research on school dropouts

Exploring statistical approaches for predicting student dropout in education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Survey Article
• Published: 29 November 2023

Cite this article

• Raghul Gandhi Venkatesan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8624-8282 1 ,
• Dhivya Karmegam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3307-8704 2 &
• Bagavandas Mappillairaju   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4794-6250 3  

289 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Student dropout is non-attendance from school or college for an extended period for no apparent cause. Tending to this issue necessitates a careful comprehension of the basic issues as well as an appropriate intervention strategy. Statistical approaches have acquired much importance in recent years in resolving the issue of student dropout. This is due to the fact that statistical techniques can efficiently and effectively identify children at risk and plan interventions at the right time. Thirty-six studies in total were reviewed to compile, arrange, and combine current information about statistical techniques applied to predict student dropout from various academic databases between 2000 and 2023. Our findings revealed that the Random Forest in 23 studies and the Decision Tree in 16 studies were among the most widely adopted statistical techniques. Accuracy and Area Under the Curve were the frequently used evaluation metrics that are available in existing studies. However, it is notable that the majority of these techniques have been developed and tested within the context of developed nations, raising questions about their applicability in different global settings. Moreover, our meta-analysis estimated a pooled proportion of overall dropouts of 0.2061 (95% confidence interval: 0.1845–0.2278), revealing significant heterogeneity among the selected studies. As a result, this systematic review and meta-analysis provide a brief overview of statistical techniques focusing on strategies for predicting student dropout. In addition, this review highlights unsolved problems like data imbalance, interpretability, and geographic disparities that might lead to new research in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Machine Learning Models for Predicting Student Dropout—a Review

On predicting school dropouts in Egypt: A machine learning approach

Design, Development, and Evaluation of a Predictive Model for Regular School Dropout in the Chilean Educational System

Data availability.

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supplementary information files.

Yukselturk, E., Ozekes, S., & Turel, Y. K. (2014). Predicting dropout student: An application of data mining methods in an online education program. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning., 17 (1), 118–133.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lin, J. J. J., Imbrie ,P. K., & Reid, K. J. (2009). Student retention modelling: An evaluation of different methods and their impact on prediction results. In 2009 Research in Engineering Education Symposium REES 2009 (January).

Hu, Y.-H., Lo, C.-L., & Shih, S.-P. (2014). Developing early warning systems to predict students’ online learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36 , 469–478.

Jia, P., & Maloney, T. (2015). Using predictive modelling to identify students at risk of poor university outcomes. Higher Education, 70 (1), 127–149.

Chun-Teck, L. (2010). Predicting preuniversity students’ mathematics achievement (published conference proceedings style). In: International conference on mathematics education research, multimedia university , Malaysia (pp. 299–306).

Adhatrao, K., Gaykar, A., Dhawan, A., Jha, R., & Honrao, V. (2013). Predicting students’ performance using ID3 and C4.5 classification algorithms. arXiv Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2071

Durairaj, M., & Vijitha, C. (2014). Educational data mining for prediction of student performance using clustering algorithms. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 5 (4), 5987–5991.

Google Scholar  

Chen, J.-F., Hsieh, H.-N., & Do, Q. H. (2014). Predicting student academic performance: A comparison of two meta-heuristic algorithms inspired by cuckoo birds for training neural networks. Algorithms, 7 (4), 538–553.

Sales, A., Balby, L., & Cajueiro, A. (2016). Exploiting academic records for predicting student drop out: A case study in Brazilian higher education. Journal of Data, Information and Management, 7 (2), 166.

Ameri, S., Fard, M. J., Chinnam, R. B., & Reddy, C. K. (2016). Survival analysis based framework for early prediction of student dropouts. In International conference on information and knowledge management , 24–28 October (pp. 903–12).

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature reviews in SoftwareEngineering Version 2.3. Engineering , 45 (4), 1051.

Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2012). A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824 .

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10), e1-34.

Moola, S. (2017). Checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. Joanna Briggs Institute Rev Man. (pp. 1–7). http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools .

Karmegam, D., Ramamoorthy, T., & Mappillairajan, B. (2019). A systematic review of techniques employed for determining mental health using social media in psychological surveillance during disasters. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 14 (2), 265–272.

Lamote, C., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Speybroeck, S., Boonen, T., & de Bilde, J. (2013). Dropout in secondary education: An application of a multilevel discrete-time hazard model accounting for school changes. Quality & Quantity, 47 (5), 2425–2446.

Márquez-Vera, C., Romero Morales, C., & Ventura, S. S. (2013). Predicting school failure and dropout by using data mining techniques. Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 8 (1), 7–14.

Şara, N. B., Halland, R., Igel, C., & Alstrup, S. (2015). High-school dropout prediction using machine learning: A Danish large-scale study. In 23rd European symposium on artificial neural networks, computational intelligence and machine learning ESANN 2015—Proc eedings 2015 (pp. 319–324).

Costa, E. B., Fonseca, B., Santana, M. A., de Araújo, F. F., & Rego, J. (2017). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational data mining techniques for early prediction of students’ academic failure in introductory programming courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 73 , 247–256.

Aulck, L., Velagapudi, N., Blumenstock, J., & West, J. (2016). Predicting student dropout in higher education. http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06364

Weybright, E. H., Caldwell, L. L., Xie, H., Wegner, L., & Smith, E. A. (2017). Predicting secondary school dropout among South African adolescents: A survival analysis approach. South African Journal of Education, 37 (2), 1–11.

Adelman, M., Haimovich, F., Ham, A., & Vazquez, E. (2018). Predicting school dropout with administrative data: New evidence from Guatemala and Honduras. Education Economics, 26 (4), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2018.1433127

Berens, J., Schneider, K., Görtz, S., Oster, S., & Burghoff, J. (2021). Early detection of students at risk—Predicting student dropouts using administrative student data and machine learning methods. SSRN Electronic Journal, 11 (3), 1–41.

Hegde, V., & Prageeth, P. P. (2018). Higher education student dropout prediction and analysis through educational data mining. In: 2018 2nd international conference on inventive systems and control (ICISC) . IEEE [cited 2021 Oct 14]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8398887/

Nagy, M., & Molontay, R. (2018). Predicting dropout in higher education based on secondary school performance. In 2018 IEEE 22nd international conference on intelligent engineering systems (INES) . IEEE [cited 2021 Oct 14]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8523888/

Lee S, Chung JY. The machine learning-based dropout early warning system for improving the performance of dropout prediction. Appl Sci. 2019;9(15).

da Silva, P. M., Lima, M. N. C. A., Soares, W. L., Silva, I. R. R., de Fagundes, R. A. A., de Souza, F. F. (2019). Ensemble regression models applied to dropout in higher education. In 2019 8th Brazilian conference on intelligent systems (BRACIS) . IEEE [cited 2021 Oct 14]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8923655/

Al-Shabandar, R., Hussain, A. J., Liatsis, P., & Keight, R. (2019). Detecting at-risk students with early interventions using machine learning techniques. IEEE Access., 7 , 149464–149478.

Barros, T. M., Neto, P. A. S., Silva, I., & Guedes, L. A. (2019). Predictive models for imbalanced data: A school dropout perspective. Education Sciences, 9 (4), 275.

Biswas, A. A., Majumder, A., Mia, M. J., Nowrin, I., & Ritu, N. A. (2019). Predicting the enrollment and dropout of students in the post-graduation degree using machine learning classifier. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8 (11), 3083–3088.

