School Dropouts
Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies Gao ID: GAO-02-240 February 1, 2002The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that the national status dropout rate--the percentage of 16- through 24-year olds who are not enrolled in school and who lack a high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate--fluctuated between 10.9 and 12.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. However, dropout rates have varied considerably between regions of the country and among ethnic groups. Research has shown that dropping out it is a long-term process of disengagement that begins in the earliest grades. NCES and private research organizations have identified two factors--an individual's family and his or her experience in school--that are related to dropping out. Various state, local, and private programs are available to assist youth at risk of dropping out of school. These programs range in scope from small-scale supplementary services that target a small group of students, such as mentoring or counseling services, to comprehensive school-wide restructuring efforts that involve changing the entire school to improve educational opportunities for all students. One federal program, the Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program, is specifically targeted to dropouts, but the program is new and the Department of Education has yet to evaluate its effectiveness. In September 2001, the program awarded grants to state and local education agencies working to reduce the number of school dropouts. Other federal programs have dropout prevention as one of their multiple objectives, and many more federal programs serve at-risk youth but do not have dropout prevention as a stated program goal.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-240, School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-240
entitled 'School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in
Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies' which
was released on February 1, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Honorable Jim Gibbons, House of Representatives.
February 2002:
School Dropouts:
Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating
Promising Prevention Strategies:
GAO-02-240:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Dropout Rates Changed Little in the 1990-2000 Period and Vary
Considerably Between Regions and Ethnic Groups Multiple Factors Are
Related to Dropping Out A Variety of Programs Address the Dropout
Problem:
Multiple Federal Programs Provide Funds That Can Be Used for Dropout
Prevention:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Descriptions of Dropout and Completion Measures:
Appendix III: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention:
Appendix IV: High School Completion Rates, October 1998 Through 2000:
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Bibliography:
Tables:
Table 1: Dropout Rates in October 2000 for U.S. and Foreign-Born 16-
through 24-Year-Olds:
Table 2: High School Completion Rate 1998-2000 and Percentage of 18-
Through 24-Year-Olds in Selected States in 1999 Who Were Hispanic:
Table 3: Dropout and Completion Measures:
Table 4: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts,
October 1990 Through October 2000:
Figure 2: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by
Region, October 2000:
Figure 3: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by
Ethnic Group, October 1990 Through October 2000:
Figure 4: Event and Status Dropout Rates and Noncompletion Rates, 1990
Through 2000:
Abbreviations:
CCD: Common Core of Data:
CPS: Current Population Survey:
DPDP: Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
GED: General Education Development:
GRAD: Graduation Really Achieves Dreams:
HHS: Health and Human Services:
JUMP: Juvenile Mentoring Program:
JROTC: Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps:
LEA: local education agency:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
NDPC: National Dropout Prevention Center:
PAL: Partnership at Las Vegas:
QOP: Quantum Opportunities Program:
SDDAP: School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program:
SEA: state education agency:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 1, 2002:
The Honorable Jim Gibbons:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Gibbons:
Over the last decade, between 347,000 and 544,000 10th- through 12th-
grade students dropped out of school each year without successfully
completing a high school program. In October 2000, about 11 percent of
16- through 24-year-olds who were not enrolled in a high school program
had neither a high school diploma nor an equivalent credential. These
dropouts earn lower incomes, are more frequently unemployed, and have
more limited job opportunities than high school graduates. Dropouts are
more likely to receive public assistance than high school graduates,
and dropouts make up a disproportionate share of the nation‘s prison
and death row inmates, thus imposing a burden on all levels of
government. Although the problem has long been recognized, earlier
federal efforts to reduce the number of dropouts showed mixed results,
and the last significant federal funding for a dropout prevention
program ended in 1995. Multiple approaches to dropout prevention exist,
and many experts believe that dropout programs should be tailored to
the needs of the student population being served. You asked us to
examine the dropout prevention efforts currently underway. As agreed
with your office, we focused our work on answering the following
questions:
* What are the national and regional dropout rate trends?
* What does the research say about factors associated with dropping
out?
* What state, local, or private efforts have been implemented to
address the factors associated with dropping out?
* What federal efforts exist to reduce dropout rates and what is known
about their effectiveness?
In conducting this work, we interviewed officials at the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and reviewed NCES annual
reports, statistics, and studies related to dropout rates. We also
contacted and reviewed the reports of dropout prevention experts at
universities, federal agencies, and private research organizations. We
conducted site visits at state, local, and private dropout prevention
programs in six states”California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Washington. These programs were selected based on
recommendations obtained from a variety of sources, including federal
program administrators, evaluations of programs, and program experts.
We interviewed, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, state at-
risk coordinators that were either identified by the National Dropout
Prevention Center in South Carolina or who were referred to us by state
program administrators. In addition, we interviewed officials from the
federal programs that could fund local dropout prevention efforts. We
also reviewed evaluations of programs funded by the federal School
Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP) in fiscal years 1988-
1995. Appendix I further describes our scope and methodology. We
conducted our review between January and October 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
National dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. NCES”
which is the primary federal entity responsible for publishing U.S.
dropout data”reports that the national status dropout rate, which is
the percent of 16-through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school
and who have not completed a high school diploma or obtained a high
school equivalency certificate, fluctuated between 10.9 and 12.5
percent in the 1990-2000 period.[Footnote 1] However, dropout rates
have varied considerably between regions of the country and ethnic
groups. For example, in 2000 dropout rates were higher in the South and
West than they were in the Midwest and Northeast regions. In addition,
dropout rates are considerably higher for Hispanics than for other
ethnic groups, and Hispanics born outside the country are nearly three
times as likely to drop out as those born in the United States. Dropout
figures also vary depending on which dropout or school completion
measure is used, primarily because calculations use different age
groups, data, or definitions of dropout. No one dropout measure is
ideal for all situations. The status dropout rate is useful in
measuring the percent of 16-through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled
in school and who have not earned a high school diploma or equivalent
credential, but does not indicate how well schools are preventing
students from dropping out in a given year. The event dropout rate
provides a better measure of how well schools are performing in a given
year since it measures the percent of 15-through 24-year-olds who
dropped out of grades 10-12 in just the last year.
Research has shown that multiple factors are associated with dropping
out and that dropping out of school is a long-term process of
disengagement that occurs over time and begins in the earliest grades.
NCES and private research organizations have identified two types of
factors”those associated with families and those related to an
individual‘s experience in school”that are related to dropping out. For
example, students from low-income, single-parent, and less-educated
families often enter school less prepared than children from more
affluent, better educated families and subsequently drop out at a much
higher rate than other students do. Factors related to an individual‘s
experiences in school often can be identified soon after a child begins
school. These factors, such as low grades, absenteeism, disciplinary
problems, frequently changing schools, and being retained for one or
more grades, are all found at a much higher than average rate in
students that drop out. Study of the long-term process of dropping out
may provide insights into ways to identify earlier potential dropouts.
A variety of state, local, and private programs are available to assist
youth at risk of dropping out of school. These programs range in scope
from small-scale supplementary services that target a small group of
students, such as mentoring or counseling services, to comprehensive
school-wide restructuring efforts that involve changing the entire
school to improve educational opportunities for all students. The Coca-
Cola Valued Youth Program, for example, supports a tutoring program in
which older children tutor younger children, and Project GRAD is a
comprehensive school reform model that provides integrated programs for
kindergarten through 12th grade students. Several of the dropout
prevention programs we reviewed have been rigorously evaluated to
determine their effectiveness, and other programs have shown
improvements in one or more aspects, such as students‘ attendance and
test scores. States‘ support of dropout prevention activities varies
considerably, with some states providing funds specifically for dropout
prevention programs while others fund programs to serve the broader
population of at-risk youth, which may help prevent them from dropping
out.
One federal program, the Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program
(DPDP)”first funded at $5 million in fiscal year 2001”is specifically
targeted to dropouts; because the program is new, the Department of
Education has not yet evaluated its effectiveness. In September 2001,
the program awarded grants to state and local education agencies
working to reduce the number of school dropouts. Other federal
programs, such as Education‘s Prevention and Intervention Programs for
Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk of
Dropping Out (Title I, part D), have dropout prevention as one of their
multiple objectives, and many more federal programs serve at-risk youth
but do not have dropout prevention as a stated program goal. The
federal government does not track the amount of federal funding used
for dropout prevention services or require that evaluations of programs
include assessments of their effect on dropout rates, even for programs
for which dropout prevention is an objective. Thus, the total federal
funding used for dropout prevention activities or their impact on
reducing dropouts is not known. Evaluations of the prior federal
program devoted entirely to dropout prevention, the SDDAP funded from
1988 to 1995, showed mixed results, with many of the efforts it funded
having little or no significant impact on dropout rates. Experts and
state and local officials suggested several ways to improve the
effectiveness of federal efforts to reduce the dropout rate, such as
creating one source of comprehensive information on promising dropout
prevention practices and strategies. We are recommending that Education
(1) evaluate the quality of existing dropout prevention research, (2)
determine how best to encourage or sponsor the rigorous evaluation of
the most promising state and local dropout prevention programs and
practices, and (3) determine the most effective means of disseminating
the results of these and other available studies to state and local
entities interested in reducing dropout rates. In commenting on a draft
of this report, Education agreed that dropping out is a serious issue
for American schools and that rigorous evaluation of dropout prevention
programs is needed. Education said that it would consider commissioning
a systematic review of the literature on this topic.
