Documentary search
 
 

Document

How Can We Help? What We Have Learned From Recent Federal Dropout Prevention Evaluations


File number :
PPEE-DSC-12e

Bibliographic reference :
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (2002). How Can We Help? What We Have Learned From Recent Federal Dropout Prevention Evaluations. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(1), 43-69.

Abstract :

In this article, the effectiveness of various school dropout prevention programmes implemented in the United States is examined. The authors of this article describe results from the second phase of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP), during which more than twenty programmes were assessed from 1991 to 1996.

During the SDDAP, two types of prevention programmes were assessed: (1) those providing additional help to students at risk of dropping out (targeted programmes); and (2) those focusing on restructuring schools to foster genuine change in student outcomes.

Methodology
Assessment of programme effectiveness as part of the SDDAP was carried out by comparing programme participants to non-participating students who exhibited similar risks of dropping out. In the case of school restructuring initiatives, comparisons were made among restructured schools and non-restructured schools with similar characteristics.

In total, there were 18 sample schools. There were eight middle schools, including four regular schools serving at-risk students and four alternative schools. Ten high schools, including five regular schools serving at-risk students and five alternative schools, were also involved. At the alternative schools, students learned among smaller groups and had more access to counsellors.

Main Results
First, it appears that the intensity of intervention was a determining factor, especially in middle schools. Programmes targeting this clientele and offering low-intensity supplemental services to students (e.g., tutoring) did not seem to have a significant effect on the risk of dropping out.

Conversely, results showed the greater capacity of alternative schools to keep students in school longer. However, interventions did not generate a significant effect on the academic results and attendance of students.

The situation was different for older students at risk of dropping out. Should these students, who were very often already on the verge of doing so, be encouraged to earn a high school diploma or a General Education Development (GED) certificate? Results of the assessment revealed that programmes encouraging students to earn a GED certificate were more effective than those encouraging students to earn a high school diploma. However, it appears that students attending alternative schools were more likely to earn a high school diploma than a GED certificate.

Lastly, the effect of school restructuring appears negligible overall for middle and high schools. Hardly any differences were observed between the results of students attending restructured schools and those of students attending comparison schools in terms of dropout rates and absenteeism, reading and mathematics test scores, along with teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of school climate. The authors point out that restructuring seemed more effective when focusing on what goes on in the classroom (e.g., instruction, curriculum) rather than on implementing student services.

The authors emphasize the importance of considering students’ points of view to determine the source of problems and develop more adequate strategies in order to counter school dropping out.



Key Words :
Prevention Programmes, Prevention Programme Effectiveness, School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP), Restructuring, Alternative Schools, Regular Schools, Secondary/High Schools, Newsletter4

Monitored Countries :
United States