Del Bonifro, F., Gabbrielli, M., Lisanti, G., & Zingaro, S. P. (2020). Student dropout prediction. Vol. 12163 LNAI, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) . Springer International Publishing (pp. 129–140). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_11

Tenpipat, W., & Akkarajitsakul, K. (2020). Student dropout prediction: A KMUTT case study. In 2020 1st international conference on big data analytics and practices (IBDAP) . IEEE [cited 2021 Oct 14]. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9245457/

Patacsil, F. F. (2020). Survival analysis approach for early prediction of student dropout using enrollment student data and ensemble models. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8 (9), 4036–4047.

Baranyi, M., Nagy, M., & Molontay, R. (2020). Interpretable deep learning for university dropout prediction. In SIGITE 2020—Proceedings 21st annual conference on information technology education (pp. 13–9).

Nangia, S., Anurag, J., & Gambhir, I. (2020). A machine learning approach to identity the students at the risk of dropping out of secondary education in India. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2475-2_51

Lottering, R., Hans, R., & Lall, M. (2020). A machine learning approach to identifying students at risk of dropout: A case study. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11 (10), 417–422.

Freitas, F. A. D., Vasconcelos, F. F. X., Peixoto, S. A., Hassan, M. M., Dewan, M. A. A., de Albuquerque, V. H. C., et al. (2020). IoT system for school dropout prediction using machine learning techniques based on socioeconomic data. Electronics, 9 (10), 1613.

Maldonado, S., Miranda, J., Olaya, D., Vásquez, J., & Verbeke, W. (2021). Redefining profit metrics for boosting student retention in higher education. Decision Support Systems, 143 (August 2020), 113493.

Opazo, D., Moreno, S., Álvarez-Miranda, E., & Pereira, J. (2021). Analysis of first-year university student dropout through machine learning models: A comparison between universities. Mathematics., 9 (20), 1–27.

Fernandez-Garcia, A. J., Preciado, J. C., Melchor, F., Rodriguez-Echeverria, R., Conejero, J. M., & Sanchez-Figueroa, F. (2021). A real-life machine learning experience for predicting university dropout at different stages using academic data. IEEE Access., 9 , 133076–133090.

Queiroga, E. M., Batista Machado, M. F., Paragarino, V. R., Primo, T. T., & Cechinel, C. (2022). Early prediction of at-risk students in secondary education: A countrywide K-12 learning analytics initiative in Uruguay. Information, 13 (9), 1–25.

Segura, M., Mello, J., & Hernandez, A. (2022). Machine learning prediction of university student dropout: Does preference play a key role? Mathematics., 10 (18), 3359.

Moreira da Silva, D. E., Solteiro Pires, E. J., Reis, A., de Moura Oliveira, P. B., & Barroso, J. (2022). Forecasting students dropout: A UTAD university study. Future Internet., 14 (3), 1–14.

Mnyawami, Y. N., Maziku, H. H., & Mushi, J. C. (2022). Comparative study of AutoML approach, conventional ensemble learning method, and KNearest Oracle-AutoML model for predicting student dropouts in Sub-Saharan African countries. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 36 (1), 2145632.

Dake, D. K., & Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2022). Using machine learning techniques to predict learner drop-out rate in higher educational institutions. Mobile Information Systems, 2022 , 1–9.

Niyogisubizo, J., Liao, L., Nziyumva, E., Murwanashyaka, E., & Nshimyumukiza, P. C. (2022). Predicting student’s dropout in university classes using two-layer ensemble machine learning approach: A novel stacked generalization. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence., 3 (March), 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100066

Flores, V., Heras, S., & Julian, V. (2022). Comparison of predictive models with balanced classes using the SMOTE method for the forecast of student dropout in higher education. Electronics, 11 (3), 457.

Garcia-Zanabria, G., Gutierrez-Pachas, D. A., Camara-Chavez, G., Poco, J., & Gomez-Nieto, E. (2022). SDA-Vis: A visualization system for student dropout analysis based on counterfactual exploration. Applied Sciences, 12 (12), 5785.

Selim, K. S., & Rezk, S. S. (2023). On predicting school dropouts in Egypt: A machine learning approach. Education and Information Technologies, 28 , 9235–9266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11571-x

Song, Z. H., Sung, S. H., Park, D., & Park, B. K. (2023). All-year dropout prediction modeling and analysis for university students. Applied Sciences, 13 (2), 1143.

Wang, N. (2016). How to conduct a meta-analysis of proportions in R: A comprehensive tutorial . John Jay College Criminal Justice (June):1–63.

Zheng, Z., Cai, Y., & Li, Y. (2015). Oversampling method for imbalanced classification. Computer Informatics., 34 (5), 1017–1037.

Learned-Miller, E. G. (2014). Introduction to Supervised Learning (p. 3). Amherst, MA, USA: Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts. https://people.cs.umass.edu/~elm/Teaching/Docs/supervised2014a.pdf

Kumar, M., Singh, A. J., & Handa, D. (2017). Literature survey on educational dropout prediction. International Journal of Education and Management Engineering, 7 (2), 8.

Shahiri, A. M., Husain, W., & Rashid, N. A. (2015). A review on predicting student’s performance using data mining techniques. Procedia Computer Science., 72 , 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.157

Gray, G., McGuinness, C., & Owende, P. (2014). An application of classification models to predict learner progression in tertiary education. In 2014 IEEE international advance computing conference (IACC) . IEEE (pp. 549–554).

Arsad, P. M., & Buniyamin, N. (2013). A neural network students’ performance prediction model (NNSPPM). In 2013 IEEE international conference on smart instrumentation, measurement and applications (ICSIMA) . IEEE (pp. 1–5).

Sathya, R., & Abraham, A. (2013). Comparison of supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms for pattern classification. International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence, 2 (2), 34–38.

Natek, S., & Zwilling, M. (2014). Student data mining solution-knowledge management system related to higher education institutions. Expert Systems with Applications, 41 (14), 6400–6407.

Kartal, O. O. (2015). Using survival analysis to investigate the persistence of students in an introductory information technology course at METU . Middle East Technical University.

Li, Y., Yang, T., Zhou, J., & Ye, J. (2018). A multi-task learning formulation for survival analysis. Proceedings of SIGKDD . https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975321.33

Bani, M. J., & Haji, M. (2017). College student retention: When do we losing them? arXiv Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06210

Zohair, L. M. A. (2019). Prediction of student’s performance by modelling small dataset size. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16 (1), 1–18.

Hellas, A., Ihantola, P., Petersen, A., Ajanovski, V. V., Gutica, M., Hynninen, T., Knutas, A., Leinonen, J., Messom, C., & Liao, S. N. Predicting academic performance: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings companion of the 23rd annual ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 175–99).

Kaliannan, M., & Chandran, S. D. (2012). Empowering Students through Outcome-Based Education (OBE). Res Educ[Internet]. , 87 (1), 50–63.

Arroway, P., Morgan, G., O’Keefe, M., & Yanosky, R. (2016). Learning analytics in higher education . Research report. ECAR, Louisville, CO.

Rajak, A., Shrivastava, A. K., & Shrivastava, D. P. (2018). Automating outcome based education for the attainment of course and program outcomes. In 2018 Fifth HCT Information Technology Trends (ITT) . IEEE (pp. 373–376).

Namoun, A., & Alshanqiti, A. (2021). Predicting student performance using data mining and learning analytics techniques: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 11 (1), 1–28.