Background:
The adverse impact that dropping out of school has on both those who
drop out and society itself has long been recognized. Multiple studies
have shown that dropouts earn less money and are more frequently
unemployed than graduates. Dropouts[Footnote 2] are about three times
as likely as high school completers who do not go on to college to be
welfare recipients, and about 30 percent of federal and 40 percent of
state prison inmates are high school dropouts[Footnote 3] thus imposing
a considerable cost on all levels of government. Given the multiple
adverse consequences associated with dropping out, lowering the dropout
rate has long been a goal of educators and legislators.
The 1968 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 established local demonstration projects aimed at reducing the
dropout rate. From 1969 through 1976, some 30 projects received $46
million in grants from the Department of Education (then the Office of
Education) to develop and demonstrate educational practices that showed
promise in reducing the numbers of youth who failed to complete their
secondary education.[Footnote 4] The act was amended again in 1974,
when funding for dropout prevention efforts was consolidated with
funding for other programs, and states were given the discretion to
decide what financial support dropout prevention projects would receive
through state-administered consolidated grants. In 1988, the Congress
created the SDDAP. The program consisted of competitive grants from
Education to 89 school districts and community organizations. In fiscal
years 1988-1995, SDDAP grantees received nearly $227 million in federal
funds. Authorizations and appropriations for the program ended in
fiscal year 1995. The School Dropout Assistance Act was passed in 1994
and authorized funding in fiscal years 1995 to 1999, but was never
funded. Dropout prevention program funding was subsequently provided in
fiscal year 2001 when Education‘s Dropout Prevention Demonstration
Program received appropriations of $5 million.
Although federal funding for dropout prevention programs has been
inconsistent, the National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) has existed
for 15 years and is privately funded. Many of the program officials
with whom we spoke said that NDPC was a resource on which they depended
for information. This center is housed at Clemson University in South
Carolina and offers various resources to those wishing to implement
dropout prevention programs. For example, NDPC manages a database that
provides program profiles, including contact information, for model
programs located throughout the country. In addition, NDPC provides an
overview of the 15 strategies it has identified as being the most
effective in preventing dropout. NDPC also contracts with school
districts and communities to assess and review the dropout prevention
programs in the school district and make recommendations for
improvement. Much of this information and additional information on
annual national conferences and professional development services are
available on the center‘s website: [hyperlink,
http://www.dropoutprevention.org].
NCES, part of Education‘s Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,
and reporting data on the condition of education in the United States.
Since 1989, NCES has annually published data on high school dropout
statistics. NCES‘ most recent publication provides national level data
for three measures”event and status dropout rates and high school
completion rates.[Footnote 5] Periodically, NCES also reports on cohort
dropout rates.[Footnote 6] NCES also reports dropout rates for groups
with various characteristics (e.g., sex, ethnicity, age, and recency of
immigration).
Dropout Rates Changed Little in the 1990-2000 Period and Vary
Considerably Between Regions and Ethnic Groups:
Nationally, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. Rates
varied considerably, however, depending on the geographic region and
ethnic group.[Footnote 7] The highest dropout rates occurred in the
South and West, while the Midwest and Northeast tended to have lower
rates. Dropout rates were much higher for Hispanics than for other
ethnic groups, affected primarily by the very high dropout rates for
Hispanics born outside the United States. Dropout figures also vary
depending on which dropout or school completion measure is used,
primarily because calculations use different age groups, data, or
definitions of dropout. No one measure is appropriate for all
situations. Those using dropout or completion data must familiarize
themselves with the various measures and select the one that best meets
their needs.
National Dropout Rates Show Little Change in Recent Years:
For the nation as a whole, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000
period. Data compiled by NCES indicates that the percentage of 16-
through 24-year-olds who were dropouts ranged between 10.9 and 12.5
percent. While the year-to-year results went up in some years and down
in others, the net result was a decline of 1.2 percentage points during
this time period.
Figure 1: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts,
October 1990 Through October 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts, October 1990
Through October 2000:
1990: 12.1%;
1991: 12.5%;
1992: 11.0%;
1993: 11.0%;
1994: 11.5%;
1995: 12.0%;
1996: 11.1%;
1997: 11.0%;
1998: 11.8%;
1999: 11.2%;
2000: 10.9%.
Note: This figure presents NCES‘ status dropout rate.
Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table C,
p. 51.
[End of figure]
Dropout Rates Vary Considerably by Region and Ethnic Group:
Dropout rates show considerable variation when broken down by region or
by ethnic group. The highest dropout rates occurred in the South and
West, while the lowest rates occurred in the Northeast and Midwest. As
figure 2 shows, while the national portion of 16-through 24-year-olds
that were dropouts was 10.9 percent in October 2000, the regional
average ranged from 12.9 percent in the South to 8.5 percent in the
Northeast.
Figure 2: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by
Region, October 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
South Region: 12.9%;
West Region: 11.3%;
Midwest Region: 9.2%;
Northeast Region: 8.5%;
United States overall: 10.9%.
Note: This figure presents NCES‘ status dropout rate.
Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table 3,
p. 13.
[End of figure]
Analyzed by ethnic group, dropout rates were higher for Hispanics than
for other ethnic groups,[Footnote 8] as shown in figure 3. For example,
in 2000, the Hispanic dropout rate was 27.8 percent compared with 6.9
percent and 13.1 percent for white non-Hispanics and black non-
Hispanics, respectively. Asian/Pacific Islanders had the lowest dropout
rate, 3.8 percent, in 2000. However, due to the relatively small sample
sizes, reliable estimates for Asian/Pacific Islanders could not be
calculated before 1998, so they are not shown separately in the trend
lines in figure 3. In addition, sample sizes were too small for NCES to
calculate dropout rates for American Indians/Alaskan Natives in any
year.
Figure 3: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by
Ethnic Group, October 1990 Through October 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting dropout rates for the
following ethnic groups during the designated time period:
Hispanic;
Black, non-Hispanic;
White, non-Hispanic;
National average.
Note: This figure presents NCES‘ status dropout rate.
Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table B5,
p. 37.
[End of table]
Further analysis offers additional insight into the high dropout rate
for Hispanics. Compared to non-Hispanics in the United States, a much
higher percent of Hispanic children were born outside the United
States”43.6 percent versus 6.5 percent. The dropout rate for Hispanics
born outside the United States was much higher than that for Hispanics
born in the United States in 2000 (44.2 percent vs. 15.2 percent). As a
result, although Hispanics born outside the country accounted for only
6.6 percent of all 16-through 24-year-olds, they accounted for more
than a quarter of all dropouts in 2000 and thus significantly raised
the overall Hispanic dropout rate and the national dropout rate. In
addition, data from 1995 show that more than half (62.5 percent) of the
foreign-born Hispanic youths who were dropouts had never enrolled in a
U.S. school, and 79.8 percent of these young adults who had never
enrolled in U.S. schools were reported as either speaking English ’not
well“ or ’not at all.“[Footnote 9]
Table 1: Dropout Rates in October 2000 for U.S. and Foreign-Born 16-
through 24-Year-Olds:
Birth place: Born outside of the United States: Hispanic;
Dropout rate (percent): 44.2%;
Percent of all dropouts: 26.7%;
Percent of 16-through 24-year-olds: 6.6%.
Birth place: Born outside of the United States: Non-Hispanic;
Dropout rate (percent): 7.4%;
Percent of all dropouts: 3.7%;
Percent of 16-through 24-year-olds: 5.5%.
Birth place: Born in the United States: Hispanic;
Dropout rate (percent): 15.2%;
Percent of all dropouts: 11.9%;
Percent of 16-through 24-year-olds: 8.5%.
Birth place: Born in the United States: Non-Hispanic;
Dropout rate (percent): 7.9%;
Percent of all dropouts: 57.7%;
Percent of 16-through 24-year-olds: 79.3%.
Note: This table presents NCES‘ status dropout rate.
Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table 3,
page 13.
End of table]
The high dropout rates for Hispanics also affect the state differences
in high school completion rates. As table 2 shows, the states with the
highest rates of high school completion among 18-through 24-year-olds
(Alaska, Maine, and North Dakota) have very small percentages of
Hispanics, while the states with the lowest rates of high school
completion among 18-through 24-year-olds (Arizona, Nevada, and Texas)
have very large percentages of Hispanics.[Footnote 10] Our analysis of
the state-by-state information for all 50 states and the District of
Columbia shows that two factors” Hispanics as a percent of 18- to 24-
year-olds in 1999 and the percentage increase in Hispanics under 18-
years-old in the 1990s”account for about 40 percent of the variation in
the high school completion rates between states.[Footnote 11]
Table 2: High School Completion Rate 1998-2000 and Percentage of 18-
Through 24-Year-Olds in Selected States in 1999 Who Were Hispanic:
State: Maine;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 94.5%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 1%.
State: North Dakota;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 94.4%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 2%.
State: Alaska;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 93.3%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 5%.
State: Arizona;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 73.5%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 29%.
State: Nevada;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 77.9%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 23%.
State: Texas;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 79.4%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 35%.
State: National average;
Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000: 85.7%;
Hispanics as a percent of all 18-through 24-year-olds in 1999: 15%.
Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table C7,
p. 53; GAO‘s calculations based on Census Bureau data.
[End of table]
Multiple Ways of Measuring School Dropout or Completion Exist, Each
Appropriate in Different Situations:
Analyzing dropout rates is made more complicated by the fact that
multiple ways exist to measure the extent of dropping out”and no one
measure is ideal for all situations. For example, one way to measure
dropouts is to determine the percentage of students that drop out in a
single year. This measure is referred to as an event dropout rate.
NCES‘ event dropout rate measures the number of 15-through 24-year-olds
that drop out of grades 10-12 in the past year without completing a
high school program. While such a measure can be used to spot dropout
trends on a year-to-year basis, it does not provide an overall picture
of what portion of young adults are dropouts. If the concern is whether
the total population of dropouts is growing, shrinking, or staying
about the same, a different measure is needed.
