, attend classes, be on time, express frustration in a constructive manner, and stay in school”);
Monitoring (targeting the occurrence of risk behaviors, regularly collecting data, and measuring effects of timely interventions);
Relationships (building a variety of relationships to strengthen student success in school including adult-student as well as home-school-community);
Affiliation (fostering students’ connections to school, and students’ and staff’s sense of belonging to the community); and
Problem-solving skills (developing capacity of students to solve problems and enhancing skills to meet the demands of the school environment).

References

Bruininks, R. H., Thurlow, M. L., Lewis, D. L., & Larson, S. (1988). Post-school outcomes for students in special education and other students one to eight years after high school. In R. H. Bruininks, D. R. Lewis, & M. L. Thurlow (Eds.), Assessing outcomes, costs, and benefits of special education programs (Project Report No. 88-1, pp. 9-111). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, University Affiliated Program.
Christenson, S. L. (2002, November). Families, educators, and the family-school partnership: Issues or opportunities for promoting children’s learning competence? Paper prepared for "The Future of School Psychology Continues" conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Lehr, C. A., & Hurley, C. M. (2000). Promoting successful school completion. In K. M. Minke & G. C. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school problems—Promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 211-257). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Dynarski, M. (2001). Making do with less: Interpreting the evidence from recent federal evaluations of dropout-prevention programs. Paper presented at "Dropout: Implications and Findings" conference, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable? Exceptional Children, 53, 555-561.
Employment Policy Foundation. (2001). Give yourself the gift of a degree. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from http://www.epf.org/news/nrelease.asp?nrid=51
Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effective dropout prevention and college attendance programs for students placed at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 3(2), 159-183.
Greene, J. (2002). Public school graduation rates in the United States. (Civic Report 31). New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
Guterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of categorical learning disabilities services: The consumer's view. Exceptional Children, 62, 111-124.
Hayward, B. J., & Tallmadge, G. K. (1995). Strategies for keeping kids in school: Evaluation of dropout prevention and reentry projects in vocational education. (U.S. Department of Education, final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hess, R. S., & Copeland, E. P. (2001). Students’ stress, coping strategies, and school completion: A longitudinal perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 389-405. Retrieved May 14, 2004 from www.extenza-eps.com/extenza/loadPDF?objectIDValue=19899.
Jay, E. D., & Padilla, C. L. (1987, August). Special education dropouts: The incidence of and reasons for dropping out of special education in California. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Joint Economic Committee. (1991, August). Doing drugs and dropping out: A report prepared for the use of the subcommittee on economic growth, trade, and taxes of the Joint Economic Committee, 102nd Cong. 1(1991). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED344153)
Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1999). Staying in school: The perspective of ninth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 106-113.
Lehr, C. A. (1996). Students with emotional behavioral disorders: Predictors and factors associated with dropout and school completion. Unpublished paper. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond dropout prevention to school completion: An integrative review of data-based interventions. School Psychology Review 32(3), 342-364.
Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice (Essential Tool Series). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
Lichtenstein, S. (1993). Transition from school to adulthood: Case studies of adults with learning disabilities who dropped out of school. Exceptional Children, 59, 336-347.
MacMillan, D. L. (1991). Hidden youth: Dropouts from special education. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
McPartland, J. M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 255-276). New York: Teachers College.
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). The condition of education 2002 (NCES 2002025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Rosenthal, B. S. (1998). Nonschool correlates of dropout: An integrative review of the literature. Children & Youth Services Review, 20(5), 413-433.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.
Schargel, F. P., & Smink, J. (2001). Strategies to help solve our school dropout problem. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Thurlow. M. L., & Evelo, D. L. (1994). Are we pushing students in special education to drop out of school? Policy Research Brief, 6(1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Thompson-Hoffman, S., & Hayward, B. (1990). Students with handicaps who drop out of school. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Rural and Small Schools Consortium, Tucson, AZ.
Thurlow, M. L., Christenson, S., Sinclair, M., Evelo, D. L., & Thornton, H. (1995). Staying in school: Middle-school students with learning and emotional disabilities. (ABC Dropout Prevention and Intervention Series). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor (2003). So you're thinking of dropping out of school. Retrieved March 10, 2004, from http://www.dol.gov/asp/fibre/dropout.htm
Velez, W., & Saenz, R. (2001). Toward a comprehensive model of the school leaving process among Latinos. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 445-467.
Wagner, M. (1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. Critical Issues for Children and Youth, 5(2), 90-112.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., D’Amico, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., et al. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the national longitudinal transition study of special education students. (SRI International Contract 300-87-0054). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Wolman, C., Bruininks, R. H., & Thurlow, M. L. (1989). Dropouts and dropout programs: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 6-20.
Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 357-369.
Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (1985). Follow-up of postsecondary age learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Learning Disabilities Research, 1(1), 50-55.