Chen, J., Fang, B., Zhang, H., & Xue, X. (2022). A systematic review for MOOC dropout prediction from the perspective of machine learning. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2124425

Manjarres, A. V., Sandoval, L. G. M., & Suárez, M. S. (2018). Data mining techniques applied in educational environments: Literature review. Digital Education Review, 33 , 235–266.

Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2020). Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10 (3), e1355.

Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25 (3), 289–310.

Thammasiri, D., Delen, D., Meesad, P., & Kasap, N. (2014). A critical assessment of imbalanced class distribution problem: The case of predicting freshmen student attrition. Expert Systems with Applications, 41 (2), 321–330.

Kaur, H., Pannu, H. S., & Malhi, A. K. (2019). A systematic review on imbalanced data challenges in machine learning: Applications and solutions. ACM Computing Surveys, 52 (4), 1–36.

Mduma, N. (2023). Data balancing techniques for predicting student dropout using machine learning. Data, 8 (3), 49.

Mgala, M., & Mbogho, A. (2015). Data-driven intervention-level prediction modeling for academic performance. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on information and communication technologies and development (pp. 1–8).

Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2020). Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access., 2018 (6), 52138–52160.

Sghir, N., Adadi, A., & Lahmer, M. (2023). Recent advances in predictive learning analytics: A decade systematic review (2012–2022). Education and Information Technologies, 28 , 8299–8333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11536-0

Lakkaraju, H., Aguiar, E., Shan, C., Miller, D., Bhanpuri, N., Ghani, R., & Addison, K. L. A machine learning framework to identify students at risk of adverse academic outcomes. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1909–1918).

Mduma, N., Kalegele, K., & Machuve, D. (2019). A survey of machine learning approaches and techniques for student dropout prediction. Data Science Journal, 18 (1), 1–10.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Naman Gupta, Research Assistant, Department of Ophthalmology, Visual, and Anatomical Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan for his valuable support for database access throughout the process. We also thank Ms. Supriya Sathish Kumar, Research Scholar, Translational Medicine and Research, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, and reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mathematics, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, 603203, India

Raghul Gandhi Venkatesan

School of Public Health, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, 603203, India

Dhivya Karmegam

Centre for Statistics, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, 603203, India

Bagavandas Mappillairaju

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bagavandas Mappillairaju .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14 KB)

Supplementary file2 (docx 25 kb), supplementary file3 (docx 14 kb), supplementary file4 (docx 33 kb), supplementary file5 (docx 15 kb), supplementary file6 (docx 19 kb), supplementary file7 (docx 778 kb), rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Venkatesan, R.G., Karmegam, D. & Mappillairaju, B. Exploring statistical approaches for predicting student dropout in education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Comput Soc Sc (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00231-w

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2023

Accepted : 23 October 2023

Published : 29 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-023-00231-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Dropout prediction
• Supervised learning
• Unsupervised learning
• Meta-analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Understanding Dropouts: Statistics, Strategies, and High-Stakes Testing (2001)

Chapter: 1. background and context, 1 background and context.

F ailure to complete high school has been recognized as a social problem in the United States for decades and, as discussed below, the individual and social costs of dropping out are considerable. Social scientists, policy makers, journalists, and the public have pondered questions about why students drop out, how many drop out, what happens to dropouts, and how young people might be kept from dropping out. Currently, many voices are arguing about the effects of standards-based reforms and graduation tests on students' decisions to drop out and about which dropout counts are correct. A significant body of research has examined questions about dropouts, and this section of the report provides an overview of current knowledge about these young people. We begin with a look at the history of school completion.

CHANGING EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENTS

Expectations for the schooling of adolescents in the United States have changed markedly in the past 100 years. Indeed, the very notion of adolescence as a phase of life distinct from both childhood and adulthood came into common parlance only in the first decades of the twentieth century, at roughly the same time that educators began to develop increasingly ambitious goals for the schooling of students beyond the eighth grade ( Education Week, 2000:36). At the turn of the last century, as Sherman Dorn noted in the paper he prepared for the workshop, “fewer than one of every

ten adolescents graduated from high school. Today, roughly three of every four teens can expect to earn a diploma through a regular high school program” (Dorn, 2000:4).

High school in the early part of the century was a growing phenomenon, but it was still made available primarily to middle- and upper-class students and was generally focused on rigorous college preparatory work. At the turn of the century, the lack of a high school diploma did not necessarily deter young people from going on to successful careers in business or politics. As the number of students enrolled in high school grew, from approximately 500,000 in 1900 to 2.4 million in 1920 and then to 6.5 million in 1940, notions of the purpose of postelementary schooling were evolving.

Dorn provided the committee with an overview of trends in graduation rates over the twentieth century, noting three features of the overall trend that stand out: 1 (1) a steady increase in graduation rates throughout the first half of the twentieth century; (2) a decrease around the years during and immediately after the Second World War; (3) a plateau beginning with the cohort of students born during the 1950s. He discussed possible explanations for these changes in school completion rates.

One possible explanation is the influence of changes in the labor market. A number of developments had the effect of excluding increasing numbers of young people from full-time employment in the early decades of the twentieth century, including the mechanization of agriculture, increases in immigration, and the passage of new child labor laws. As teenagers had more difficulty finding work, increasing numbers of them stayed enrolled in school. The dip during the later 1940s is correspondingly explained by the fact that it was not only adult women who moved into the workforce to replace male workers who left employment for military service, but also teenagers of both sexes. The postwar dip and plateau also correlates with the growing availability of part-time employment and other labor opportunities for teenagers, which challenged the perception that completing school was important to financial success.

Dorn describes a pattern in which participation in successive levels of schooling gradually increases until the pressure spills over into the next level. Increasing proportions of the potential student population tend to

1 Dorn based his discussion of the trendlines on the Current Population Survey, census data, and state and district administrative data sources.

participate in schooling to a given level until saturation is reached—that is, until virtually all are enrolled. Expectations regarding participation in the next level then expand, and the pattern is repeated. In the United States, the norm has moved from primary schooling, to the eighth-grade level, and then to high school completion. State laws regarding school enrollment have moved along with these expectations. Currently, most states require that students stay enrolled through the age of 16. The steady increase in high school enrollment during the first half of the century thus reflects the gradual development of the now widely shared conviction that all teenagers should complete high school. Current political discourse reflects a developing expectation that the majority of students will not just complete high school but also participate in some form of higher education.

It was not until the 1960s that dropping out was widely considered a social problem because it was not until midcentury that sufficient percentages of young people were graduating from high school so that those who did not could be viewed as deviating from the norm. Dorn illustrated the views of dropping out that were becoming current in that period with this 1965 quotation from sociologist Lucius Cervantes (quoted in Dorn, 2000:19):

It is from this hard core of dropouts that a high proportion of the gangsters, hoodlums, drug-addicted, government-dependent prone, irresponsible and illegitimate parents of tomorrow will be predictably recruited.

A number of scholars have argued that as enrollments have increased, high schools' missions have evolved. Many jurisdictions responded to the arrival of waves of immigrants by making it more difficult for families to avoid enrolling their children in school, arguing that public schools were the best vehicle for assimilating these new citizens and would-be citizens ( Education Week, 2000:4). As the children of the lower and middle classes entered high school, however, expectations and graduation standards were lowered. Thus, the postwar plateau might also be explained by the notion that, as Dorn put it, “by the 1960s high schools really had succeeded at becoming the prime custodians for adolescents” (Dorn, 2000:10). If high schools were actually providing little benefit for the students on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, according to this reasoning, there was little motivation for increasing the graduation rate from 70 or 80 percent to 100 percent.

Another notable trend was the general decrease in gaps between completion rates for whites and nonwhites and other population subgroups.

