High School Dropout Rates: Prevention and Rural Interventions

Introduction: The Scope of the Dropout Problem

The development of an educational system that fails to teach a significant portion of the student population — including many at-risk demographics — has resulted in a substantial number of high school dropouts. Rising academic standards have also been identified as a catalyst for increasing dropout rates. Yet many interventions have been both formulated and applied in attempts to reduce the number of dropouts, 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 a genuine lack of community opportunity exist. This paper will first briefly discuss the problem of high school dropout rates, and then more closely examine programs 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. As Christle, Jolivette, and Michael (2007) explain, "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" (p. 325). By identifying differences between high schools with high versus low dropout rates, research suggests strategic actions that schools can take to engage students and facilitate their success.

The significance of this problem is especially high in a competitive global market that requires individuals to have greater levels of education and credentials to maintain employment and contribute to economic growth (Emanoil, 2000, p. 5). As one widely cited report notes, "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" ("High School Dropouts Cost," 2006, p. 6). 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.

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 important in the workforce. This paper reviews the literature on ways in which schools combat high school dropout rates in three basic areas: first, by describing prevention strategies through recognition and intervention, including programs that emphasize opportunity awareness and exposure; second, by briefly discussing ways to help dropouts reenter school; and third, by assessing ways to assist dropouts through alternative graduation programs, such as the GED. Although the latter two approaches are not oriented toward primary retention, they offer students alternatives that can reduce the long-term effects of dropping out.

Many research-based programs and projects have focused on the causes of and interventions for dropping out, most indicating a multi-causal process that allows for structured 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 multifaceted and urgent problem (Dorn, 1996, p. 52). This paper extends the work of others by addressing the problem through a triad of approaches, from prevention to intervention.

Systemic and Institutional Causes of Dropping Out

Dorn (1996) has written a comprehensive textbook describing the history, from a sociological perspective, of the manner in which institutions of education have been shaped through failed policy to create a system that does not successfully teach all students. The work describes how policies, administrations, schools, and even individual teachers contribute to high dropout rates. It highlights successive waves of policy attention that have, over the years, contributed to increases or decreases in dropout rates, and explains why those systems continue to fail students today. Dorn makes a compelling case that statistical and social analysis in the U.S. education system frequently seeks to resolve problems by renewing programs already known to be ineffective, and generally provides too little, too late (Dorn, 1996, p. 128). Rural school districts can be particularly prone to this pattern, as limited resources and shallow resource pools generate little funding for research, development, or the adoption of model programs. In the education system, resource allocation decisions are often weighed by cost-benefit ratios that are difficult to calculate accurately. In other words, change in education is often perceived purely as a cost, and untested programs are not seen as indicators of real change, while tested programs may be dismissed for demographic or budgetary reasons alone.

Kortering, Haring, and Klockars (1992) argue that a major failing of the system is its repeated tendency to overlook even the most obvious learning disabilities and to fail to intervene in time to allow students the opportunity to meet graduation requirements. In such cases, individuals leave high school and face economic disadvantage for the rest of their lives (Kortering, Haring & Klockars, 1992, p. 422). This challenge is especially acute in rural areas, where resources — both during school and immediately after — are often constrained by local economic conditions. Schools and educators may have limited access to evaluation experts, and classroom teachers may lack the training to recognize a learning disability rather than attributing poor performance to lack of student interest. The national statistics bear out the scale of this social loss: the U.S. loses hundreds of billions of dollars annually because individuals drop out of school ("High School Dropouts Cost," 2006, p. 6).

Socioeconomic Risk Factors and Rural Challenges

Suh, Suh, and Houston (2007) identify low socioeconomic status (SES) as one of the strongest predictors of dropout risk. They explain that the SES indicator is effective because living in a poor or disadvantaged household frequently brings with it a cluster of additional risk factors, including reduced parental involvement — often associated with the need to work multiple jobs. Other factors linked to low-SES families include the inability to fully support the household, which may require the student to leave school and seek employment, as well as significant social and emotional stressors that impair academic engagement or create a sense of helplessness (Suh, Suh & Houston, 2007, p. 196). This sense of helplessness is compounded by limited community opportunity, whether educational or vocational.

