Students who drop out of school face a difficult future. They are more likely to be unemployed, incarcerated, and/or impoverished. For students with disabilities, the risks are intensified. Their dropout rate is about 40 percent—more than twice that of their peers without disabilities. However, families can play an important role in making sure their student with or without disabilities graduates. Staying involved in your teen’s life during middle school and high school is critical. This Brief provides information and practical tips to help you do this.
Students who do not earn a high school diploma are more likely to:
Source: Hair, Ling, & Cochran, 2003
Identifying students who are most likely to drop out is not a precise process. Some students with no risk factors leave school, and some with many risk factors complete school.
Although risk factors are not precise predictors, parents should be aware of them. More importantly, they should become involved or seek assistance if they repeatedly see risky behaviors such as skipping school, failing classes, having significant discipline problems, or being involved in illegal activities.
Students with disabilities are at greater risk of dropping out if:
Among students with disabilities, students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD) and students with learning disabilities (LD) are at greatest risk of dropping out (Lehr, Johnson, Bremer, Cosio, & Thompson, 2004; Wagner, 1995; Wagner & Cameto, 2004; Wagner et al., 1991).
When youth drop out of school, it isn’t always an intentional decision. Many say they simply stopped going to school one day and no one objected. Some youth may drop out because they have problems with teachers, dislike school, or receive low grades. Other youth, however, leave school because of problems not directly related to academics, such as financial needs, family caretaking responsibilities, employment, or pregnancy. Others drop out because they think that principals or teachers wanted them to (Dynarski & Gleason, 1999; National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2004; Williams Bost, 2004).
Most students who drop out have not fully considered the consequences and typically are not prepared for what happens to them afterward. Although they are not finished maturing physically and emotionally, these adolescents often face the challenging transition to independent living and adulthood without the benefit of adult guidance, support systems, or services. As a result, they are more likely to face poor job prospects, experience lifelong dependence on social service systems, use illicit drugs, become involved in the juvenile justice system, and become teen parents (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2003; American Youth Policy Forum, 1998; Hair, Ling, & Cochran, 2003; Harlow, 2003).
Family involvement is one of the most important contributors to school completion and success. The most accurate predictor of a student’s school achievement is the extent to which his/her family encourages learning. Success is more likely if the family communicates high, yet reasonable, expectations for the student’s education and future career and becomes involved in his/her education. Middle school and high school students whose parents remain involved tend to:
(Clark, 1993; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Mapp, 2004; Schargel & Smink, 2001; Williams Bost, 2004).
When families are involved, students are more likely to:
Source: National Parent Teacher Association, 2001
The following strategies promote achievement and help students stay in school.
Students who actively participate in and identify with their school are more motivated to stay in school and more likely to graduate than those who are not involved with their school. Poor attendance, academic failure, emotional withdrawal, or other inappropriate conduct all can indicate that a student has disengaged from school (Edgar & Johnson, 1995). After-school and extracurricular activities can be an effective way of engaging students who find academics frustrating.
Learning styles, learning disabilities, and life experiences may all contribute to low academic achievement or problem behavior (Kerka, 2003). Many students with disabilities have trouble passing standard assessment tests. One means of promoting student engagement is to identify and accommodate disabilities so a student’s academic knowledge can be accurately assessed (Hayes, 1999; Thurlow, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2002).
Tailoring instruction to meet the needs of individual students also supports student engagement. Many at-risk youth are not well served by mainstream education (Raywid, 2001). The traditional approach to education is well-suited to students with strong language and math abilities. However, teachers can help students find other creative ways to learn, solve problems, demonstrate their talents, and achieve success. Technology and classroom materials designed for use by students of varying abilities can support individualized instruction that engages all students in learning (Smink, 2004). Parents can advocate for their school districts to adopt such “universal design” practices.
Parents or caring adults can also advocate for individualized discipline procedures and modification of school policies, such as alternatives to out-of-school suspension. Another approach is to include students in problem-solving. Engaging students in the development and enforcement of school rules can help youth learn to evaluate possible consequences and make good decisions (Edgar & Johnson, 1995).
Integrated academic and vocational education, career development, and work-based learning can also promote success for at-risk students (James & Jurich, 1999; Wonacott, 2002). Students with EBD are often more successful in schools that provide training for competitive employment and maintain high expectations (Hair et al., 2003; Kerka, 2003). Participation in service learning can also improve grades, school attendance, social responsibility, and community-oriented attitudes (Giles & Eyler, 1994; Hamilton & Fenzel, 1998; Schumer, 1994).
