Implementation of programs to increase graduation rates in rural areas

High School Drop Outs

The development of an educational system that fails to teach a significant portion of the student population, with the inclusion of many at risk demographics has resulted in a significant number of high school drop outs. Currently, standards increases have also been seen as a catalyst to drop out rate increases. Yet, there have been many interventions both formulated and even applied to attempt to reduce the number of drop outs, especially within high risk groups. The two highest risk groups are those in urban districts with limited resources and perceived limited opportunity and those in rural areas where limited resources and real possible lack of opportunities exist in the community. The work will first briefly discuss the problem of high school drop out rates and then more closely discuss programs that have been implemented specifically in rural high risk school populations to increase graduation rates.

Dropping out of school is not an impulsive action, but rather a cumulative process. Unsuccessful school experiences, such as academic failure, grade retention, absenteeism, behavior and discipline problems, and transfers from one school to another build on one another to eventually alienate the student from school (Martin et al., 2002). By identifying differences between high schools having high vs. low rates of dropout, this study suggests strategic actions that schools can take to engage students in their school and facilitate their success. (Christle, Jolivette & Michael, 2007, p. 325)

The significance of the problem is high, especially in a new competitive global market which will require individuals to have even greater levels of education and certifications to maintain employment in the present economy and to help the economy continue to be one of the best in the world. (Emanoil, 2000, p. 5)

The U.S. loses hundreds of billions of dollars each year when young people fail to graduate from high school, with costs reflected in lost productivity and tax revenues, as well as additional burdens to the health care, public assistance, and criminal justice systems. The nation faces reduced economic competitiveness in the near future, as well as diminished civic engagement among those most directly affected by inadequate education -- the growing proportion of the population that comes from low-income, minority backgrounds. ("High School Dropouts Cost," 2006, p. 6)

These statistics also do not address the fact that individuals who drop out of high school pay an emotional as well as economic toll, which grows annually as credentialing becomes more and more important in the workforce. This work is review of literature that will review ways in which some schools combat high school drop out rates in three basic areas. First the work will describe ways in the literature which prevent drop out, through recognition and then intervention, such as programs that emphasize opportunity awareness and exposure that both keep students interested in achieving in school and increase awareness of options associated with post-secondary education and vocational opportunities. Second the work will briefly discuss ways to help drop outs reenter school and third the plan will assess ways in which to assist drop outs in resolution with alternative graduation programs, such as GEDs. Both of the later programs are not supportive of primary retention but they do offer students alternatives to help reduce the long-term effect dropping out of school might have on them. There have been many research-based programs and projects that have focused on causes and interventions for drop outs, many of which have indicated a multi-causal process that details the reasons why an individual might drop out, in a manner that allows intervention (Christle, Jolivette & Michael, 2007, p. 325) (Suh, Suh & Houston, 2007, p. 196) (Kortering, Haring & Klockars, 1992, p. 442) Entire textbooks have also been written on this multi-faceted and urgent problem (Dorn, 1996, p. 52). This research will extend the work of others by addressing the problem from a triad of ways, from prevention to intervention.

Dorn has written a comprehensive textbook describing the history, from a sociological perspective as to the manner in which the institutions of education have been formed through failed policy to create a system that does not successfully teach students. The work describes the manner in which policies, administrations, schools and even the teachers themselves contribute to the problem of high drop out rates. The work highlights the waves of attention to different policies that have over the years contributed to decreases or increases in drop out rates and why such systems are failing students, even today. Dorn creates a strong case for the fact that statistical and social analysis in the U.S. education system frequently seeks to resolve the problems by oft renewing programs they already know not to have worked effectively and basically always providing too little too late. (Dorn, 1996, p. 128) Rural school districts can be notorious for this as limited resources and resource pools generate no new funding for research and development or even the adoption of model programs. In the education system these allocations are often ineffectively weighed by a cost benefit ratio that is challenging to say the least and inaccurate to say the worst. In other words change in education is often seen as a cost allocation and unknown or untested programs are not seen as indicative of real change while tested programs can be discounted for demographic or cost reasons alone.