Observers have noted that this narrowing of the gap relates to the saturation effect described earlier—completion rates for Hispanics and African Americans have moved up while those for whites have remained level (Cameron and Heckman, 1993a:5). At the same time, however, alternative notions of school completion have proliferated (discussed in greater detail below). Dorn called attention to the fact that in Florida six different types of diplomas are available and that other states have adopted similar means of marking differing levels of achievement. The categories of school completion are not fixed and apparently not of equivalent value; it may be that many minority students who have converted statistically from dropouts to school completers have in fact moved to an in-between status that needs to be better understood. This circumstance significantly complicates the task of statisticians and others who attempt to keep track of students' progress through school. It also complicates policy discussions about social goals for young people, expectations of the education system, and possible solutions to the problem of dropouts.

LOOKING AT DROPOUTS

A recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows that five percent of all young adults who were enrolled in grades 10-12 (519,000 of 10,464,000) dropped out of school between October 1998 and October 1999 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000:iii). That report provides a wealth of other important information, noting, for example, that Hispanic and African American students are significantly more likely than white students to drop out and that students from poor families are far more likely to drop out than are students from nonpoor families. The report provides information on trends in dropout rates over time and comparisons among students by age, racial and ethnic characteristics, and the like.

The statistical information in this and other reports is valuable, but it provides only a snapshot of the situation across the country. General statistical reports are not designed to reveal the effects of particular policies, programs, and educational approaches on particular groups of students, but variations in the numbers suggest possible sources of more detailed understanding. School completion rates reported by states and districts show wide variation, for example, from 74.5 percent for Nevada to 92.9 percent for Maine. The rates at which students complete school vary over time and are different for different population subgroups, regions, and kinds

of schools, and for students who differ in other ways. (The school completion rate is only one of several ways of measuring dropout behavior; see discussion below). The reported data (from NCES) suggest that particular factors are associated with dropping out, such as single-parent homes, teenage pregnancy, history of academic difficulty, and retention in grade. Other researchers have identified specific school factors that are associated with dropping out, discussed below.

The rates can be calculated in different ways, which means that dropout or school completion rates for the same jurisdiction can look very different, depending on which method is used. Indeed, there is no single dropout measure that can be relied on for analysis; there are many rates based on different definitions and measures, collected by different agents for different purposes. The NCES report, for example, opens by presenting two calculations of dropouts, 5 percent and 11 percent, respectively, for slightly different groups, as well as a percentage of school completers, 85.9 percent (2000:iii).

The confusion about counting dropouts is not surprising when one considers the challenges of counting students in different categories. Numerous decisions can drastically affect the count: At what point in the school year should student enrollment be counted? Should it be done at every grade? How long should a student's absence from school be to count as dropping out? What age ranges should be considered? What about private and charter schools and students who are home-schooled? In most school districts and states, significant numbers of students move into and out of their jurisdictions each year, so school careers are difficult to track. Even within a jurisdiction, many students follow irregular pathways that are also difficult to track—they may drop out of school temporarily, perhaps more than once, before either completing or leaving for good. Different jurisdictions face different statistical challenges, depending on the composition of their student populations. Districts with high immigrant populations may have large numbers of young people who arrive with little documentation of their previous schooling, so that determining which among them have completed school is difficult. What students do after dropping out is also highly variable. Alternative educational and vocational programs, which may or may not be accredited means of completing secondary schooling requirements, have proliferated. A significant number of students take the General Educational Development (GED) Test every year; many (but not all) of them receive school completion credentials from their states.

Tracking dropout behavior is clearly messy. In response, statisticians have devised a variety of ways of measuring the behavior: status dropout rates, event dropout rates, school completion rates, and more. Unfortunately, the many measures often lead to confusion or misunderstanding among people trying to use or understand the data. A later section of this report addresses in greater detail some of the reasons why measuring this aspect of student behavior is complicated and describe what is meant by some of the different measures that are available. First, however, it is worth summarizing the general picture of high school dropouts that has emerged from accumulated research. These general observations describe trends that are evident regardless of the method by which dropouts are counted.

WHO DROPS OUT

The overall rate at which students drop out of school has declined gradually in recent decades, but is currently stable. A number of student characteristics have been consistently correlated with dropping out over the past few decades. 2 First and most important, dropping out is significantly more prevalent among Hispanic and African American students, among students in poverty, among students in urban schools, among English-language learners, and among students with disabilities than among those who do not have these characteristics. The characteristics of the students most likely to drop out illustrate one of the keys to understanding the phenomenon: that dropping out is a process that may begin in the early years of elementary school, not an isolated event that occurs during the last few years of high school. The process has been described as one of gradual disengagement from school. The particular stages and influences vary widely, but the discernible pattern is an interaction among characteristics of the family and home environment and characteristics of a student's experience in school.

Family and Home Characteristics

Income In general, students at low income levels are more likely to drop out of school than are those at higher levels. NCES reports that in

2 Data in this section are taken from National Center for Education Statistics (1996, 2000), which are based on the Current Population Survey. The numbers are event dropout rates.

1999 the dropout rate for students whose families were in the lowest 20 percent of income distribution was 11 percent; for students whose families fall in the middle 60 percent it was 5 percent; and for students from families in the top 20 percent it was 2 percent.

Race/Ethnicity Both Hispanic and African American students are more likely to drop out than are white students, with the rate for Hispanic students being consistently the highest. In 1999, 28.6 percent of Hispanic students dropped out of school, compared with 12.6 percent of black students and 7.3 percent of white students. It is important to note that among Hispanic youths, the dropout rate is significantly higher for those who were not born in the United States (44.2%) than for those who were (16.1%). Two important issues relate to this last point: first, a significant number of foreign-born Hispanic young people have never been enrolled in a U.S. school. Second, the majority of those who were never enrolled have been reported as speaking English “not well” or “not at all.” The status of Hispanic young people offers an illustration of the complexities of counting dropouts. Young people who have never been enrolled in a U.S. school but have no diploma typically show up in measures of status dropout rates (people of a certain age who have no diploma) but not in measures of event dropout rates (students enrolled in one grade but not the next who have not received a diploma or been otherwise accounted for). This issue is addressed in greater detail below.

Family Structure Research has shown an increased risk of academic difficulty or dropping out for students who live in single-parent families, those from large families, and those, especially girls, who have become parents themselves. Other factors have been noted as well, such as having parents who have completed fewer years of schooling or who report providing little support for their children's education, such as providing a specific place to study and reading materials.

School-Related Characteristics

History of Poor Academic Performance Not surprisingly, poor grades and test scores are associated with an increased likeliness to drop out, as is enrollment in remedial courses.

Educational Engagement Researchers have used several measures of stu-

dents' educational engagement, including hours of television watched, hours spent on homework, hours spent at paid employment, and frequency of attending class without books and other necessary materials. Each of these factors has been associated with increased likeliness to encounter academic difficulties and to drop out. That is, the more time a student spends at a job or watching television, the more likely he or she is to drop out. Students who spend relatively little time on homework and who are more likely to attend school unprepared are similarly at increased risk of dropping out.

Academic Delay Students who are older than the normal range for the grade in which they are enrolled are significantly more likely to drop out of school than are those who are not. Similarly, students who have received fewer than the required number of academic credits for their grade are more likely to drop out than other students are.