Several ways exist to measure the portion of young adults who are
dropouts rather than the percentage who drop out in any given year. In
one such approach, referred to as the status dropout rate, NCES
measures the percentage of all persons from 16-through 24-years-old who
are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school
credential, including those who never attended school in the United
States. A similar but somewhat different measure is the high school
completion rate. NCES‘ completion rate measures the percentage of 18-
through 24-year-olds who are no longer in school and have a high school
diploma or an equivalent credential, including a General Education
Development (GED) credential. The status dropout rate and the
completion dropout rate differ because they are based on different
populations. Only the status dropout rate calculation includes 16- and
17-year-olds and those 18- through 24-year-olds who are still enrolled
in a high school program. Because of these differences, the status
dropout rate and the high school completion rate are not the simple
inverse of each other. Another approach, called the cohort dropout
rate, uses repeated measurements of a single group of students to
periodically report on their dropout rate over time.
Further complicating the picture, most of the types of dropout measures
have at least two rates, which differ because they are based on
different age groups, data, or definitions of dropouts. For example,
some rates use data for a single year while others use a 3-year
average, and some count GED recipients as graduates while others do
not. (See app. II for descriptions of each of the published dropout and
completion measures we identified.)
Different measures can be used separately or together to examine
various dropout trends. For example, figure 4 shows the event dropout
rate, the status dropout rate and the high school noncompletion rate.
The event dropout rate, which measures only those youth who drop out in
a single year, is lower than the other two measures which deal with the
percentage of dropout in an age group regardless of when they dropped
out. The event dropout rate rose slightly”0.8 percentage point”between
1990 and 2000. However, this change was not statistically significant.
The noncompletion rate and the status dropout rate showed similar
patterns during the 10-year period, with the noncompletion rate
declining 0.9 percentage point and the status rate declining 1.2
percentage points during the period. However, as mentioned earlier,
these two rates differ, in part because they are based on different age
groups.
Figure 4: Event and Status Dropout Rates and Noncompletion Rates, 1990
Through 2000:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting data in the following
three categories:
Non-completion rate;
Status dropout rate;
Event dropout rate.
Note: The noncompletion rate is 100 percent minus the completion rate.
This rate is used to provide a figure in the same range as the event
and status dropout rates.
Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department
of Education‘s, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table
B1, p. 33; GAO‘s calculation of high school noncompletion rates.
[End of figure]
Another high school completion measure is the ’regular“ high school
completion rate. This rate is the number of public high school seniors
who earn a regular diploma in a given year stated as a percent of the
number of entering freshman 4 years earlier. For example, in the 1998-
1999 school year, public high schools awarded 2,488,605 regular high
school diplomas. This number was 67.2 percent of the 3,704,455 students
who began the ninth grade 4 years earlier in the fall of 1995. Like all
the other dropout measures we identified, the regular graduation rate
has its uses, but no one measure is appropriate for all situations. As
a result, users of dropout and completion data must familiarize
themselves with the many measures available and select the measure or
measures which best meet their needs.
Multiple Factors Are Related to Dropping Out:
Research has shown that multiple factors are associated with the
likelihood of dropping out. Education and private research
organizations have identified two main types of factors associated with
the likelihood of dropping out”one type involving family
characteristics and the other involving students‘ experiences in
school. For example, students from low-income, single-parent, and less-
educated families drop out at a much higher rate than other students.
Similarly, low grades, absenteeism, disciplinary problems, and
retention for one or more grades are also found at much higher-than-
average rates among students who drop out. However, identifying
students likely to drop out is not just a matter of identifying
students with high-risk characteristics, because research shows that
dropping out is often the culmination of a long-term process of
disengagement that begins in the earliest grades. Study of this long-
term pattern may offer ways to better and earlier identify potential
dropouts.
Family- and School-Related Factors Are Correlated With Dropping Out:
Research indicates that a number of family background factors, such as
socioeconomic status, race-ethnicity, single-parent families, siblings‘
educational attainment, and family mobility are correlated with the
likelihood of dropping out. Of these factors, socioeconomic status,
most commonly measured by parental income and education, bears the
strongest relation to dropping out, according to the results of a
number of studies. For example, an NCES longitudinal study of eighth
graders found that while data show that blacks, Hispanics, and Native
American students were more likely to drop out than white students,
this relationship is not statistically significant after controlling
for a student‘s socioeconomic status.[Footnote 12] Studies have also
found that dropping out is more likely to occur among students from
single-parent families and students with an older sibling who has
already dropped out than among counterparts without these
characteristics. Other aspects of a student‘s home life such as level
of parental involvement and support, parent‘s educational expectations,
parent‘s attitudes about school, and stability of the family
environment can also influence a youth‘s decision to stay in school.
For example, results from the NCES study found that students whose
parents were not actively involved in the student‘s school, whose
parents infrequently talked to them about school-related matters, or
whose parents held low expectations for their child‘s future
educational attainment were more likely to drop out.
Students‘ past school performance is also related to the likelihood of
dropping out. For example, research shows that students with a history
of poor academic achievement, evidenced by low grades and poor test
scores, are more likely to drop out than students who have a history of
academic success. In addition, students who are overage for their grade
or have repeated a grade are more likely to drop out. For example, one
study found that students who had repeated a grade as early as
kindergarten through fourth grade were almost five times as likely to
drop out of school than those who had not. The odds of students who had
repeated a later grade”fifth through eighth grade”of dropping out were
almost 11 times the odds of those students who had never repeated these
grades.[Footnote 13] Other school experiences related to dropping out
include students having a history of behavior problems and having
higher rates of chronic truancy and tardiness.
Research also indicates that dropout rates are associated with various
characteristics of the schools themselves, such as the size of the
school, level of resources, and degree of support for students with
academic or behavior problems. For example, a summary[Footnote 14] of
the research on school size and its effect on various aspects of
schooling, found that in terms of dropout rates or graduation rates,
small schools tended to have lower dropout rates than large schools. Of
the 10 research documents that were summarized, 9 revealed differences
favoring or greatly favoring small schools, while the other document
reported mixed results.
Dropping Out Is a Long-Term Process:
Various research studies have focused on dropping out is a long-term
process of disengagement that occurs over time and begins in the
earliest grades. Early school failure may act as the starting point in
a cycle that causes children to question their competence, weakens
their attachment to school, and eventually results in their dropping
out. For example, a study examining the first-to ninth-grade records
for a group of Baltimore school children found that low test scores and
poor report cards from as early as first grade forecast dropout risk
with considerable accuracy.[Footnote 15] This process of disengagement
can be identified in measures of students‘ attitudes as well as in
measures of their academic performance. Studies have shown that early
behavior problems”shown in absenteeism, skipping class, disruptive
behavior, lack of participation in class, and delinquency”can lead to
gradual disengagement and eventual dropping out. For example, a report
summarizing a longitudinal study of 611 inner-city school children
found significant relationships between behavior problems in
kindergarten through grade 3 and misconduct in the classroom at ages 14
and 15, future school disciplinary problems, police contacts by age 17,
and subsequently higher dropout rates.[Footnote 16] Study of such long-
term patterns that often lead to dropping out may offer ways to better
and earlier identify potential dropouts.
A Variety of Programs Address the Dropout Problem:
Local entities have implemented a variety of initiatives to address the
factors associated with dropping out, ranging from small-scale
supplementary services to comprehensive school reorganizations. These
initiatives are limited in the degree to which they address family-
related factors associated with dropping out, such as income; they
focus mainly on student-related factors, such as low grades and
absenteeism. While dropout prevention programs can vary widely, they
tend to cluster around three main approaches: (1) supplemental services
for at-risk students; (2) different forms of alternative education for
students who do not do well in regular classrooms; and (3) school-wide
restructuring efforts for all students. Several of the programs we
reviewed have conducted rigorous evaluations, with others reporting
positive outcome data on student progress and student behavior. States‘
support of dropout prevention activities varies considerably with some
states providing funds specifically for dropout prevention programs
while others fund programs to serve at-risk youth, which may help
prevent them from dropping out.
Local Entities Use Three Main Approaches for Dropout Prevention:
Local entities have implemented a variety of initiatives to address the
factors associated with dropping out of school. Our visits to 25
schools in six states”California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Washington”showed that initiatives in these schools cluster around
three main approaches: (1) supplemental services for at-risk students;
(2) different forms of alternative education, which are efforts to
create different learning environments for students who do not do well
in regular classrooms; and (3) school-wide restructuring efforts for
all students. Individual programs may focus exclusively on one type of
approach, or use a combination of approaches to address many of the
student-and school-related factors associated with dropping out of
school. Several of the programs we reviewed have conducted rigorous
evaluations, and others are reporting positive outcome data on student
academic progress and student behavior.
Supplemental Services for At-Risk Students:
Providing supplemental services to a targeted group of students who are
at risk of dropping out is one approach used by many of the programs we
visited. Some of the more common supplemental services include
mentoring, tutoring, counseling, and social support services, which
operate either during the school day or after school. These services
aim to improve students‘ academic performance, self-image, and sense of
belonging. For example, Deepwater Junior High School in Pasadena,
Texas, offers the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program, an internationally
recognized cross-age tutoring program designed to increase the self-
esteem and school success of at-risk middle and high school students by
placing them in positions of responsibility as tutors of younger
elementary school students. At Deepwater Junior High, officials told us
that about 25 eighth graders tutor kindergartners through second
graders at the local elementary school for 45 minutes a day, 4 days a
week. Tutors are paid $5 a day for their work, reinforcing the worth of
the students‘ time and efforts. According to officials, the program has
improved the tutors‘ attendance in school, behavior, self-esteem,
willingness to help, and sense of belonging. Another benefit of the
program is its impact on students‘ families, such as improved
relationships between the tutor and his or her family and between
families and the school. The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program is also the
subject of a 1992 rigorous evaluation that compared 63 Valued Youth
Program tutors with 70 students in a comparison group.[Footnote 17]
This evaluation showed that 2 years after the program began, 12 percent
of the comparison students had dropped out compared with only 1 percent
of the Valued Youth Program students. Average reading grades, as
provided by reading teachers of tutors and comparison group students,
were significantly higher for the program group, as were scores on a
self-esteem measure and on a measure of attitude towards school. The
Valued Youth Program has been widely replicated throughout the
Southwest and elsewhere.