Kortering, Haring & Klockars claim that the major failing of the system should be associated with the fact that it repeatedly overlooks even the most obvious learning disabilities and fails to intervene in time to allow the individual the opportunity to fully meet graduation requirements. In this case individuals then leave high school and are impaired economically for the entire rest of their lives. (Kortering, Haring & Klockars, 1992, p. 422) This is particularly challenging in rural areas of the country as the resources both during school and immediately after it are often challenged by local economic and community limitations. Schools and therefore educators might be limited in education and insight as to the extent to which any individual student is recognized as disabled even in the face of limited student populations. Rural schools might have only limited access to experts for evaluation and intervention and individual classroom teachers may be limited in their ability to recognize a problem, beyond assuming lack of interest on the part of the student. Massive social loss is supported by the national statistics that state the U.S. loses out on hundreds of billions of dollars a year simply because individuals drop out of school. ("High School Dropouts Cost," 2006, p. 6)

Suh, Suh & Houston identify a commonly held notion that low socioeconomic status is one of the biggest indicators that makes individuals at risk for dropping out of school. They go on to say that the SES indicator is effective because the situation of being in a poor and/or disadvantaged home frequently comes with a whole list of risk factors that include reduced parental involvement (associated with a need to work). Other factors associated with low SES families inability of the family to fully support itself requiring the student to drop out and work and also significant social and emotional stressors that add to the impetus to drop out or at the very least fall behind as a result of distraction and/or a feeling of helplessness. (Suh, Suh & Houston, 2007, p. 196) This sense of helplessness is then supported by limited community opportunity be they educational or vocational. In many urban areas programs that attempt to reduce drop out rates focus on civic opportunity as well as vocational training opportunities which show individuals the value of completing their education. Yet in rural areas these opportunities are often limited for the adult population, let alone the upcoming generation. Rural areas also often contain families with low SES, single parent headed households and/or those which have limited economic opportunity based on regional limitation in vocational choices and a low base of pay for the jobs that do exist. This by example or even by direct confrontation may create a limited desire in the individual student to excel as they see only limited opportunity to excel beyond school with or without educational attainment. Schools themselves are also challenged as this reality creates limited and low tax bases, which is the basis for school funding all over the country. Yet, even though most schools are funded by the regional tax base the costs of doing business as a school continue to rise. (Cook, 2009) Ultimately a rural student may be torn by their desire to be educated beyond high school and work a good job as doing so would likely mean leaving their community, removing support from the family. Students also see leaving and college as further taxing the families limited resources and fear that leaving for higher education may possibly result in the student never returning to his or her community of origin, due in large part to lack of vocational opportunity in the future. It must also be pointed out, as it is by Elder and Conger that fewer adult role models in rural settings are likely to have achieved any significant success in higher education, as they were often as limited as their children are for such opportunities.

This malevolence about post-secondary education by default and by reality proves troubling as post-secondary achievement is often seen as the end game of a secondary education. In other words high schools are geared toward the mark of success as students enrolling in college, even though this may not be seen in the community as an option or even a reasonable goal. So, it must be said that students who look at high school as a means to enter college but have no interest in college, often due to lack of exposure or even blatantly low educational goals in the community are likely to see high school as a "waste of time," when they could be out seeking and getting employment even at the very lowest level. (Elder & Conger, 2000, p. 234) Recently the Texas Education Agency recognized both rural and urban schools who implemented resource of allotment funds for exposure to bridging this gap between awareness and ability, by in some cases bettering the exposure of students in rural areas not only to the prospect of college but just how to go about getting there. Such awareness can not be overlooked as important but must also be geared towards high risk students as such an emphasis could ultimately backfire. (State of Texas, 2008) Yet, it must also be said that utilizing resources appropriately to get high risk of drop out students (and possibly their parents) in the door to say a financial aide workshop could go a long way in opening the minds of these students to greater opportunities in the future.