Interactions

Risk factors tend to cluster together and to have cumulative effects. The children of families in poverty, for example, have a greater risk of academic difficulty than do other children, and they are also at greater risk for poor health, early and unwanted pregnancies, and criminal behavior, each of which is associated with an increased risk of dropping out (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996:11). Urban schools and districts consistently report the highest dropout rates; the annual rate for all urban districts currently averages 10 percent, and in many urban districts it is much higher (Balfanz and Legters, 2001:22). Student populations in these districts are affected by the risk factors associated with dropping out, particularly poverty, in greater numbers than are students in other districts.

WHY STUDENTS DROP OUT

Students who have dropped out of school have given three common reasons ( ERIC Digest, 1987:1):

• A dislike of school and a view that school is boring and not relevant to their needs;
• Low academic achievement, poor grades, or academic failure; and
• A need for money and a desire to work full-time.

These responses in no way contradict the statistical portrait of students who drop out in the United States, but they offer a somewhat different perspective from which to consider the many factors that influence students' decisions about school and work. Shifts in the labor market can have profound effects on students' behavior that are evident in national statistics, particularly those that track changes over many years. Scholars have also identified socioeconomic factors that correlate with the likelihood of a student's dropping out. However, each student whose life is captured in dropout statistics is an individual reacting to a unique set of circumstances. The circumstances that cause a particular student to separate from school before completing the requirements for a diploma can rarely be summed up easily, and rarely involve only one factor. Nevertheless, educators and policy makers alike see that dropping out of school diminishes young people's life chances in significant ways, and look for ways to understand both why they do it and how they might be prevented from doing it.

Dropping Out as a Process

Rumberger summarizes a key message from the research on the factors associated with dropping out:

Although dropping out is generally considered a status or educational outcome that can readily be measured at a particular point in time, it is more appropriately viewed as a process of disengagement that occurs over time. And warning signs for students at risk of dropping out often appear in elementary school, providing ample time to intervene (Rumberger, 2000:25).

Beginning with some points that can be difficult to discern in the complex statistics about dropping out, Rumberger noted that the percentage of young people who complete high school through an alternative to the traditional course requirements and diploma (through the GED or a vocational or other alternative) has grown: 4 percent used an alternative means in 1988 while 10 percent did so in 1998—though the calculated school completion rate among 18- to 24-year-olds remained constant at about 85 percent (Rumberger, 2000:7). Several longitudinal studies show that a much larger percentage of students than are captured in event or status dropout calculations drop out of school temporarily for one or more periods during high school. Doing so is associated with later dropping out for good, with a decreased likelihood of enrolling in postsecondary schooling, and with an increased likelihood of unemployment.

Focusing on the process that leads to the ultimate decision to drop out, Rumberger stresses the importance of interaction among a variety of contributing factors: “if many factors contribute to this phenomenon over a long period of time, it is virtually impossible to demonstrate a causal connection between any single factor and the decision to quit school” (Rumberger, 2001:4). Instead, researchers have looked for ways to organize the factors that seem to be predictive of dropping out in ways that can be useful in efforts to intervene and prevent that outcome. As noted above, two basic categories are characteristics of students, their families and their home circumstances, and characteristics of their schooling.

Rumberger pays particular attention to the concept of engagement with school. Absenteeism and discipline problems are strong predictors of dropping out, even for students not experiencing academic difficulties. More subtle indicators of disengagement from school, such as moving from school to school, negative attitude toward school, and minor discipline problems can show up as early as elementary and middle school as predictors of a subsequent decision to drop out. The role of retention in grade is very important in this context:

. . . students who were retained in grades 1 to 8 were four times more likely to drop out between grades 8 and 10 than students who were not retained, even after controlling for socioeconomic status, 8 th grade school performance, and a host of background and school factors (Rumberger, 2000:15).

Rumberger's work confirms other research on family characteristics that are associated with dropping out, particularly the finding that belonging to families lower in socioeconomic status and those headed by a single parent are both risk factors for students. He also looked at research on the role that less concrete factors may play. Stronger relationships between parents and children seem to reduce the risk of dropping out, as does being the child of parents who “monitor and regulate [the child's] activities, provide emotional support, encourage decision-making . . . and are generally more involved in [the child's] schooling” (Rumberger, 2000:17).

At the workshop, David Grissmer touched on some other factors that don't make their way into national statistics but that could play a significant role for many young people. He pointed to studies of hyperactivity and attention-deficit disorder that indicate that while the percentage of all young people affected is small, roughly 5 percent, the percentage of high school dropouts affected is much larger—perhaps as much as 40 percent. He noted that dyslexia, depression, and other cognitive or mental health

problems can have significant effects on students' capacity to learn and flourish in the school environment, but that these situations are often overlooked in statistical analyses.

Schools also play a role in outcomes for students. Rumberger presented data showing that when results are controlled for students' background characteristics, dropout rates for schools still vary widely. Rumberger's (2000) review of the literature on school effects identifies several key findings:

• The social composition of the student body seems to influence student achievement—and affect the dropout rate. That is, students who attend schools with high concentrations of students with characteristics that increase their likelihood of dropping out, but who don't have those characteristics themselves, are nevertheless more likely to drop out. This finding relates to the fact that dropout rates are consistently significantly higher for urban schools and districts than for others (Balfanz and Legters, 2001:1).
• Some studies suggest that school resources can influence the dropout rate through the student-teacher ratio and possibly through teacher quality.
• The climate, policies, and practices of a school may have effects on dropping out. Indicators of the school climate, such as attendance rates and numbers of students enrolled in advanced courses, may be predictive of dropping out. There is some evidence that other factors, such as school size, structure, and governance, may also have effects.

Interventions

A variety of different kinds of evidence point to the importance of early attention to the problems that are associated with subsequent dropping out. The correspondence between the many risk factors that have been enumerated is not, however, either linear or foolproof. Dynarski (2000) notes that despite strong associations between a variety of characteristics and dropping out, using individual risk factors as predictors is tricky: research that has evaluated the predictive value of risk factors has shown that the one “that was best able to predict whether middle school students were dropouts—high absenteeism—correctly identified dropouts only 16 percent of the time” (Dynarski, 2000:9).

A quantitative look at the effectiveness of dropout prevention pro-

grams can seem sobering, but it is important to bear in mind that even a perfectly successful program—one that kept every potential dropout in school—would affect only a small fraction of students. Any program that is an attempt to intervene in time to prevent dropping out must begin with a group of students who share defined risk factors, but of whom only a fraction would actually have dropped out. That is, even among groups of students with many risk factors, the dropout rate rarely goes over approximately 15 percent, and it is only these 15 of 100 students who receive an intervention whose fates could potentially be changed. When resources are limited, correctly identifying the students who will benefit most from intervention (those who are most likely to drop out) is clearly important. However, since many different kinds of factors affect dropout behavior, using them as predictors is not easy. This point is also relevant to Rumberger's point that if numerous factors contribute to a multiyear process of dropping out, isolating a cause or an effective predictor would logically be very difficult.

Though the quantitative evidence of effectiveness is not overwhelming, Dynarski (2000) used the results of a Department of Education study of the effectiveness of dropout prevention programs to provide a description of some of the strategies that seem to work best. Providing individual-level counseling to students emerged as a key tool for changing students' thinking about their education. Another tool was creating smaller school settings, even within a large school, if necessary. Students are more likely to become alienated and disengaged from school in larger settings, and are likely to receive less individualized attention from teachers and staff. 3 Not surprisingly, providing counseling and creating smaller school settings requires more staff, and, in turn, the expenditure of more resources per pupil (Dynarski, 2000).