In many urban areas, programs designed to reduce dropout rates focus on civic opportunity and vocational training to demonstrate the value of completing an education. In rural areas, however, these opportunities are often scarce for adults, let alone the upcoming generation. Rural communities frequently contain high proportions of low-SES families, single-parent households, and those with limited economic prospects owing to regional restrictions in vocational choices and low prevailing wages. This reality — encountered by example or by direct experience — can diminish students' motivation to excel academically when they see only limited opportunity beyond school regardless of educational attainment.

Schools in these communities face their own structural constraints, as this economic reality produces limited and low tax bases, which is the primary basis for school funding across the country. Yet even as most schools are funded through regional tax revenues, the costs of operating a school continue to rise (Cook, 2009). Ultimately, a rural student may be torn between the desire for further education and the pressure to remain and contribute to the family. Students may also view higher education as an additional financial burden on the family and fear that leaving for college could mean never returning to their community — in large part because the vocational opportunities that would draw them back simply do not exist. As Elder and Conger (2000) point out, fewer adult role models in rural settings are likely to have pursued significant higher education, since those adults faced the same limited opportunities as their children.

This ambivalence about post-secondary education — both by default and by practical reality — is particularly troubling because high schools are largely oriented toward college enrollment as the primary marker of success. Students who see high school as a pathway to college, but who have no interest in or exposure to college as a realistic goal, are prone to view high school as a "waste of time" when they could be seeking employment, even at the entry level (Elder & Conger, 2000, p. 234). The Texas Education Agency recently recognized both rural and urban schools that used resource-allotment funds to bridge the gap between awareness and ability — in some cases improving rural students' exposure not just to the idea of college but to the practical steps involved in getting there. While such awareness programs are valuable, they must be carefully targeted toward high-risk students to avoid backfiring. Even so, using resources to bring at-risk students and their parents to, for example, a financial aid workshop could open minds to greater future opportunities (State of Texas, 2008).

Conclusion: Resources, Attitudes, and Community

It must be recognized that ultimate failure — dropping out — does not lend well to future ability to live and succeed in a dynamic world. The programs that researchers detail are fundamentally associated not with resources and resource allocation but with attitudes, educator shifts in goals and standards, and the development of support structures that require more time than money, rooted in student and educator empowerment to create change where it is needed most. By default, rural schools may actually have a structural advantage in this regard, as they often have lower student-to-teacher ratios and a smaller overall student population to serve.

The Center for Rural Alabama recently surveyed ten rural schools that were performing well. The report revealed no single magic solution to the challenges rural schools face, but did identify common characteristics among high-performing schools, including a strong sense of community, school pride, and strong principals who took the time to build relationships with parents, students, and teachers (Cook, 2009). This assessment reinforces the finding that the most important factors in school success may not involve expensive new curriculum programs at all, but rather high standards and a cohesive community that together generate solutions otherwise out of reach.

Yet rural dropout rates still hover near 50% or higher in some areas. The evidence reviewed here suggests that meaningful improvement is possible — not through large infusions of money or top-down mandates, but through deliberate, community-rooted strategies that treat students as individuals and equip educators to respond to their real needs. Programs that prevent dropout through early identification, expose students to post-secondary and vocational opportunity, help former students reenter school, and provide alternative graduation pathways all have a role to play. Taken together, they form a triad of intervention that, when applied thoughtfully in rural contexts, offers a credible path toward higher graduation rates and stronger communities.

References

Barton, P. E. (2005). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from

Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Michael, N. C. (2007). School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28(6), 325.

Cook, J. (August 8, 2009). Rural schools have fewer resources, high dropout. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from

Dorn, S. (1996). Creating the dropout: An institutional and social history of school failure. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Elder, G. H., & Conger, R. (2000). Children of the land: Adversity and success in rural America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Emanoil, P. (2000). Empty seats. Human Ecology, 28(3), 5.

High school dropouts cost country billions. (September 2006). USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), 6.

Kortering, L., Haring, N., & Klockars, A. (1992). The identification of high-school dropouts identified as learning disabled: Evaluating the utility of a discriminant analysis function. Exceptional Children, 58(5), 422.

Servon, L. (2002). Bridging the digital divide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

State of Texas Education Agency. (February 15, 2008). Districts and campuses recognized for exceptional use of high school allotment funds. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from

Stradford, C. W. (June 1993). Implementation of a rural program to reduce the drop-out rate of 9th and 10th grade at-risk students. Dissertation/Thesis. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from

Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston, I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85(2), 196.