At another school we visited”Rolling Hills Elementary in Orlando,
Florida”officials told us that 85 percent of the students are on free
or reduced-price lunches (which are served to lower-income children),
and that the school provides multiple supplemental academic programs
and social services to address many of the academic, personal, and
social problems that are often associated with students likely to drop
out of school. These programs and services include pre-school and
kindergarten classes to help at-risk children become successful
learners, two ’dropout prevention“ classes for students who are behind
their grade level, after school tutoring classes, and a variety of
social and counseling services. Progress reports are sent to parents to
keep them informed of their child‘s progress. The school also works
with three full-time therapists who help students with their social and
emotional problems. Teachers and staff monitor students‘ attendance and
identify early on those with attendance problems. This monitoring
effort has resulted in improved student attendance. School officials
emphasized the importance of identifying at an early age children who
are likely to become academic underachievers, truants, or likely to
develop behavioral problems, and the need to develop programs to
address the academic and behavior needs of these children. Although
longitudinal studies looking at the effects of these services over time
would be needed to determine the effectiveness of Rolling Hills‘ early
intervention program at preventing students from dropping out, research
suggests that early identification and intervention can help counteract
the process of disengagement and withdrawal from school.
Another form of supplemental services provided by schools we visited is
school-community partnerships. While a variety of approaches are used
by school officials to create school-community partnerships,[Footnote
18] the partnerships we reviewed focused on providing an array of
supportive services to students and their families, including mental
health counseling, health care, adult education, and recreation
programs. For example, the Tukwila School District in Tukwila,
Washington, aims to improve student achievement in school by focusing
on school, family, and community collaborations. According to
officials, the District offers mentoring and tutoring programs,
internships, and an array of health and social services. By building
partnerships with state and federal agencies, nonprofits, and other
organizations, the District hopes to maximize resources in ways that
would strengthen young people and their families. A longitudinal study
of the District‘s program during the 1994-1996 school years found that
58 percent of the elementary students who received human services from
district service providers and/or community agencies had higher grades
than a control group of students who did not receive services, and 74
percent of secondary school students receiving services had improved
their course completion rates after two semesters of service.
Alternative Learning Environments:
The second approach commonly used by localities we visited is to
provide alternative educational environments for students who do not do
well in the regular classroom. These alternative learning environments
attempt to create a more supportive and personalized learning
environment for students to help them overcome some of the risk factors
associated with dropping out, such as school disengagement and low
attachment to school. Alternative learning environments can either
operate within existing schools or as separate, alternative schools at
an off site location. Alternative environments operating within regular
schools can include small groups of students meeting each day to work
on academic skills in a more personal setting, or smaller schools
housed within the regular school, such as ninth grade or career
academies which focus on a specific group of students or offer a
curriculum organized around an industry or occupational theme.
Alternative schools located off site are generally smaller schools than
those the students otherwise would have attended. These smaller schools
usually have smaller classes, have more teachers per student, and offer
a more personalized learning environment for students. For example, the
Seahawks Academy in Seattle, Washington, is a small alternative school
for seventh, eighth, and ninth graders who have been unsuccessful in
the traditional middle and high schools. According to officials, the
academy is a partnership between Seattle Public Schools, Communities in
Schools (CIS),[Footnote 19] the Seattle Seahawks football team, and
corporate partners and strives to provide a safe, nurturing, and
supportive learning environment for about 110 students. The school
offers smaller class sizes, tutors, mentors, no cost health care, and
social services. Students wear Seahawks Academy uniforms and must
commit to strict behavior contracts signed by the student and parent.
Officials told us that the Academy‘s policies foster positive
expectations and ’Seahawks Academy culture,“ teaching students to
respect each other, teachers, and themselves. The Academy emphasizes
attendance, academic achievement, and appropriate behavior. Evidence of
program effectiveness includes improved test scores, fewer discipline
problems, and no suspensions or expulsions for the last 2 school years
compared with suspensions of about 7 percent and expulsions of about
0.5 percent at other schools in the district.
Another example of an alternative learning environment is the
Partnership at Las Vegas (PAL) Program at the Las Vegas High School in
Las Vegas, Nevada. The PAL program is a school operating within the
existing school with a school-to-careers curriculum that is designed to
provide students with both academic and career-related skills to
prepare them for entry into an occupation or enrollment in higher
education. Officials said that by linking academic coursework to career-
related courses and workplace experience, the PAL program aims to
motivate students to stay in school and promote an awareness of career
and educational opportunities after high school. According to
officials, the program is made up of a team of 6 teachers and about 150
at-risk 11th and 12th grade students. Program participants attend
classes 4 days a week and report to a work site for a nonpaid
internship 1 day a week. The program features academic courses that
stress the connection between school and work and include language
arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and computer applications.
Essential program aspects include business etiquette lessons, career
speakers, field trips, business internships, developing peer and team
affiliations, and constant monitoring and evaluation of student
progress. According to officials, evidence of program effectiveness
includes improved attendance and fewer discipline problems than non-PAL
participants. In addition, the PAL program reports a dropout rate of
about 2 percent for PAL participants, compared with a rate of 13.5
percent for non-PAL participants.
While only one of the alternative programs we visited has been
rigorously evaluated, the others are reporting positive outcomes in
areas such as test scores and students‘ behavior. For example, the
Excel program at the Middle School Professional Academy in Orlando,
Florida, an alternative school designed to meet the special needs of
disruptive, expelled, and disinterested youth, reported substantial
gains in mean grade point averages for students in the program.
Officials also reported fewer discipline problems and a retention rate
of 95 percent for the 2000-2001 school year. The Ranger Corps, at
Howard Middle School in Orlando, Florida, a Junior Reserve Officers
Training Corps (JROTC) program for about 50 seventh graders, also
reported gains of about 15 percentage points in reading test scores as
well as increased attendance and fewer disciplinary problems.
School-Wide Restructuring Efforts:
The third type of approach used by local entities is school-wide
restructuring efforts that focus on changing a school or all schools in
the school district in an effort to reduce the dropout rate. School-
wide restructuring efforts are generally implemented in schools that
have many students who are dropout prone. The general intent of this
approach is to move beyond traditional modes of school organization to
make schools more interesting and responsive places where students
learn more and are able to meet higher standards. Some researchers have
suggested that these restructuring efforts have the potential to reduce
dropping out in a much larger number of students by simultaneously
addressing many of the factors associated with dropping out. An example
of a school-wide restructuring effort is Project GRAD (Graduation
Really Achieves Dreams) in Houston, Texas”a 12-year-old scholarship
program that reports a track record of improving student academic
performance and increasing graduation rates. The program was initially
established in 1989 as a scholarship program, but in 1993, the program
began implementing math, reading, classroom management, and social
support curriculum models in a feeder system of schools (all the
elementary and middle schools that feed students into a high school).
According to officials, the program expanded its services to the
elementary grades after program supporters recognized the need to begin
intervention in the earliest grades for it to be more successful.
Project GRAD emphasizes a solid foundation of skills in reading and
math, building self-discipline, providing resources for at-risk
children, and offering college scholarship support. Project GRAD has
reported demonstrating its effectiveness with higher test scores,
higher graduation rates, greater numbers of scholarship recipients, and
fewer disciplinary problems in the schools. For example, a 1999-2000
rigorous evaluation of the program showed that Project GRAD students
outperformed students in corresponding comparison groups in math and
reading achievement tests and made substantial gains in college
attendance. The success of Project GRAD has led to its expansion into
three additional feeder systems in Houston, with a 5-year plan to
expand into two more feeder systems. The model is being replicated in
feeder systems in Newark, Los Angeles, Nashville, Columbus, and
Atlanta.
Another example of a school-wide restructuring effort is the Talent
Development program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania”a comprehensive high
school reform model that aims to improve large high schools that face
serious problems with student attendance, discipline, achievement
scores, and dropout rates. This model has been implemented in four
Philadelphia high schools and approved for implementation in two
others. We visited three high schools in Philadelphia that use this
approach. According to officials, these schools provide or are in the
process of implementing a separate academy for all ninth graders,
career academies for 10th through 12th graders, and an alternative
after-hours twilight school for students who have serious attendance or
discipline problems. Block scheduling, whereby students take only four
courses a semester, each 80 to 90 minutes long, and stay together all
day as a class, is used in each school. The longer class periods enable
teachers to get to know their students better and to provide times for
individual assistance. A report on the outcomes of this model at two
schools showed that the percentage of students promoted to the tenth
grade has increased substantially, and the number of suspensions has
dropped dramatically. The report also indicated that students had
significant gains on standardized achievement tests in math and
improved student attendance.[Footnote 20]
The career academy model[Footnote 21] implemented at Talent Development
schools and other high schools we visited has been the subject of in-
depth evaluations. Career academies represent the high school reform
movement that is focused on smaller learning communities. Academy
components include rigorous academics with a career focus, a team of
teachers, and active business involvement. Extensive evaluations on the
academies indicate a positive impact on school performance. For
example, in a 10-year, ongoing national evaluation of nine career
academies,[Footnote 22] evaluators compared the performance of 959
students who participated in career academies and 805 similar students
who applied to but did not attend an academy. The evaluation also has a
long follow-up period, which extends 4 years beyond the students‘
scheduled graduation from high school. One report from the evaluation
found that among students at high risk of school failure, career
academies significantly cut dropout rates and increased attendance
rates, number of credits earned toward graduation, and preparation for
postsecondary education. A follow-up report issued in December 2001
stated that although the career academies enhanced the high school
experiences of their students, these positive effects did not translate
into changes in high school graduation rates or initial transitions to
post-secondary education and jobs.[Footnote 23] For example, some of
the students at high risk of school failure obtained a GED instead of
graduating. The report also notes that the full story of career academy
effectiveness is still unfolding and that longer-term results should be
examined prior to making definitive judgments about the effectiveness
of the approach.