Others who have explored the effectiveness of dropout prevention programs have come to conclusions that amplify and support Dynarski's findings. McPartland and Jordan (2001) advocate, among other things, that high schools be restructured to provide smaller school settings and to both increase student engagement with school and strengthen students' relationships with school staff. McPartland has also suggested specific supports for students who enter high school unprepared for challenging academic work,

3 The work of Lee and Burkam (2001), Fine (1987), and others on the structure of high schools is relevant to this point.

including extra time to complete courses and remediation outside of school hours.

In summary, the committee finds several important messages in the research on dropout behavior:

• A number of school-related factors, such as high concentrations of low-achieving students, and less-qualified teachers, for example, are associated with higher dropout rates. Other factors, such as small school settings and individualized attention, are associated with lower dropout rates.
• Many aspects of home life and socioeconomic status are associated with dropout behavior.
• Typically, contributing factors interact in a gradual process of disengagement from school over many years.

Conclusion: The committee concludes that identifying students with risk factors early in their careers (preschool through elementary school) and providing them with ongoing support, remediation, and counseling are likely to be the most promising means of encouraging them to stay in school. Using individual risk factors to identify likely dropouts with whom to intervene, particularly among students at the ninth-grade level and beyond, is difficult. Evidence about interventions done at this stage suggests that their effectiveness is limited.

The role played by testing in the nation's public school system has been increasing steadily—and growing more complicated—for more than 20 years. The Committee on Educational Excellence and Testing Equity (CEETE) was formed to monitor the effects of education reform, particularly testing, on students at risk for academic failure because of poverty, lack of proficiency in English, disability, or membership in population subgroups that have been educationally disadvantaged. The committee recognizes the important potential benefits of standards-based reforms and of test results in revealing the impact of reform efforts on these students. The committee also recognizes the valuable role graduation tests can potentially play in making requirements concrete, in increasing the value of a diploma, and in motivating students and educators alike to work to higher standards. At the same time, educational testing is a complicated endeavor, that reality can fall far short of the model, and that testing cannot by itself provide the desired benefits. If testing is improperly used, it can have negative effects, such as encouraging school leaving, that can hit disadvantaged students hardest. The committee was concerned that the recent proliferation of high school exit examinations could have the unintended effect of increasing dropout rates among students whose rates are already far higher than the average, and has taken a close look at what is known about influences on dropout behavior and at the available data on dropouts and school completion.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Helping High School Dropouts Improve Their Prospects

• Download the Complete Policy Brief
• Download the Summary

Subscribe to the Center for Economic Security and Opportunity Newsletter

Dan bloom and db dan bloom director, health and barriers to employment policy area, mdrc ron haskins ron haskins senior fellow emeritus - economic studies.

April 27, 2010

Dropping out of high school has serious long-term consequences not only for individuals but also for society. According to expert estimates, between 3.5 million and 6 million young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24 are school dropouts. Lowering the number of adolescents who fail to finish high school and helping those who drop out get back on track must be a major policy goal for our nation. In this policy brief we focus primarily on how best to provide youngsters who have dropped out of school a second chance, though we also give some attention to dropout prevention (we do not tackle the topic of high school reform more broadly). Several carefully evaluated program models hold out promise that they can help both young people at risk of dropping out and those who do drop out. These promising programs must be expanded and continually improved, and we offer specific proposals for doing so. U.S. policy must aim to keep as many young Americans as possible in high school until they graduate and to reconnect as many as possible of those who drop out despite educators’ best efforts to keep them in school.

Just how costly is school dropout? Americans who do not graduate from high school pay a heavy price personally. Although correlation is not causation, the links between leaving school before graduating and having poor life outcomes are striking. Perhaps the most important correlation is that between dropping out and low income. Based on Census Bureau data (from 1965 to 2005), figure 1 compares the median family income of adults who dropped out of high school with that of adults who completed various levels of education. Two points are notable. First, in 2005, school dropouts earned $15,700 less than adults with a high school degree and well over $35,000 less than those with a two-year degree. Over a forty-five-year career the earnings difference between a dropout and someone with only a high school degree can amount to more than $700,000. Considered from a broader social perspective, the income-education pattern illustrated by figure 1 shows that school dropouts contribute substantially to the problem of income inequality that is now a growing concern of researchers and policy makers.

Dropping out of school is also linked with many other negative outcomes such as increased chances of unemployment or completely dropping out of the workforce, lower rates of marriage, increased incidence of divorce and births outside marriage, increased involvement with the welfare and legal systems, and even poor health. All these outcomes are costly not only to dropouts personally, but also to society. Prison costs, for example, are among the most rapidly growing items in nearly every state budget, and more than two-thirds of state prison inmates are school dropouts, though many obtain a General Educational Development (GED) credential while in prison. Similarly, in 2006, 67 percent of all births to young dropouts were outside marriage, compared with 10 percent of births for women with a master’s degree. Because families with children born outside marriage are five or six times more likely to live in poverty than married-couple families, it follows that they are also more likely to be on welfare. In both these examples, dropping out is linked with social problems that impose large public costs on the nation.

Economic Studies

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

Julian Jacobs, Francesco Tasin, AJ Mannan

April 25, 2024

Janice C. Eberly, Andrew J. Fieldhouse, David Munro, Louise Sheiner, Jón Steinsson

Harry J. Holzer

April 16, 2024

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

High school dropout rate

In 2020, the high school dropout rate was 5.3%, an increase of 1.19% from 2019.

Data Adjustments

How much does the government spend on education?

Related Metrics

Preprimary enrollment

4.39 million

K-12 enrollment

56.28 million

Public School Staff

6.63 million

Explore High school dropout rate

Interact with the data, state display, sign up for the newsletter, data delivered to your inbox.

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

School Dropouts – A Theoretical Framework

http://indusedu.org/

The following article is a fragment of a PhD thesis and is aimed at outlining the main traits of the school dropout phenomenon starting from the different perspectives of the authors in defining the concept, explaining the causes, understanding the consequences. The summary of an important collection of studies on the subject is meant to serve as theoretical basis for researches in the field and to offer the premises for elaborating prevention and intervention strategies.

Related Papers

Sirous Tabrizi

Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Pete Bylsma

Children and Youth Services Review

Cuthbert Tukundane , Alexander Minnaert

Tanja Grbesic

Indus Foundation International Journals UGC Approved , Olusegun Akinbote

In Nigeria, inclusion practice is emerging and has been required by federal law in Nigeria and advocated for by professionals. However, much of the responsibility for the successful inclusion of children with special needs rests upon the shoulders of teachers. This paper examined the pre-primary and primary school teachers' perception of and attitude towards inclusion in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. The study adopted descriptive research design. A multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted in the selection o f 200 pre-primary and primary school teachers from 15 schools (10 regular and 5 special schools) to explore their perception of and attitude towards inclusive education. Teachers' Perception of and Attitude towards Inclusion (α=0.87) was the instrument use d to collect the data. The data collected were analyzed using frequency count, simple percentage and t-test. Four research questions were answered. The results revealed that majority of the teachers have positive perception of and attitude towards inclusion respectively. The findings of this study also showed no significant difference between the special and regular school teachers in their perception of and attitude towards inclusion. The implications of the findings were discussed and recommendations were made.