Another issue that requires discussion with regard to rural schools is the so called, "digital divide," or the technology divide that is seen as one of the biggest failings of our society and education system. In a sense this issue hits rural areas the hardest as they do not have the resources in an infrastructural or monetary sense to apply new and improved technologies to the classroom. This divide is said to seriously effect the ability of student to compete at par with students who are exposed to high technology. Many individuals believed that bridging this divide and creating technology-based curriculum opportunities would likely solve many of rural schools' problems, with lack of diverse opportunity and yet this divide has not been addressed in most rural areas to any great degree. (Servon, 2002, p. 35) Again there is a gap in the literature here in that programs which have been implemented in rural schools to attempt to address this divide are both limited in scope and have not been adequately studied to see if such implementation, usually at high cost to schools is effective on increasing high school completion rates. All that is really known is that not addressing the issue at all is leaving rural students at a serious disadvantage when and if they do seek out higher education.

Christle, Jolivette & Michael attest to the fact that through their research they have found that indicators for drop out rates can be identified simply by looking at school characteristics. Those schools with higher and lower drop out rates could be identified through many associated factors;

High schools with the lowest dropout rates in the present study offered courses and school-sponsored activities that were geared to the needs and interests of students. The academic focus was pronounced and rigorous, with additional supports for students in need. Teachers in LDOS showed interest in the students, and administrators provided supports for teachers. School personnel in LDOS identified students who were at risk for dropping out, targeted interventions based on individual needs, and monitored their progress. School climate and positive relationships were high priorities in the LDOS and in the classrooms. Students who are attached to supportive schools in which personnel recognize their individuality and care about and promote their successes are prone to complete high school and make successful transitions to adult life. (Christle, Jolivette & Michael, 2007, p. 325)

The development of schools that meet these standards could go far to help decrease drop out rates and would likely help the education system in a myriad of other ways as well, such as in teacher retention, decreased cost and the society as well in decreasing the cost of high school drop out rates overall. The research of Christle, Jolivette & Michael clearly develops a case for the idea that schools and the overall school environment can have a significant impact of student retention, beyond individual student demographics, that the school is unlikely to be able to control. Rural schools must then be exceedingly creative with the manner in which they implement change, though they may see the fact that they have very limited resources as the greatest obstacle. Christle, Jolivette & Michael point out that programs that work don't necessarily support increased funding, though this can be the case they often represent real paradigm shift that opens previously unseen opportunities to students and ultimately changes the way that educators think, feel and act toward at risk students. In other words individualism can be sought out not just for excelling students, such as those that are already "a joy to have in class" but toward students that might really need to be shown aspects of education that peak their interest in successful independent learning. For example if a student is at high risk of dropping out the teacher may seek out a particular interest of the student and develop a project or core-based learning plan around such interests, with the input of the student. Doing this could make the difference between the student dropping out or failing out or the student excelling in both the new material and possibly even the old more routine curricula. Christle, Jolivette & Michael seem not to lose site of the fact that the four years of high school and even the several years before it offer a very limited window of opportunity for success and change, for the individual student. The classroom and the school environment should not be seen as a factory that never evolves to meet new needs of different workers. Student and teacher empowerment to implement changes is an essential aspect of the need to focus on individual student needs and interests. Sadly, the new and "improved" standards-based plans and practices associated with accountability look more at outcomes and less at the organic nature of individuals and changing interests and needs. Ultimately Christle, Jolivette & Michael stress that programs that work are much more balanced than the bottom line accountability standards measures and must be focused on the whole picture rather than the utilitarian consequences of basic curriculum.

Even older programs such as the one detailed in a 1993 write up of rural school improvement programs aimed at reducing drop out rate (Stradford) recognize that at risk students have a cumulative and multi-faceted list of problems associated with limited school success. Ultimate drop-out can then be avoided, according to the research, by tailored and individual programs including many of Christle, Jolivette & Michael's principles of empowerment and increased standards and their expression to the students. Seeding change by paradigm shift seems to be the most important aspect of any fundamentally successful program that reduced drop out rates. (Stradford, 1993)

It must be recognized that ultimate failure, i.e. dropping out, does not lend well to future ability to live and be successful in a dynamic world. The programs that these researchers detail are fundamentally associated not with resources and resource allocation but with attitudes and educator shifts in goals and standards, as well as support development that require more time than money and are fundamentally focused on student and educator empowerment to create change where it is needed. By default rural schools should have a greater opportunity to make these kinds of changes because they often have a lower student per teacher ratio and an overall lower number of students to serve.