Most States Provide Programs That Serve At-Risk Youth:
Many states have dropout prevention programs or programs that serve at-
risk youth that may help prevent them from dropping out of school.
Specifically, our calls to 50 states and the District of Columbia found
that 14 states have statewide dropout prevention programs,[Footnote 24]
and 29 other states and the District of Columbia have programs to serve
at-risk youth that may help prevent them from dropping out of school.
Seven states have no statewide programs identified to prevent dropout
or serve at-risk youth.[Footnote 25] Services provided by dropout
prevention programs and programs that serve at-risk youth may be
similar. However, the number of school districts served and the scope
of services offered by either type of program varies greatly by state.
Some states provide dropout prevention services in each of the states‘
districts, while others have dropout prevention programs that serve
only a limited number of school districts. For example, Tennessee
awards $6,000 dropout prevention grants to only 10 of its 138 school
districts annually.
The following examples illustrate how states implement their dropout
prevention and at-risk programs:
* The official dropout prevention programs implemented in California,
Texas, and Washington vary in their form and funding. One of
California‘s four dropout prevention programs, the School-Based Pupil
Motivation and Maintenance Program, provides $50,000 per school to fund
a school dropout prevention specialist (outreach consultant) at 300
schools in about 50 school districts each year. The outreach
consultants work to provide early identification of students at risk of
failing or dropping out and then coordinate the resources and services
of the whole school and surrounding community to identify and meet the
needs of these children so they can succeed and stay in school. Texas‘
dropout prevention program, the State Compensatory Education (SCE)
Program, provides state funds to schools that have a large percentage
of at-risk students (i.e., students with many of the characteristics
associated with dropping out). The SCE program funds services such as
supplemental instruction or alternative education with the goal of
enabling students not performing at grade level to perform at grade
level at the conclusion of the next regular school term. In addition,
each district is responsible for developing a strategic plan for
dropout prevention. Washington changed its dropout prevention program‘s
focus in 1992 from targeted dropout prevention services to a
comprehensive, integrated approach to address many of the factors
associated with the long-term process of disengagement from school that
often begins in the earliest grades. Washington uses about 15 state
programs to help prevent students from dropping out, including programs
emphasizing early intervention, schools-within-schools, and community
partnerships. How state funds are used to meet state education
objectives is largely left up to the school districts.
* Georgia, the District of Columbia, and Utah have no statewide dropout
prevention programs, but instead offer comprehensive programs to serve
at-risk students. Georgia‘s comprehensive approach to serving at-risk
students provides different services to students of different ages. For
example, Georgia has an Early Intervention program for students in
kindergarten through third grade, a reading program for students in
kindergarten through second grade, and Alternative Education for
students who are academically behind and disruptive. State funds are
allocated to alternative schools based on a formula grant process. The
District of Columbia also takes a comprehensive approach to preventing
students from dropping out through a variety of services targeted to at-
risk students. Programs include Head Start; after school programs;
school counseling; community service; alternative schools that offer
small classes, career readiness, testing, and counseling; and a program
to apprehend truant students and provide them with counseling and
referral services. Federal and District dollars are used to fund these
programs. Utah offers a number of programs to serve at-risk students.
Programs include alternative middle schools, gang intervention, and
homeless/disadvantaged minorities programs. These programs provide
mentoring, counseling, and health services to students, and state funds
are awarded to school districts through both competitive and formula
grants.
Multiple Federal Programs Provide Funds That Can Be Used for Dropout
Prevention:
The Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program (DPDP)”funded at $5
million for fiscal year 2001”is the only federal program that has
dropout prevention as its sole objective; because the program is new,
the Department of Education has not yet evaluated its effectiveness.
[Footnote 26] However, other federal programs are also used by local
entities to provide dropout prevention services.[Footnote 27] For
example, five federal programs have dropout prevention as one of their
multiple objectives and several more programs”such as Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and 21st Century Community Learning Centers”serve at-risk
youth even though dropout prevention is not the programs‘ stated goal.
Reducing the dropout rate is not a stated program goal of most current
programs, and thus assessing how effective the current federal programs
have been in reducing the dropout rate is very difficult given that
very few programs have been evaluated in terms of their effects on the
dropout rate. Prior evaluations of the SDDAP”which have measured
program effect on dropout rates”showed mixed results. Although some
experts and state and local officials did not believe the creation of
additional federal dropout programs was warranted, some of these
officials suggested a central source of information on the best dropout
prevention practices could be useful to states, school districts, and
schools.
One Current Federal Program Has Dropout Prevention as Its Sole
Objective, but Multiple Programs Fund Such Efforts:
Currently, the only federal program that has dropout prevention as its
sole objective is the DPDP. In fiscal year 2001, the Congress
appropriated $5 million for the program. The program, in turn, awarded
13 grants of between $180,000 and $492,857 to 12 local education
agencies (LEAs) and one state education agency (SEA) with dropout rates
of at least 10 percent. These grant recipients are to work in
collaboration with institutions of higher education or other public or
private organizations to build or expand upon existing strategies that
have been proven effective in reducing the number of students who drop
out of school. The Stephens County Dropout Prevention Project in
Toccoa, Georgia, for example, was awarded $441,156 to screen all 2,400
students in Stephens County in grades 6 to 12 to determine specific
needs based on at-risk traits. The project seeks to significantly
reduce suspension, grade retention, and repeat offenses leading to
expulsion and referrals to the court system through partnerships with
the Communities in Schools of Georgia, the National Dropout Prevention
Center, and the Department of Juvenile Justice. Another grant
recipient, a tribal school located in Nixon, Nevada, was awarded
$180,000 to assist approximately 200 Native American students in grades
7 to 12 who have not succeeded in a traditional public school setting
to remain or return to high school and graduate by developing
individualized education plans.
In addition to DPDP, we identified five programs that have dropout
prevention as one of their multiple objectives, with total funding of
over $266 million from three federal agencies. In fiscal year 2000,
Education received appropriations of $197.5 million to fund three of
these programs, and the Department of Justice and the Department of
Labor received total appropriations of $69.2 million to fund their
programs. Two programs account for most of these funds: Talent Search
and School-to-Work. Education‘s Talent Search program, funded at $100.5
million in fiscal year 2000, provides academic, career, and financial
counseling to its participants and encourages them to graduate from
high school and continue on to the postsecondary institution of their
choice. Education and Labor, who jointly administer the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act of 1994, each contributed $55 million in fiscal year
2000.[Footnote 28] This program‘s goal is to provide students with
knowledge and skills that will allow them to opt for college,
additional training, or a well-paying job directly out of high school.
Education‘s Title I, part D program, funded at $42 million in fiscal
year 2000, provides grants to SEAs for supplementary education services
to help youth in correctional and state-run juvenile facilities make
successful transitions to school or employment upon release. Two
smaller programs that also have dropout prevention as one of their
goals are Justice‘s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Labor‘s
Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP). JUMP was funded at $13.5 million
in fiscal year 2000 and aims to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang
participation, improve academic performance, and reduce the dropout
rate through the use of mentors. Labor allocated $650,000 to QOP in
fiscal year 2000 and states that its program goals include encouraging
students to get a high school diploma, providing post-secondary
education and training, and providing personal development courses.
Twenty-three other federal programs serve at-risk youth, although
dropout prevention is not the programs‘ stated goal. (See app. III for
a complete list of these programs.) Safe and Drug Free Schools and 21st
Century Community Learning Centers are examples of such programs.
Education‘s Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, funded at $428.6
million in fiscal year 2000, works to prevent violence in and around
schools and to strengthen programs that prevent the illegal use of
alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Education‘s 21st Century Community
Learning Centers Program, funded at $453 million in fiscal year 2000,
enables schools to stay open longer and provide a safe, drug-free, and
supervised environment for homework centers, mentoring programs, drug
and violence prevention counseling, and recreational activities.
None of the five programs for which dropout prevention is an objective
track the portion of funds used for dropout prevention. However, many
state and local officials informed us that they use one or more of
these and the other 23 federal programs that serve at-risk youth to
address the factors that may lead to students dropping out. The use of
programs such as these for dropout prevention is consistent with a
recent NDPC recommendation that dropout prevention proponents should
look beyond traditional dropout prevention program funding and seek
funds from programs in related risk areas, such as teenage pregnancy
prevention, juvenile crime prevention, and alcohol and drug abuse
prevention to identify and secure grant funding sources.
