RSS Updates
Twitter
Facebook
|
|||||||||||
<< Back to Ask the Expert Home
Ask the Expert Your Question!
Question 1: I am concerned with the high incidence of dropout among students with SLD, ADDH and other mild disabilities. Do you have specific strategies to prevent or lower this high incidence? |
This is a great first question for this month because it gives me an opportunity to refer everyone to last month’s topic—Tiered Intervention. One of the cutting edges of our work in dropout prevention is applying tiered intervention in the context of large, bureaucratically organized secondary schools that do not yet lend themselves well to the collaborative and personalized approach that Tiered Intervention demands.
The disproportionate numbers of learning disabled students who drop out of school is outrageous. As with poor and minority students, what the numbers indicate is the inability of our secondary education system to approach diversity in ways that create positive outcomes for all students. Most schools, especially at the secondary level, are designed to educate students who are academically engaged, on grade level, attend frequently, behave well, speak English, and have stable home lives. As such, they are anachronisms. We know that such students are not the norm in many schools now, and in schools serving high concentrations of low income students, the majority of students typically have one or more risk factors for failure and dropping out (Balfanz and Neild, 2007).
The few studies of youth with learning disabilities who drop out indicate they give up on school for the same reasons identified in studies of dropouts in general. They are bored, unchallenged, and see little connection between school and anything that is meaningful or interesting to them. They are frustrated because they are failing, falling far behind their peers, and lack the extra help and adult support they need to succeed. Some may experience a disruptive or traumatizing life event—a significant guardian moves or passes away, they get into trouble, or become victims of violence themselves—and have little adult support to help them through it (Guterman, 1995; Lichtenstein, 1993; Kortering & Braziel, 1999; Rumberger, 2004; Bridgeland, DiIulio, Morison, 2006).
How can we organize and provide resource for secondary schools to effectively respond to diverse learning needs and keep all students engaged and on the graduation path? There is no easy or single answer to that question, but the past decade has seen a remarkable convergence in thought and action around a number of strategies that have demonstrated effectiveness on student engagement, achievement, and advancement. These include:
- personalized learning environments characterized by high and clear expectations (academic and social), data-guided decision-making, positive climate, teaming, flexible scheduling, and strong relationships between students and adults;
- challenging, relevant, and individualized learning goals, activities, and contexts; this includes integration of academic and applied learning and, increasingly now includes a “college going culture” where college or postsecondary training is the expressed goal for all graduates;
- recruitment and development of adults who are skilled, committed, collaborative, continuously learning, capable of facilitating active and differentiated instruction, and who demonstrate individual and collective responsibility for the advancement of all students in their care;
- a “no failure” approach deploying targeted academic and social supports including multiple doses of literacy and math to close skill gaps, tutoring, counseling, extra help and credit recovery opportunities, specialized curriculum to develop social and study skills, and integrated social services where needed;
- technology infusion to engage students, develop skills, and support adult work; and
- involvement in extracurricular enrichment, athletics, arts, and community service activities.
Add to this the recent focus on early warning systems and tiered intervention approach addressed on this site by Lou Danielson last month (see Nield, Balfanz, and Herzog, 2007; Heppen and Therriault, 2008; Duffy, 2008). We have known for some time that students show signs of disengagement long before they actually drop out. Early detection of learning challenges, careful attention to red flags (course failure, low attendance, disruptive behavior) with appropriate responses and targeted supports particularly in transition years (6th and 9th grades) is critical to keeping students engaged in school and on track to graduation (Allensworth and Easton, Neild and Balfanz, op cit).
I’ll hold off for now on elaborating further on these strategies, the research behind them, and the programs that are translating them into concrete action and everyday practice since it would take up too much space and is readily available elsewhere (see various National High School Center issue briefs on dropout prevention; Dynarski, et. al.’s 2008 Dropout Prevention IES Practice Guide; Legters, Balfanz, and McPartland, 2002; Lehr, et. al., 2004 for application to students with disabilities; and the work of Bost and others at the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities).
Let me close by expressing my gratitude for this opportunity and for the collective intelligence and experience of individuals in the programs, schools, and school systems across the country that are taking the lead in transforming our secondary education system. The strategies outlined above represent a radical departure from the norm. These innovators are working hard to establish the strong, clear, flexible, responsive, and creative learning environments that make movement toward the ideal of success for all our young people not only possible, but inevitable.
The data on LD dropouts and graduates is not particularly satisfactory but see U.S. Department of Education, 2001; Lehr, et al.’s 2004 review; and National High School Center issue brief) for what we know to date.
References
Allensworth, E. and Easton, J. (2005). The On-Track Indicator as a Predictor of High School Graduation. Chicago: The Consortium for Chicago School Research
Balfanz, R.and Nield, R. (2007). Unfulfilled Promise: The Dimensions and Characteristics of Philadelphia’s Dropout Crisis, 2000-2005. Philadelphia, PA: Project U-Turn. http://www.projectUturn.net.
Bridgeland, J.M., DiIulio, Jr., J.J., and Morison, K.B. (2006, March). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Duffy, H. (2008). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. National High School Center Research Brief. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout
Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
Guterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of categorical learning disabilities services: The consumer’s view. Exceptional Children, 62, 111-124.
Heppen, J. and Therriault, S. (July 2008), Developing Early Warning Systems to Identify Potential High School Dropouts. Washington, DC: National High School Center, http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/IssueBrief_EarlyWarningSystemsGuide_081408.pdf.
Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1999). Staying in school: The perspective of ninth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 106-113.
Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Essential tools: Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
Legters, N.E., Balfanz, R., & McPartland, J. (2002). Solutions for failing high schools: Converging visions and promising models. Paper commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
Lichtenstein, S. (1993). Transition from school to adulthood: Case studies of adults with learning disabilities who dropped out of school. Exceptional Children, 59, 336-347.
National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities. http://www.ndpc-sd.org.
Neild, R., Balfanz, R., and Herzog, L (October 2007). “An Early Warning System.” Educational Leadership, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 28-33.
Rumberger, R.W. Why Students Drop Out. Pp. 131-156 in G. Orfield (Ed.), (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Disclaimer
It is important to note that the National High School Center does not endorse particular programs or practices.
