Improving School Completion for Students with Disabilities

							A National Leadership Summit on Improving
Results for Youth


                         Policy and Practice
                     Implications for Secondary
                    and Postsecondary Education
                     and Employment for Youth
                         With Disabilities

                       September 18 and 19, 2003
                            Washington, DC
    Improving Graduation Rates Through
 Dropout Prevention Strategies That Work


Camilla (Cammy) Lehr
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition
Institute on Community Integration
University of Minnesota

September, 19, 2003
NCSET Leadership Institute
Preventing Dropout: A Critical and
Immediate National Goal
   Approximately 1 in 8 children in the United States never
    graduate from high school (Children’s Defense Fund, 2001)

   Based on calculations per school day, one high school
    student drops out every nine seconds (Children’s Defense
    Fund, 2001)


   Recent statistics representing the percentage of eighth
    grade students who graduate five years later range from a
    low of 55% in Florida to a high of 87% in New Jersey
    (Greene, 2002)
Current Data on Exit
Dropout Rate for Students Served Under IDEA,
Part B for school year 2000-2001 (OSEP)

29% of students with disabilities dropped out of school

   Rate based on number of students ages 14-21 leaving
    school
   “Dropped out” is defined as the total who were enrolled at
    some point in the reporting year and were not enrolled at
    the end of the reporting year. Category includes dropouts,
    runaways, GED recipients, expulsions, status unknown and
    other exiters.
    Current Data on Exit
   This rate (29%) compares with 34% for the
    1995-96 school year
   Highest rate of dropout for students with disabilities
    by state is 70% (Hawaii)
   28% of students with learning disabilities; 53% of
    students with emotional disturbance dropped out
   Highest rate of dropout by race/ethnicity for
    students with disabilities is 41% for American
    Indian/Alaska Native
Added Impetus for Addressing Dropout
    Significant costs to individuals who do not complete school
    Significant costs to society
    No Child Left Behind holds schools accountable for student
     progress using indicators of adequate yearly progress
     including measures of academic performance and rates of
     school completion
    Students with disabilities are required to participate in
     standards based reform and accountability systems
    27 states are in the process of implementing high stakes
     assessments used to determine whether students can
     graduate from school with a regular diploma
  The Question

What do we know that is research based and
 how can that information be used to inform
   practice and improve graduation rates?



              Five Strategies
Establish Procedures to Accurately
Measure Rates of School Completion
   Need for consistency in definition

   Formulas for calculating dropout vary and commonly yield
      Annual rates
      Status rates
      Cohort rates


   Comparisons across time and student groups may yield faulty
    interpretations

   Dropout rates do not simply or directly translate to an accurate
    graduation rate

   Impact of mobility on tracking students accurately

   Increased awareness of the issues will assist in developing sound
    procedures for measuring progress
Identify Students Who Are Placed
At Risk Based on Multiple Variables
   Variables associated with dropout have been categorized
    according to the extent to which they can be influenced to
    change the trajectory leading to dropout
      Status variables are unlikely to change (e.g.
        socioeconomic standing, disability, family structure)
      Alterable variables are more amenable to change and
        can be influenced by students, parents, educators and
        community members
   Alterable variables identified for students with disabilities
    include high rates of absenteeism, course failure, low
    participation in extracurricular activities, negative attitudes
    towards school, alcohol or drug problems).
   Presence of multiple factors increases the risk of dropout
Implement Interventions Designed to
Address Alterable Variables
   School level alterable variables associated with school completion
    for students with disabilities (Wagner, Blackorby & Hebeler,
    1993)
      Providing direct, individualized tutoring and support to
        complete homework assignments
      Support to attend class, and stay focused on school
      Participation in vocational education classes
      Participation in community based work experience programs
        and training for competitive employment

   Push effects – situations or experiences within the school
    environment that aggravate feelings of alienation, failure and
    dropout (e.g., raising standards without providing supports,
    suspension, negative school climate)
   Pull effects – factors external to the school environment that
    weaken or distract from the importance of school completion
    (e.g., pregnancy)
Ground Interventions in a Sound
Conceptual Understanding of Dropout
   Dropping out of school is a process of disengagement that begins
    early

   Theoretical conceptualizations have pointed to the important role
    of student engagement in school and learning (participation,
    identification, social bonding, personal investment in learning)

   Engagement is a multi-dimensional construct involving
    associated indicators and facilitators (academic, behavioral,
    psychological)

   A focus on enhancing students connection with school and
    facilitating successful school performance is a promising
    approach for improving school completion.
Current Conceptualizations of Dropout to Inform
Intervention Design and Implementation
       School completion encompasses a broader view than
        simply preventing dropout. Interventions that
        promote school completion are characterized by:

           A strength based orientation
           Comprehensive interface of systems
           Implementation over time
           Meeting individual needs by creating a person-
            environment fit
           A focus on promoting a good outcome, and building
            skills – not simply preventing a bad outcome
           Addressing core issues associated with student
            alienation and disengagement from school
      Identify Interventions that Show
      Evidence of Effectiveness
   There is not one best program

   “It is unlikely that a program developed elsewhere can be duplicated
    exactly in another site, because local talents and priorities for school
    reform, the particular needs and interests of the students to be
    served, resources available, and the conditions of the school to be
    changed will differ.” (McPartland, 1995)

   Consider examples in relation to the needs, demographics, resources
    and other circumstances of local schools or districts.

   Claims of effectiveness must be supported by adequate research
    and/or evaluation

   Recent efforts are focused on beginning to identify key components
    across programs that are effective in promoting school completion
    (e.g. persistence, relationships, monitoring progress)