Few Current Federal Programs‘ Effects on Dropouts Have Been Evaluated,
and Evaluation of Past Federal Dropout Prevention Programs Showed Mixed
Results:
Since DPDP grants were just awarded in September 2001, Education has
not been able to evaluate the program‘s effect on the dropout rate. In
addition, most federal programs that address dropout prevention have
other goals, and the measurement of these goals takes precedence over
measuring the program‘s effect on the high school dropout rate. For
example, programs that promote post-secondary education as their major
goal, such as Talent Search, measure the program‘s effect in assisting
program participants enroll in college rather than what portion of
participants complete high school. Also, because many federal programs
provide funds for states and localities to administer programs,
responsibility for evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of
programs is also devolved to the state and local level. For example,
Education‘s Title I Neglected and Delinquent Program mostly administers
the distribution and allocation of funds to states. While many of the
programs it funds list dropout prevention as one of their intended
goals, states are not required to report on their program‘s effect on
dropout rates.
The three major evaluations of the former dropout prevention program”
Education‘s SDDAP which funded demonstrations from 1988-1995”have shown
mixed results. A study[Footnote 29] of 16 targeted programs showed
programs that were intensive[Footnote 30] in nature and that were
operating in middle school could improve grade promotion and reduce
school dropout rates. However, the same study showed that programs
implemented in high school did not affect personal or social outcomes
that are often correlated with dropping out (e.g., student‘s self-
esteem, pregnancy, drug use, and arrest rates). The study‘s authors
concluded that dropout prevention programs are more effective when
implemented in earlier grades. A second study of SDDAP programs,
[Footnote 31] which focused on the impacts of school restructuring
initiatives,[Footnote 32] concluded that restructuring would not, in
the short term, reduce dropout rates. This study explained that school
restructuring was often a lengthy process, and finding the true effect
of such efforts on dropout rates could take longer than the 3-to 4-year
period of most demonstration programs. This study also explained that
although dropout rates were not reduced in schools that restructured,
other outcomes such as school climate”the environment of the school and
how teachers and students interact” and test scores often improved and
that these improved outcomes could ultimately affect the dropout rate.
Finally, the third study evaluated 16 programs and found promising
strategies for reducing dropout rates at all levels of elementary and
secondary education.[Footnote 33] The study found that at the
elementary school level, in-class adult friends (trained volunteers or
helpers), after-school tutoring, and enrichment exercises that are
directly related to in-class assignments appeared to be effective
approaches. At the middle school level, coordinated teaching
strategies, flexible scheduling, heterogeneous grouping of students,
and counseling services were found to be useful. At the secondary
school level, the study found that paid-work incentives monitored by
the school and tied to classroom activities were very successful for
promoting school engagement. While all three studies of SDDAP programs
identified some promising practices or strategies for preventing
dropouts or addressing the factors associated with dropping out, none
of the programs studied were consistently effective in significantly
reducing dropout rates.
State and local officials also had numerous suggestions for reducing
the dropout rate. Several of them suggested that Education develop a
central source of information on the best dropout prevention
strategies. For example, an administrator at Independence High School
in San Jose, California, asked that the federal government act as a
clearinghouse for information about effective dropout prevention
programs, provide a list of people that could be contacted to find out
about these programs, and identify programs that could be visited to
observe best practices for preventing dropouts. A consultant for the
California Department of Education suggested that the federal
government could develop model dropout prevention programs and publish
information on programs that were successful. The At-Risk Coordinators
in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, and New York made similar suggestions for a
national clearinghouse or information on best practices for preventing
students from dropping out.
As mentioned earlier, NDPC is an organization that provides an NDPC-
developed list of effective strategies and information on self-reported
model programs on its website. However, the NDPC is completely self-
funded through memberships, grants, and contracts and does not have
sufficient resources to (1) disseminate information that is available
on its database of promising dropout prevention programs and practices,
or (2) thoroughly review programs included in its model program
listing. Instead NDPC relies on its website to communicate about
effective dropout prevention practices and its data are based on
voluntary submissions of program descriptions and promising practices
by its members and other experts in the dropout prevention field. While
some dropout prevention program officials mentioned NDPC as a useful
resource, they believe a more complete and current database of program
descriptions and promising practices would better serve their needs.
Conclusions:
Although there have been many federal, state, and local dropout
prevention programs over the last 2 decades, few have been rigorously
evaluated. Those federally funded programs that have been evaluated
have shown mixed results. Several rigorously evaluated local programs
have been shown to reduce dropout rates, raise test scores, and
increase college attendance. In addition, some state and local
officials believe that they are implementing promising practices that
are yielding positive outcomes for students, such as improved
attendance and grades and reduced discipline problems, although their
programs have not been thoroughly evaluated. Education could play an
important role in reviewing and evaluating existing research and in
encouraging or sponsoring additional research to rigorously evaluate
the effectiveness of state and local programs. Subsequently, Education
could disseminate the results of such research and information on the
identified best practices for state and local use. Opportunities exist
for Education to identify ways to collaborate with existing
organizations, such as the NDPC, that are already providing some
information on existing programs. As schools continue to look for ways
to ensure all students succeed, such research and information could
play a vital role in developing and implementing effective programs.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) evaluate the quality
of existing dropout prevention research, (2) determine how best to
encourage or sponsor the rigorous evaluation of the most promising
state and local dropout prevention programs and practices, and (3)
determine the most effective means of disseminating the results of
these and other available studies to state and local entities
interested in reducing dropout rates.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and
Human Services‘ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families and the
Department of Education. HHS had no comments. Education provided a
response, which is included as appendix V of this report, and technical
comments, which we incorporated when appropriate. Education agreed that
dropping out is a serious issue for American schools, emphasized the
importance of school improvement efforts in the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, and provided additional information about relevant
Education programs and activities. In response to our recommendations
that Education evaluate the quality of existing dropout prevention
research and determine how best to encourage or sponsor rigorous
evaluation of the most promising state and local dropout prevention
programs and practices, Education agreed that rigorous evidence is
needed and said that it will consider commissioning a systematic review
of the literature on this topic.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 3 days
after the date of this letter. At that time we will send copies of this
report to the Secretary of Education, appropriate congressional
committees, and other interested parties. If you or your staff have any
questions or wish to discuss this material further, please call me or
Diana Pietrowiak at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine dropout rate trends and identify factors associated with
dropping out, we obtained and reviewed reports, statistics, and studies
developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the National Dropout Prevention Center
(NDPC). We also obtained the papers presented at the Harvard University
Dropouts in America symposium in January 2001 and subsequently made
available on the Internet. In addition to interviewing officials at
each of the entities listed above, we interviewed dropout prevention
experts at universities, federal agencies, and private research
organizations and obtained and reviewed their publications.
To obtain information on the services offered by state, local, and
private agencies to students who are at-risk of dropping out, we
conducted site visits in six states”California, Florida, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. We selected these states because
our analysis of the literature and discussions with key dropout
prevention experts identified a variety of promising dropout prevention
programs within these states in each of the major types of dropout
prevention approaches”supplemental services for at-risk students,
different forms of alternative education, and school-wide restructuring
efforts. Between February and August 2001, we also conducted telephone
interviews with state at-risk coordinators in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia who were either identified by the NDPC or who were
referred to us by state program administrators. From the telephone
interviews, we determined, among other things, (1) whether the state
had a dropout prevention program, (2) if the state had other programs
for at-risk youths, and (3) if any evaluations had been made of the
effectiveness of the state programs‘ impact on reducing dropouts. Our
review focused only on dropout prevention programs and efforts. We did
not obtain information on dropout recovery programs that try to get
dropouts to return to school or on programs designed to help dropouts
get a General Education Development (GED) credential or other type of
high school credential. As a result, our list of programs whose funding
could be used to prevent dropouts in appendix III does not include
programs aimed only at dropout recovery or helping dropouts to get a
GED or other type of high school credential.
To identify what federal efforts exist to address dropout prevention
and if they have been proven effective, we interviewed officials from
the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, Justice, and Health and Human
Services who manage programs that aid in reducing the dropout rate. We
developed our initial list of federal dropout prevention programs
through our literature review and updated the list with references made
by the various federal program officials. We obtained information on
how the programs operated, how funds were dispersed, how dropout
prevention was prioritized, and whether or not the programs had been
evaluated. We also reviewed evaluations of the federal School Dropout
Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP), which funded local dropout
prevention programs in fiscal years 1988-1995.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Descriptions of Dropout and Completion Measures:
Table 3 provides a description of each of the types of dropout and
completion measures and the individual measures developed by each of
three different organizations. Since 1989, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) has annually published a report on dropout
rates, Dropout Rates in the United States.[Footnote 34] The most recent
report includes status and event dropout rates and high school
completion rates. Occasionally,[Footnote 35] the report includes cohort
rates. Both a national and state status dropout rates are developed
annually by the Annie E. Casey Foundation for its Kids Count Data Book.
[Footnote 36] A second measure of school completion, the ’regular“
graduation rate, is occasionally published by the Center for the Study
of Opportunity in Higher Education in Postsecondary Education
Opportunity.[Footnote 37]
Table 3: Dropout and Completion Measures:
Measure/source: Event Dropout Rates;
Description: Measures the annual incidence of dropout”that is, the
percent of students who leave school in a given year without completing
a high school program.
Measure/source: National Event Rate (NCES);
Description: NCES publishes a national event dropout rate, which it
defines as the percent of 15- to 24-year-olds who were enrolled in high
school the prior October but had not completed high school and were not
enrolled in grades 10 to 12 a year later. According to this definition,
a person could complete high school by either earning a high school
diploma or receiving an alternative credential such as a GED. The
national rate is computed from sample data collected from 50,000 U.S.
households by the Census Bureau in its October Supplement to the
Current Population Survey (CPS).