Students who drop out often feel that teachers, administrators, and others are not interested in them (Grobe, Niles, & Weisstein, 2001). Caring, knowledgeable adults can establish a climate of trust and support that lets youth know someone is paying attention. These adults can be “teachers, counselors, mentors, case workers, community members . . . who understand and deeply care about youth and provide significant time and attention” (James & Jurich, 1999, p. 340). School programs offering services over a long period foster such trusting relationships between students and adults (Kerka, 2003).
It may be especially important for youth who do not have family support to develop such relationships. All students can benefit from them, however. This includes youth who may find it difficult to confide in their parents as well as children of actively engaged parents (Roehlkepartain, Mannes, Scales, Lewis, & Bolstrom, 2004).
In their middle and high school years, teens want and need more privacy and independence. As they accept increased responsibility for and have opportunities to learn from their own decisions, they may need less parent involvement. Even so, they still need their parents.
Graduating from high school is a cornerstone of future success. Although students with disabilities may face obstacles to completing their education, parents can play a key role in helping their children achieve this goal. By staying involved, focusing on individual strengths, finding the right school setting, and holding high expectations, parents can help their children prepare for successful adulthood.
Reading, writing, and math skills are the foundation for learning in all subjects. One of the most important things parents can do is help their children build these skills in their elementary school years.
The transition from elementary school to middle school is traumatic for many students and their families (Wells, 1989). By only eighth grade, 20% of all students with disabilities and 40% of Hispanic students with disabilities have dropped out (Williams Bost, 2004). Below are some tips for parents of middle school students with disabilities:
Only 57% of youth with disabilities graduated from high school in the 2001-02 school year, according to the U.S. Department of Education (2002). To help ensure successful completion of high school, try the following tips, which are based on current dropout prevention research.
If your child is not doing well or is beginning to have behavioral problems in school:
For some students, an alternative school program is the right choice. Students who are unmotivated or have been labeled troublemakers or failures in traditional schools may thrive in smaller, more individualized settings. Research indicates that about 12% of all students attending alternative schools in the United States are students with disabilities (Lehr, 2004). Here are some options for youth and their families to consider.
Magnet schools have a unique theme or focus. Theme-based programs can help keep students interested in learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2004), preventing the disengagement that can lead to dropout.
Alternative schools may be an appropriate option for at-risk students who want to succeed. About 12% of students in alternative schools for at-risk students are special education students with IEPs—typically students with LD or EBD (Lehr, 2004; Lehr & Lange, 2003). Alternative schools that promote school completion and graduation typically feature smaller and more personal settings, individualized supports, counseling, positive relationships with adults, meaningful educational and transition goals, and an emphasis on vocational and living skills (Lehr, 2004). The IEP should continue to be followed and services should continue after placement in an alternative school. Parents should make sure that their child’s IEP is updated if necessary.
Charter schools are set up independently by teachers, parents, or other concerned people who have ideas for improving learning. Their boards of directors are elected by parents and school staff. Charter schools stress parent involvement. As for serving students with disabilities, charter schools have mixed results. Some parents have questions and concerns; others report having more positive experiences than they had in their previous, noncharter schools (Ahearn, 2001; Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnegan, 2000; Lehr, 2004).
Career Academies connect school to work through vocational education, career development, and work-based learning. They provide many students with both the motivation to graduate from high school and a solid foundation from which to pursue their college and career goals. Career Academies have contributed to successful results for many at-risk youth with disabilities (Conchas & Clark, 2002; James & Jurich, 1999; Kemple, 2001; Kerka, 2003).
GED programs may be an appropriate educational environment for older students whose needs cannot be met in the regular school setting. Some students may just need an alternative way to pursue their education. Recent studies suggest that some students with EBD can be more successful in adult education settings that have smaller classes, individualized instruction, an informal classroom climate, and a shorter school day (Imel, 2003; Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). However, a diploma or GED should only be the first step to finishing one’s education. The future workforce will require postsecondary education for even entry-level jobs. All youth who go on to college, including those who have a GED, have better outcomes (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004).
Author: Deborah Leuchovius, PACER Center
Ahearn, E. (2001). Public charter schools and students with disabilities. ERIC Digest, No. E609. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/public.htm
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2003). Fact Sheets: The Impact of Education on . . . a) Crime; b) Health & Well-Being; c) Personal Income & Employment; & d) Poverty & Homelessness. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.all4ed.org/publication_material/fact_sheets
American Youth Policy Forum. (1998). The forgotten half revisited: American youth and young families, 1988-2008. Washington, DC: Author.