Nicholas D Hartlep

Capella University Dissertation - School of Education (UMI)

Doc Debi Ash

Despite efforts to provide instructional intervention programs for students who are at risk of non-completion or who have left school without graduating, many programs are not achieving consistent success. To assess this situation, the nature of the instructional design strategies deployed within these programs was investigated, with a focus on whether participatory design principles and the student voice would enhance levels of engagement and motivation and increase the chances of graduating from high school. A mixed method, post-test two group research design using dependent samples, two tailed t-test quantitative analysis was implemented using asynchronous groups, inventories of motivation and engagement, and written observations as data collection instruments. Three distinct phases using a traditionally based lesson, participants voices in the redesign of said traditional lesson, and implementation of the redesigned lesson, led to the null hypothesis “there is no significant difference in motivation between standard and participatory design courses” failing to be rejected. Despite the failure to reject the null hypothesis in motivation, overall levels were improved in 100% of the individual categories; suggesting that participating in the design process can lead to improvements in motivation. The null hypothesis of “there is no significant difference in engagement between standard and participatory design courses” was rejected; as there was a significant increase (p =<.05) of engagement upon implementation of participatory design principles indicating that end users‘ needs are crucial in the promotion of engagement and motivation and that implementation of participatory design principles can provide what traditional instructional models, to date, have not. This study provides instructional designers, educators, and administrators with data to support the redesign of current intervention programs in order to bridge the graduation gap by utilizing the voice of the most important stakeholders: the actual students.

Journal of At-Risk Issues

David Chorney

National Dropout Prevention Center Network

Cathy Hammond , J. Smink

RELATED PAPERS

Indus Foundation International Journals UGC Approved

Gjergji D Theodhosi

Delia Duminică

Women, Gender, and Families of Color

Dorothy E Hines

ANITA WADHWA

International Journal on School Disaffection

Mohamad Bilal Ali

Mitsi Giazitzi

Claire Gordon , marina cino

Oirc Journals

Roxana Brișcariu (Toader)

Aimee Whiteside , Amy Garrett Dikkers , Somer Lewis

Educational Sciences Theory&Practice

Mary Elizabeth Ochea

Soribel Genao

Majid Shirvani

Graham Daniel

International Journal of Educational Development

Anies Al-Hroub

Fumo Almasi

Children & Schools

Cynthia Franklin , Johnny S. Kim

Julie Tagle

Magdalena Balica , Delia Goia , Oana Benga , Oana Iftode

Ciprian Fartusnic

Flavius Marcau

Educational Research Review

Sofie Cabus

Irina Ilisei

Alexander Minnaert , Cuthbert Tukundane , Jacques Zeelen , Peter Kanyandago

Fondazione Hallgarten - Franchetti Centro Studi Villa Montesca

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Courtney Wilt , Mary E . Morningstar

Journal of Applied Technical and Educational Sciences

Csilla Marianna Szabó

Vitomir Jovanovic

Alina Preda

Raphael Cohen-almagor

Daniel Caro

Kate Sirota

IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)

Esayas Teshome

Hanna Tomaszewska

Omar Ihssane Nouairi

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Personal tools

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

• Legal Developments

The Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles 8370 Math Sciences, Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 [email protected]

• Copyright Policy
• Accessibility

Copyright © 2010 UC Regents

Public school enrollment falling nationwide, data shows

More and more, parents are opting America’s children out of public school.

The share of children ages 5 to 17 enrolled in public schools fell by almost 4 percentage points from 2012 to 2022, an NBC News analysis of Census Bureau data found, even as the overall population grew.

NBC News’ analysis found:

• 87.0% of children were enrolled in public school in 2022, compared to 90.7% in 2012.
• In Kentucky, the share of school-age children in public schools decreased by almost 8 percentage points. 
• In South Carolina, the share of children enrolled in public schools decreased by 7.4 percentage points. 
• In Alaska, enrollment decreased by nearly 7 percentage points.

During the same period, the share of 5 to 17 year-olds enrolled in private schools increased by 2 percentage points, the Census Bureau data showed. Charter schools saw a similar increase , according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a nonprofit group dedicated to advancing charter schools. 

Educators and researchers say the swing has been caused in part by laws that have targeted public schools while propping up alternatives. 

“[The rise in charter schools] is a thread of the larger campaign of privatization,” said Abbie Cohen, a Ph.D. candidate in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies. “Those two things are happening at the same time, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence.” 

Policies that make private, charter and homeschooling options more available to families — dubbed “school choice” by advocates — have expanded rapidly since 2022. Such policies grant families public funds for alternative schooling in the form of vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, refundable tax credits and more. In 2023, at least 146 school choice bills were introduced across 43 states, according to FutureEd, an education-focused think tank at Georgetown University. 

Nineteen school choice laws were enacted last year in 17 states, including South Carolina and Florida, which have seen some of the most dramatic declines of students enrolled in public schools. 

As part of the push for school choice, states are eliminating income limits and other eligibility requirements, allowing higher-income families to receive benefits. Eight states passed such laws or created such programs in 2023, FutureEd’s data shows, bringing the total number of states with these programs — commonly referred to as  “universal school choice” — to 10.

Though Kentucky has seen the most students leave public schools, it is one of 18 states without a school choice program, and the state doesn’t fund charters. Homeschooling and “microschooling,” where students are homeschooled together and may be supervised by someone other than their own parents, are increasingly popular alternatives. An EdChoice/Morning Consult poll reported that 15% of parents in Kentucky prefer homeschooling, compared to 9% of parents nationwide. 

Robert Enlow, the CEO of the nonprofit school choice advocacy group EdChoice, said he is “agnostic” to which options are chosen, but believes the money should follow each student wherever they go. 

“Families are saying, ‘Let me have the resources that are due to me, that I get through taxes that are set aside for my kid, and then let me choose,’” Enlow said.

At the same time that states are pushing school choice programs, public schools — already dealing with declining enrollment — have faced budget cuts, teacher shortages, and laws and fights over what is taught in the classroom. 

More than 20 states have considered bills since 2022 that would give parents more control over the curriculum in public schools, from granting parents access to course materials prior to classes, to banning instruction on sexual orientation and gender and allowing parents to opt their children out of any classes. 

One state that has pushed such laws is Florida. The state has passed several parent rights laws since 2020, including changes to make it easier for parents to ban books from classes, a ban against discussing sexuality and gender identity in younger grades and a ban on teaching critical race theory in classes .

Florida’s 5 to 17-year-old population has grown 9% since 2012, but NBC News’ analysis found that  its public school enrollment fell 7% during that span.

Andrew Spar, the president of the Florida Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, said new laws have unclear directions and handcuff teachers’ ability to instruct without fear of retaliation for what’s discussed in class. 

“In Florida, there’s so much micromanaging of our public schools, so many bureaucratic rules and laws that get in the way, that it becomes increasingly difficult for us to do our jobs,” Spar said. “Teachers are vilified; they can’t do their jobs.”

Cohen, from UCLA, said parents are unenrolling students from public schools when they either feel the curriculum is not teaching accurate history, or hope for more conservative changes in school policies and curricula. Her research found that funding cuts are among the policies “fueling mistrust” in public schools and could be leading families to alternatives. 

The states with the largest declines in public school enrollment also have the lowest per-pupil spending, Census Bureau data shows . Educators and researchers question whether public schools will bounce back from recent enrollment declines as districts experience a wave of financial struggles and closures . 

“Who is hurting the most are the students who have been most historically marginalized in society,” Cohen said. “When more kids are leaving the public schools, that’s less funding for the public schools and those who are left, are left with less.”

Catherine Allen is an intern on the Data / Graphics team at NBC News.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Psychol Med
• v.34(4); Oct-Dec 2012

School Dropouts: Examining the Space of Reasons

Arun n. r. kishore.