Measure/source: State Event Rates (NCES);
Description: NCES publishes state event dropout rates for grades 9 to
12 based on state-reported data collected through its annual survey of
state and local public educational agencies, known as the Common Core
of Data (CCD). The number of participating states using sufficiently
consistent data definitions and collection procedures to be included in
NCES‘ annual report increased from 14 states in the 1991-1992 school
year to 37 states and the District of Columbia for the 1997-1998 school
year. State data were not available states with large school-age
populations – California, Florida, New York, and Texas – in the most
recent school year.
Measure/source: Status Dropout Rates;
Description: Measure the portion of individuals within a particular age
group (typically young adults) who are not enrolled in a high school
program and have not completed high school.
Measure/source: National Status Rates (NCES & Annie E. Casey
Foundation);
Description: NCES uses data from the CPS to calculate the national
status dropout rate, which it defines as the proportion of 16- to 24-
year-olds who are not enrolled in a high school program and have not
completed high school. The Annie E. Casey Foundation also uses CPS data
to calculate a national status dropout rates, but for a smaller age-
range – 16-to 19-year-olds. Both sources consider those who earn an
alternative credential, such as a GED, to have completed high school.
Measure/source: State Status Rates (Annie E. Casey Foundation);
Description: The Annie E. Casey Foundation also uses data from CPS to
calculate status dropout rates for each state. However, because of the
small sample sizes for some states the margins of error are large and
there is no statistically significant difference in the dropout rate
between many states with similar rates.
Measure/source: Cohort Dropout Rate;
Description: Measures what portion of a group of students, usually in a
single grade, drop out over a period of time.
Measure/source: Cohort Rate (NCES);
Description: Based on data collected through its National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 ”which followed an 1988 eighth-grade student
cohort through four waves of data collection (1988, 1990, 1992, and
1994)”NCES periodically reports a cohort dropout rate for various time
intervals between 1988 and 1994.[A]
Measure/source: Completion Measures;
Description: Represent the proportion of young adults, not enrolled in
high school or below, who are defined as having completed high school.
Depending on the measure, ’completion“ may be characterized by a single
benchmark, such as receipt of a diploma, or, more frequently, includes
high-school equivalence (e.g., GED) and, in some cases, nondegree
certification (e.g., certificate of attendance).
Measure/source: National and State High School Completion Rates (NCES);
Description: Using data from the CPS, NCES computes completion rates,
which it defines as the proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds, not
currently enrolled in high school or below, who have a high school
diploma or the equivalent. NCES typically also reports completion rates
excluding alternative credentials, but did not do so in Dropout Rates
in the United States: 2000 and probably will not do so in its 2001
report because of changes being made to the CPS. State rates are based
on a 3-year average of data while national rates are computed from both
3-year and 1-year databases.
Measure/source: National and State ’Regular“ High School Graduation
Rates (Center for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education);
Description: This rate represents the number of students who, in a
given year, complete a regular high school program and earn a diploma.
This rate compares the number of diploma-earning graduates with the
number of students enrolled in the ninth-grade 4 years earlier. The
data for this measure are collected by NCES through the CCD collection
from state education agencies.
[A] In addition, in its publications, NCES has compared these rates
with those obtained a decade earlier through its related longitudinal
study, High School & Beyond (HS&B).
Sources: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, Dropout Rates
in the United States: 1998, and Dropout Rates in the United States:
1995, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement; High School Dropout Rates, U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on
the Education of At-Risk Students, Consumer Guide, Number 16, March
1996; Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2001 Kids Count Data Book; and
Mortenson, Thomas G., High School Graduation Trends and Patterns 1981
to 2000, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, June 2001.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention:
Table 4 lists 23 federal programs that federal, state, and local
officials identified as programs from which funds are used to serve at-
risk youth, which in turn could help to prevent their dropping out.
Thus, these programs provide funds that can be used for dropout
prevention activities.
Table 4: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention:
Program: Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC);
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Defense.
Program: 21st Century Community Learning Centers;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, part A
– Basic Grants;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: High School Reform State Grant Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Indian Education Discretionary Grants;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Indian Education Formula Grants;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Migrant Education Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Governor‘s Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Smaller Learning Communities Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Upward Bound;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Education.
Program: Head Start Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Program: Independent Living Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Program: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Program: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Formula Grants Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Justice.
Program: Title V Community Prevention Grants Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Justice.
Program: OJJDP‘s Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Justice.
Program: Migrant Seasonal Farmworker Program;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Labor.
Program: Youth Activities;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Labor.
Program: Youth Opportunity Grants;
Federal Department: U.S. Department of Labor.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: High School Completion Rates, October 1998 Through 2000:
State: Alabama:
Completion rate: 81.6%.
State: Alaska:
Completion rate: 93.3%.
State: Arizona:
Completion rate: 73.5%.
State: Arkansas:
Completion rate: 84.1%.
State: California:
Completion rate: 82.5%.
State: Colorado:
Completion rate: 81.6%.
State: Connecticut:
Completion rate: 91.7%.
State: Delaware:
Completion rate: 91.0%.
State: District of Columbia:
Completion rate: 88.0%.
State: Florida:
Completion rate: 84.6%.
State: Georgia:
Completion rate: 83.5%.
State: Hawaii:
Completion rate: 91.8%.
State: Idaho:
Completion rate: 86.4%.
State: Illinois:
Completion rate: 87.1%.
State: Indiana:
Completion rate: 89.4%.
State: Iowa:
Completion rate: 90.8%.
State: Kansas:
Completion rate: 90.4%.
State: Kentucky:
Completion rate: 86.2%.
State: Louisiana:
Completion rate: 82.1%.
State: Maine:
Completion rate: 94.5%.
State: Maryland:
Completion rate: 87.4%.
State: Massachusetts:
Completion rate: 90.9%.
State: Michigan:
Completion rate: 89.2%.
State: Minnesota:
Completion rate: 91.9%.
State: Mississippi:
Completion rate: 82.3%.
State: Missouri:
Completion rate: 92.6%.
State: Montana:
Completion rate: 91.1%.
State: Nebraska:
Completion rate: 91.3%.
State: Nevada:
Completion rate: 77.9%.
State: New Hampshire:
Completion rate: 85.1%.
State: New Jersey:
Completion rate: 90.1%.
State: New Mexico:
Completion rate: 83.0%.
State: New York:
Completion rate: 86.3%.
State: North Carolina:
Completion rate: 86.1%.
State: North Dakota:
Completion rate: 94.4%.
State: Ohio:
Completion rate: 87.7%.
State: Oklahoma:
Completion rate: 85.7%.
State: Oregon:
Completion rate: 82.3%.
State: Pennsylvania:
Completion rate: 89.0%.
State: Rhode Island:
Completion rate: 87.9%.
State: South Carolina:
Completion rate: 85.1%.
State: South Dakota:
Completion rate: 92.0%.
State: Tennessee:
Completion rate: 89.0%.
State: Texas:
Completion rate: 79.4%.
State: Utah:
Completion rate: 90.0%.
State: Vermont:
Completion rate: 90.8%.
State: Virginia:
Completion rate: 87.3%.
State: Washington:
Completion rate: 87.4%.
State: West Virginia:
Completion rate: 89.6%.
State: Wisconsin:
Completion rate: 90.0%.
State: Wyoming:
Completion rate: 86.5%.
Note: This appendix presents high school completion rates of 18-
through 24-year-olds not currently enrolled in high school or below.
Source: Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-114,
Washington, D.C., November 2001, table B9, pp. 41-42.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
The Deputy Secretary:
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202-0500:
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov]:
"Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote
educational excellence throughout the Nation."
January 14, 2002:
Ms. Mamie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in
Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. The
Secretary and I appreciate your helping to highlight both the extent of
the national dropout problem and the need for further efforts to
address it.
We concur with your assessment that dropping out is a serious issue for
American schools. An overall dropout rate of close to 12 percent over
the last decade is unacceptable, as are the even higher rates of
dropout experienced in some regions of the country and among some
groups of students. We view these statistics as a further call for the
school improvement efforts proposed by the President in his No Child
Left Behind education blueprint and adopted by Congress in the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In this
letter we would like to provide additional information about relevant
Department programs and activities, and to respond to your
recommendations regarding research, evaluation, and dissemination
activities.
New Efforts to Promote Student Success:
The Department considers high school completion to be a key indicator
of student and school success, and is actively taking steps to ensure
that more students achieve this important milestone. These steps
include two aimed directly at high schools:
* High School Accountability: Provisions in the recently passed No
Child Left Behind Act emphasize improvement in high school graduation
rates as a measure against which Title I schools will be held
accountable.
* New High School Initiative: The Department is planning for a new
"high school" initiative, designed to improve academic performance and
preparation for college and careers; raising graduation rates will be
one objective of this effort.
The report also notes that dropping out of school is a result of a long
process of disengagement from school. The No Child Left Behind Act is
an important opportunity to reform schools and promote student success
in the early grades, before the process of disengagement can begin or
take hold.
Research has shown, for example, that poor academic performance is the
best predictor of who will drop out of school. Students who receive low
grades, perform poorly on tests, are retained in grade, or are absent
frequently are more likely to drop out before completing high school
than are their peers. No Child Left Behind will apply proven
strategies -- high state standards, annual testing of students in
grades three through eight in reading and mathematics, increased
accountability for student performance, reduced bureaucracy and greater
flexibility for states, school districts, and schools, and expanded
options for parents to make choices for their children's education --
to strengthen federal support for state and local efforts to improve
student achievement. Annual testing of students in reading and
mathematics should provide teachers with current information on a
child's progress in school and enable teachers to arrange for the types
of support and remediation that are most likely to help that child
succeed academically.