Clark, R. M. (1993). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect student achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 85-105). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Conchas, G. Q., & Clark, P. A. (2002). Career academies and urban minority schooling: Forging optimism despite limited opportunity. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(3), 287–311. Retrieved 10/12/2006, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/gconchas/PDF/JESPAR_2002.pdf
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1999). How can we help? Lessons from federal drop-out prevention programs. Policy brief. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/howhelp.pdf
Edgar, E., & Johnson, E. (1995). Relationship building and affiliation activities in school-based dropout prevention programs. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Fiore, T. A., Harwell, L. M., Blackorby, J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: A national study (final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/fs/sped_natl_study.htm
Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students’ personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 327–339.
Grobe, T., Niles, J., & Weisstein, E. (2001). Helping all youth succeed: Building youth development systems in our communities. Boston: Commonwealth Corporation.
Hair, E., Ling, T., & Cochran, S. W. (2003). Youth development programs and educationally disadvantaged older youths: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.childtrends.org/files/EducDisadvOlderYouth.pdf
Hamilton, S. L., & Fenzel, L. M. (1998). The impact of volunteer experience on adolescent social development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3, 65–80.
Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf
Hayes, E. (1999). Youth in adult literacy education programs. In J. Comings, B. Garner, & C. Smith (Eds.), Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy: Vol. 1 (pp. 74–110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ncsall.net/?id=524
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
Imel, S. (2003). Youth in adult basic and literacy education programs. ERIC Digest, No. 246. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=132
James, D. W., & Jurich, S. (Eds.). (1999). More things that do make a difference for youth: A compendium of evaluations of youth programs and practices: Vol. II. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.aypf.org/publications/compendium/comp02.pdf
Kemple, J. J. (2001). Career academies: Impacts on students’ initial transitions to post-secondary education and employment. New York: MDRC. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.mdrc.org/Reports2002/CA_StudentsImpacts/CA_StudentImpactwTech.pdf
Kerka, S. (2003). Alternatives for at-risk and out-of-school youth. ERIC Digest, No. 248. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=134
Lehr, C. (2004). Alternative schools and students with disabilities: Identifying and understanding the issues. Information Brief, 3(6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1748
Lehr, C. A., & Lange, C. M. (2003). Alternative schools and the students they serve: Perceptions of state directors of special education. Policy Research Brief, 14(1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from ici.umn.edu/products/prb/141/
Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/
Mapp, K. (2004). Family engagement. In F. P. Schargel & J. Smink (Eds.), Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention (pp. 99-113). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (2004). Dropout and graduation: Frequently asked questions. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Author. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ncset.org/topics/dropout/faqs.asp?topic=36
National Parent Teacher Association (2001). National standards for parent/family involvement programs. Chicago, Illinois: Author.
Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410936_LosingOurFuture.pdf
Raywid, M. A. (2001). What to do with students who are not succeeding. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 582-584.
Roehlkepartain, E. C., Mannes, M., Scales, P. C., Lewis, S., & Bolstrom, B. (2004). Building strong families 2004: A study of African American and Latino/Latina parents in the United States. Chicago: YMCA of the USA and Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.search-institute.org/families/BSF2004-Report.pdf
Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school-age dropouts with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 239–258. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from http://journals.cec.sped.org/EC/Archive_Articles/VOLUME68NUMBER2WINTER2002_EC_Article6.pdf
Schargel, F. P., & Smink, J. (2001). Strategies to help solve our school dropout problem. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Schumer, R. (1994). Community-based learning: Humanizing education. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 357–367.
Smink, J. (2004). Effective dropout prevention strategies for students with and without disabilities in urban schools. Urban Perspectives, 9(2), 1, 4, 5, 11. Newtown, MA: Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.urbancollaborative.org/urbanperspectives/summer04.pdf
Thurlow, M., Sinclair, M. F., & Johnson, D. R. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school—Implications for policy and practice. Issue Brief, 1(2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=425
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2001/
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Innovations in education: Creating successful magnet school programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/magnet/report_pg3.html
Wagner, M., & Cameto, R. (2004). The characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of youth with emotional disturbances. NLTS2 Data Brief, 3(2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1687
Wagner, M. (1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. Critical Issues for Children and Youth, 5(2), 90–112.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., D’Amico, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., et al. (1991). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the national longitudinal transition study of special education students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Wells, A. S. (1989). Middle school education—The critical link in dropout prevention. Gilbert, AZ: adoption.com. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from http://library.adoption.com/Child-Development/
Wells, S. E. (1990). At-risk youth: Identification, programs, and recommendations. Englewood, CO: Teacher Idea Press.
Williams Bost, L. (2004). Helping students with disabilities graduate: Effective strategies for parents. Paper presented at “From School to Life—Lessons Learned,” a 2004 Transition Institute sponsored by the National Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers, New York.
Wonacott, M. E. (2002). Dropouts and career and technical education. Myths and Realities, 23. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Retrieved 6/19/2006, from www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=mr&ID=113