October 15, 2009

Solving the Dropout Crisis in California

Russell W. RumbergerCalifornia Dropout Research Project

UC Santa Barbara

California Symposium on Poverty

Sacramento

October 15, 2009

Urgency

• “And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country -- and this country needs and values the talents of every American.”

--Barack Obama, February 24, 2009

October 15, 2009

• New research with a focus on California (15 studies)

• Policy recommendations from policy committee (policymakers, educators, researchers)

• Dissemination through publications (statistical briefs, research reports, policy briefs), website, media

California Dropout Research ProjectActivities

October 15, 2009

Dimensions of the Problem

1. Magnitude and trends

2. Consequences

3. Causes

4. Solutions

October 15, 2009

1. The problem is severe.

October 15, 2009

California graduation rate

83.3%

80.2%

67.3%

68.5%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

CDE official state rate (NCLB) CDE 9th grade cohort rate

California High School Exit Exam Required

October 15, 2009

Problem is concentrated

• English learners represent 15% of high school students, but account for 30% of the dropouts

• 1% (25) of the schools account for 21% of dropouts

• 10 districts account for 36% of dropouts

October 15, 2009

2. The economic costs are staggering.

October 15, 2009

The Consequences of Dropping Out

• INDIVIDUAL CONSEQUENCES– Lower wages– Higher unemployment– Increased crime– Poorer health– Reduced political

participation– Reduced

intergenerational mobility

• SOCIAL COSTS– Reduced national and

state income– Reduced tax revenues– Increased social services– Increased crime– Poorer health – Reduced political

participation– Reduced intergenerational

mobility

October 15, 2009

Economic Costs in California

Dropouts Costs

California 123,651 $24 Billion

Los Angeles 12,367 $2 Billion

Fresno 3,236 $555 Million

San Diego 3,115 $534 Million

October 15, 2009

3. The causes are complex—related to students, families, schools, and communities

October 15, 2009

Understanding Causes

• Causes vs. reasons and predictors• Individual vs. institutional factors• Individual and family factors

– Demographic vs. behavioral/attitudinal (alterable vs. unalterable)

– Proximal (high school) vs. distal (before h.s.)

• School and community factors– Resources vs. practices

• Dropout vs. achievement

October 15, 2009

28

35

28

34

32

37

38

41

44

82

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Got a job

ANY JOB REASON

Pregnant

ANY FAMILY REASON

Could not keep up with schoolwork

Did not like school

Failing in school

Thought it would be easier to get GED

Missed too many days of school

ANY SCHOOL REASON

Reasons for Dropping Out

October 15, 2009

8th Grade Predictors(Percent increase in odds of dropping out between grade 8 and 12)

30

54

72

75

150

150

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Misbehaved

Low grades (6-8)

Low test scores

Low educational expectations (<=12 years)

High absenteeism (>25%)

Retained (1-8)

SOURCE: Rumberger and Larson (1998).

October 15, 2009

Student and School Predictors(Predicted 10th grade graduation rates by student and school SES, 2002)

74

87

80

91

85

93

83

86

89

70

75

80

85

90

95

Low Middle High

Individual SES

Per

cent

School SES Low School SES Middle School SES High

SOURCE: Preliminary analysis of data from Education Longitudinal Study: 2002.

October 15, 2009

Implications of Research Findings for Policy and Practice• Address both academic and social needs of

students • Start before high school—more effective and

less costly • Focus on individual students and institutions that

support them (families, schools, and communities)

October 15, 2009

4. There are a range of possible solutions.

October 15, 2009

Interventions

• Programmatic—focus on students– Support programs– Alternative programs/schools

• Systemic—focus on system– Comprehensive school reform– School/community partnerships– School/district capacity building– State policies

October 15, 2009

Programmatic Solutions

• Advantages– Easier to design, fund, implement, evaluate

• Disadvantages– Limited impact--only appropriate where dropout

problem is small– Adds to programmatic “overload” at local level– Few proven programs—What Works Clearinghouse

has identified five proven programs

October 15, 2009

What Works Clearinghouse (US Department of Education)

• Reviewed 84 studies of 22 dropout interventions• Only 23 studies of 16 interventions had rigorous

evaluations– Seven effective in reducing dropout rates– Six effective in improving student progress toward graduation– Four effective in improving completion (inc. GED) rates– Zero effective in improving graduation rates

October 15, 2009

Systemic Solutions• Advantages

– Potential to impact more students—more appropriate in “dropout factories”

– Potential to impact multiple educational outcomes (test scores and dropout rates)

• Disadvantages– More difficult to alter families, schools, and communities– Few proven comprehensive school reform models—Comprehensive

School Reform Quality Center identified 3 out of 18 models that significantly improved graduation rates

– Unclear what incentives, resources, and support needed to improve school and district capacity

October 15, 2009

CDRP Policy Report(released February 27, 2008)

• Policy strategy—pressure and support• Pressure—modify accountability system, report more

useful data• Support—build capacity of schools, districts, state—

rather than implementing programs• Will improve achievement and other student outcomes• Improvement requires fiscal, human, and social

resources

October 15, 2009

What the State Should Do

1. Fix the accountability system in order to maintain pressure and to allow sufficient time to address the problem.

2. Collect and report more useful data on dropouts and the state’s progress in improving graduation rates.

3. Develop high school reform standards and create “lighthouse” districts to implement them in schools with high dropout rates.

4. Undertake middle school reform.

5. Make strategic investments in proven dropout prevention strategies targeting the most disadvantaged students and schools.

October 15, 2009

Proven InterventionsBenefit-Cost Ratio

Preschool 2.33

Preschool + Early Childhood 3.59

Class size reduction in grades K-3 (15 to 1)

--All students

--Low-income students

1.29

2.11

Raise teacher salaries 2.65

High school reform 4.47

October 15, 2009

What Districts Should Do

1. Marshal the will of the district and community to address the dropout problem.

2. Adopt proven strategies to keep students in school and support their successful graduation.

3. Develop a structured, participatory, and timed process for implementing these strategies in all targeted schools.

4. Develop and use data to monitor the implementation of the strategies and to modify the implementation plan

5. Partner with outside support organizations to identify strategies and to develop and monitor implementation .

October 15, 2009

What Schools Should Do

1. Create a personalized learning environment for both students and teachers.

2. Provide academic and social supports for students.

3. Provide rigorous and meaningful instruction.

4. Create connections to the real world.

October 15, 2009

Implementing Recommendations

• Choosing between strategies, targeted programs, schoolwide programs

• Selecting strategies and programs that are both effective and cost effective

• Matching programs and strategies with local context—populations, resources, capacity

• Evaluating outcomes of locally implemented programs

cdrp.ucsb.edu