The Need for Additional Research, Evaluation and Dissemination on
Dropout Prevention:
The Department supports a variety of information-gathering activities
about dropout prevention programs and strategies. Currently, several
national research and development centers funded by the Department's
Office of Educational Research and Improvement are working on topics
related to improving student retention and achievement; these include
the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk,
the Laboratory for Success, and the Center for Research on Education,
Diversity, and Excellence. As indicated in the report, the Department
also funds evaluations of federal dropout prevention programs. An
important addition to that discussion would be the use of experimental
methods, the most rigorous approach to analyzing program effectiveness,
in several of those evaluations. The discussion should also underscore
the difficulty presented by the use of numerous definitions of dropout
rates. The report mentions the multiple definitions that are used to
count dropouts, but does not discuss whether it is advantageous to
create a uniform definition that states would be required to report on
as a condition of receiving financial assistance.
We agree that additional rigorous evidence is needed. In response to
your recommendation to review the quality of existing research, the
Department will consider commissioning a systematic review of the
literature on this topic, of the kind and quality prepared by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development on early
reading strategies.
It is the Department's intention that all of these activities maintain
the highest standards of evidence. In particular, new studies of
federally funded programs and other state and local dropout and reentry
programs will emphasize the use of experimental designs and other
rigorous methods.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the important issues the
report raises.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
William D. Hansen:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Diana M. Pietrowiak, (202) 512-6239:
Charles M. Novak, (206) 287-4794:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Susan Chin, Amy Gleason Carroll,
Jeffrey Rueckhaus, Charles Shervey, and Anjali Tekchandani made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle and Nader Kabbani, The Dropout Process
in Life Course Perspective: Part I, Profiling Risk Factors at Home and
School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 2000.
Cardenas, Jose A., Maria Robledo Montecel, Josie D. Supik, and Richard
J. Harris, The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout Prevention
Strategies for At-Risk Students, Texas Researcher, Volume 3, Winter
1992.
Cotton, Kathleen, School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance,
School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #20, Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 1997.
Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert, Wood, Impacts
of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report, Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.
_____, Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.
Finn, Jeremy D., Withdrawing From School, Review of Educational
Research, Summer 1989, Volume 59, Number 2.
Gleason, Philip, Mark Dynarski, Do We Know Whom To Serve?, Issues in
Using Risk Factors to Identify Dropouts, Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, June 1998.
Greene, Jay P., High School Graduation Rates in the United States,
Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research, November 2001.
Kemple, James J., Career Academies: Impact on Students‘ Initial
Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment, New York:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001.
Kemple, James J., Jason C. Snipes, Career Academies: Impact on
Students‘ Engagement and Performance in High School, Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, New York, 2000.
Kaufman, Philip, Denise Bradby, Characteristics of At-Risk Students in
NELS:88, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, NCES 92-042,Washington, D.C., 1992.
Kaufman, Phillip, Jin Y. Kwon, Steve Klein, Christopher D. Chapman,
Dropout Rates in the United States: 1998, U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2000-022, Washington,
D.C., November 1999.
Kaufman, Phillip, Martha Naomi Alt, Christopher D. Chapman, Dropout
Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-114, Washington,
D.C., November 2001.
McMillen, Marilyn, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES
97-473, Washington, D.C., July 1997.
Mortenson, Thomas G., High School Graduation Trends and Patterns 1981
to 2000, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, June 2001.
Rossi, Robert J, Evaluation of Projects Funded by the School Dropout
Demonstration Assistance Program, Final Evaluation Report, American
Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California, 1993.
Slavin, Robert E., Olatokumbo S. Fashola, Show Me the Evidence! Proven
and Promising Programs for America‘s Schools, Corwin Press, Inc., 1998.
U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple
Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-96-34], Mar. 6, 1996.
_____, At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on
Improving Student Outcomes [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-01-66], Oct. 10, 2000.
_____, Hispanics‘ Schooling: Risk Factors for Dropping Out and Barriers
to Resuming Education [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/PEMD-94-24], July 27, 1994.
_____, School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HRD-87-108], July 20, 1987.
Wirt, John, Thomas Snyder, Jennifer Sable, Susan P. Choy, Yupin Bae,
Janis Stennett, Allison Gruner, Marianne Perie, The Condition of
Education 1998, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, NCES 98-013, Washington, D.C., October 1998.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] This report focuses on the status dropout rate. According to NCES,
this rate reveals the extent of the dropout problem in the population
and can be used to estimate the need for further education and training
designed to help dropouts participate fully in the economy and life of
the nation. This rate includes individuals who may not have attended
school in the United States.
[2] Based on a 1996 study of 25- to 34-year-olds who had dropped out of
high school after completing 9 to 11 years of school.
[3] Wirt, John, Thomas Snyder, Jennifer Sable, Susan P. Choy, Yupin
Bae, Janis Stennett, Allison Gruner, Marianne Perie, The Condition of
Education 1998, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, NCES 98-013, Washington, D.C., (Oct. 1998).
[4] School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HRD-87-108], July 20, 1987.
[5] Kaufman, Phillip, Martha Naomi Alt, and Christopher D. Chapman,
Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-114,Washington,
D.C., (Nov. 2001).
[6] See app. II for a description of each type of dropout and high
school completion rate.
[7] The dropout rate referred to in this section of the report is the
status dropout rate, which is the proportion of all 16- through 24-year-
olds who are not enrolled in a high school program and have not
completed high school. This measure is used because it reveals the
extent of the dropout problem in the population and can be used to
estimate the need for further education and training for dropouts. See
app. II for a description of each type of dropout and high school
completion rate.
[8] For an expanded discussion of the nature and extent of the school
dropout problems among Hispanics see Hispanics‘ Schooling: Risk Factors
for Dropping Out and Barriers to Resuming Education [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/PEMD-94-24], July 27, 1994.
[9] McMillen, Marilyn,Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES
97-473,Washington, D.C., July 1997, tables 16 and 20.
[10] See app. IV for a list of the completion rate for each state and
the District of Columbia.
[11] Our analysis is based on high school completion rates among 18-
through 24-year-olds who are no longer enrolled in high school or lower
grades, a somewhat different measure than the status dropout rates used
earlier in the discussion. We used the high school completion rate
because NCES had state-by-state data for all 50 states and the District
of Columbia, but did not have status dropout rate data by state.
[12] Kaufman, Philip, Denise Bradby, Characteristics of At-Risk
Students in NELS:88, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, NCES 92-042, Washington, D.C., 1992.
[13] Kaufman, Philip, Denise Bradby, (as above).
[14] Cotton, Kathleen, School Size, School Climate, and Student
Performance, School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #20,
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1997.
[15] Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle and Nader Kabbani, The Dropout
Process in Life Course Perspective: Part I, Profiling Risk Factors at
Home and School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 2000.
[16] Finn, Jeremy D., Withdrawing From School, Review of Educational
Research, Summer 1989, Volume 59, Number 2, p.131.
[17] Cardenas,Jose A., Maria Robledo Montecel, Josie D. Supik, Richard
J. Harris,The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout Prevention
Strategies for At-Risk Students, Texas Researcher, Volume 3, Winter
1992.
[18] For an expanded discussion of school-community partnerships see At-
Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student
Outcomes [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-66],
Oct.10, 2000.
[19] CIS is a national nonprofit organization that aims to keep kids in
school and prepare them for success in life by bringing health and
social services into schools.
[20] Philadelphia Education Fund. The Talent Development High School:
First-year Results of the Ninth Grade Success Academy in Two
Philadelphia Schools, 1999-2000.
[21] For an expanded discussion of career academies see At-Risk Youth:
School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student Outcomes,
pp. 16-17 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-66],
Oct. 10, 2000.
[22] Kemple, James J., Jason C. Snipes, Career Academies: Impact on
Students‘ Engagement and Performance in High School, New York: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, 2000.
[23] Kemple, James J., Career Academies: Impact on Students‘ Initial
Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment, New York:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001.
[24] States with statewide dropout programs: California, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
[25] States with no statewide programs for at-risk students: Alaska,
Connecticut, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and West
Virginia.
[26] On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110). Part H of Title I of the Act is
entitled the Dropout Prevention Act, which calls for a coordinated
national strategy and creation of a National School Dropout Prevention
Initiative to provide for school dropout prevention and reentry and to
raise academic achievement levels by providing grants to schools
through state and local educational agencies.
[27] For additional discussion of the multiple federal programs that
could fund similar services for at-risk youth and for school dropouts
see, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise
Efficiency Questions [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-96-34], Mar. 6, 1996.
[28] The authority provided by the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of
1994 terminated on October 1, 2001.
[29] Dynarski, Mark, Phillip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert Wood,
Impacts of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc, Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.
[30] Students in high-intensity programs generally remained in the
program for the full school day with smaller classes and accelerated
curricula designed to help them catch up to their peers.
[31] Dynarski, Mark, Phillip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert Wood,
Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.
[32] Restructuring strategies include (1) developing curricular and
instructional methods where students have an opportunity to learn more,
(2) having teachers play a more active role in managing schools, and
(3) encouraging schools to be more sensitive to the concerns of parents
and students.
[33] Rossi, Robert J, Evaluation of Projects Funded by the School
Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program, Final Evaluation Report,
American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California, 1993.
[34] Most recently, Kaufman, Phillip, Martha Naomi Alt, Christopher D.
Chapman, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-
114,Washington, D.C., November 2001.
[35] Recently, Kaufman, Phillip, Jin Y. Kwon, Steve Klein, Christopher
D. Chapman, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1998, U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2000-
022,Washington, D.C., November 1999.
[36] Recently, 2001 Kids Count Data Book, Annie E. Casey Foundation.
[37] Recently, Mortenson, Thomas G., High School Graduation Trends and
Patterns 1981 to 2000, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, June 2001.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