Consultant Psychiatrist, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex, United Kingdom

K. S. Shaji

1 Department of Psychiatry, Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India

Background:

Dropping out of school is a worldwide phenomenon with drastic mental health consequences for children, families and society.

Aim and Materials & Methods:

This study examines school dropouts in one district in Kerala with an emphasis on looking at multiple reasons for the problem.

The most common “reason” was various Physical disorders (80, 21.8%) followed by Mental Retardation (77, 20.9%). Child labour (Employment) came last (30, 8.1%) as a “reason” while financial issues constituted 50 (13.6%). Family issues accounted for 63 (17.1%) and School-related issues 68 (18.5%).

Conclusion:

This study highlights the need to examine a space of reasons for this phenomenon with active involvement and coordination of multiple agencies to examine and support getting children back to school and prevent dropouts.

INTRODUCTION

Every year, a large number of students drop out of school worldwide. A significant number of them go on to become unemployed, living in poverty, receiving public assistance, in prison, unhealthy, divorced, and single parents of children who are likely to repeat the cycle themselves.[ 1 , 2 ]

In 1993, 27 million children entered school in Class 1 in India but only 10 million (37%) of them reached Class 10 in 2003. Dropout rates peak in the transition between Class 1 and 2 and again in Classes 8, 9 and 10. Dropout rates have remained negative between Classes 4 and 5. The state of Pondicherry improved its performance with regards to school dropouts from the fourth place in 1991 to the first in 2001, displacing Kerala as the best performing state. The states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Arunachal Pradesh perform poorly in this ranking.

Government data indicate improvement in the rates of school enrolment. However, there may be problems in looking at enrolment data without attention to attendance and retention rates. Thus, the actual rates of dropout from schools may be much higher than those depicted.[ 3 ]

School dropouts in Kerala

Kerala has the unique distinction of having few school dropouts. Educational standards are reported to be high within the state. Several reasons have been quoted for Kerala's high educational achievement. Historically, social movements against the caste system, the pioneering efforts made by Christian missionaries and the educational focus of the princely states served to set a good base for education. Later, investment on education, provision of free education supported by the state, access to schools, female literacy and education, good transport facilities and remittances from abroad have added to these factors.[ 4 ]

Kerala-rates of school dropout in different classes

This graph [ Figure 1 ], based on data from the annual economic report brought out by the Government of Kerala on school dropouts,[ 5 ] shows that trends have remained the same through the years 2005 to 2009 with the overall rate remaining fairly constant. The rate in Lower Primary has hovered between 0.42% and 0.6%, Upper Primary from 0.4% to 0.52% and High School from 1.2% to 1.4%. Of late, there has been growing interest in studying and tackling the problem of school dropouts by governments.[ 6 ] There is paucity of recent published research in this area from India.

Kerala – rates of school dropout in different classes

Lack of interest in studies, poverty, poor quality of education and failure in examinations have been frequently cited as explanations for dropping out of school.[ 7 ] Child developmental factors are thought to play a role in mediating the link between dropout from school, poor scholastic performance, and poverty.[ 8 ]

Dropping out of school is a good example of an issue where a biopsychosocial perspective could be useful; where there is a confluence of biological (various neurodevelopmental issues), psychological (cognitive issues and issues connected to intelligence and learning), and social (issues of poverty, social opportunities, health provisions) factors that come into play.[ 9 , 10 ] Unfortunately, health systems have not taken this into account and have not formed partnerships with social services or Government departments.[ 2 ] School dropouts should be seen as a public health issue. There is a need for partnerships between the sectors of mental health, education, and public health to address this complex issue. This paper emphasises this by looking at the problem through different lenses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was done in Thrissur District, Kerala, as part of a programme titled “Total Primary Education” conducted by the District Administration. The aim was to identify all children who had been enrolled in government schools but failed to attend class over the past year to identify reasons for their dropout and attempt remediation. There was collaborative effort from the departments of education, revenue, health, police and a medical team. Psychiatrists from the Department of Psychiatry, Medical College Thrissur and Special educators from the NGO, ALDI (Association for Learning Disabilities, India) formed the “Medical Team.”

Stage 1: Children who had failed to attend class in the past year were identified by school teachers and Block Education units. Children above the age of 14 years were screened out, since they did not fall under the remit of the programme. Rigorous efforts were made to contact parents of those below the age of 14 years. Teachers and the parents identified a predominant “reason” for dropout (see diagram below). These “reasons” were identified from review of literature examining factors correlated with school dropout.

Stage 2: 368 children attended camps held in various panchayaths in the district with their parents or care takers. The medical team assessed children using a proforma to gather information focusing on developmental issues and assigned a diagnosis if relevant. This sometimes resulted in a reassignment of the “reason” for dropout if a medical or psychiatric disorder had been missed in the first screening by teachers. Psychosocial issues were examined in detail with the assistance of social workers.

A management and follow-up plan was outlined following discussions between the various departments. The outcome of the interventions was followed up by local Block Educational Officers.

Stage 3: Children assigned to the categories of “Physical problems,” “Mental Retardation,” “School issues,” and “Family issues” were referred to the outpatient department at the Medical College. 52 attended and were assessed and investigated in different departments within the medical college. Qualitative data were gathered from them. The flow chart for the study is given below [ Figure 2 ].

Flowchart of the study

Of the 781 school dropouts, 159 (20%) were above the age of 14 years and hence excluded from the programme. 253 (33%) children could not be traced. The rest 368 (47%) were seen in the camps in Stage 2. Of these, 246 were boys and 122 girls.

Age at dropout

The maximum number of dropouts occur between the ages of 12 and 14 years [ Figure 3 ] which is well in keeping with State and National data (Kerala State Planning Board 2005-09, NCERT 2005).

Reasons for dropout stage 2

The reasons correlated with dropouts are depicted in Figure 4 . It was difficult to categorise children under one “reason” as we often found multiple “reasons” operating at the same time. “Financial” reasons often played a role in most cases and there was overlap between “School issues” and “Family Issues.” In such cases the predominant “reason” was decided by the team and the child was then classified under that. This was done during Stage 2 when the Medical team assessed the children.

Reasons for drop out at Stage 2

The most common “reason” was various Physical disorders (80, 21.8%) followed by Mental Retardation (77, 20.9%). Child labour (Employment) came last (30, 8.1%) as a “reason” while financial issues constituted (50, 13.6%). Family issues accounted for 63 (17.1%) and School related issues 68 (18.5%).

Physical disorders leading to dropout

Several children had one form of physical disorder or another, often severe enough to prevent them from attending school [ Figure 5 ]. Disability due to cerebral palsy and post polio paralysis were the reasons in 33%. Some, who used a tricycle to get to school stopped attending when this broke down.

About 12% were mentally retarded and had physical mobility problems in addition. They had been placed in the Physical disability category in Stage 1 and were reassigned to the category of Mental Retardation in Stage 2. 21% of the children were deaf and attended special school. 10% of students were blind; some attended special schools.

Children with severe, some congenital, cardiac problems were kept at home on the recommendation of their doctors. One child who had diabetes attended the local primary care clinic for insulin injections twice a day and missed school.

4% had severe skin lesions (psoriasis), considered as contagious by the family and teachers and hence missed school.

Lack of money for treatment, poor parental literacy, and a general lack of alternatives could be cited as adding on to this “reason” for dropout.

Mental Retardation: Most had moderate or severe mental retardation with additional problems such as cardiac disorders and epilepsy. A few among these children had severe behavioural problems often repetitive behaviours such as rocking, head banging, and aggression.

Family issues

There were several strands in the narrative around family issues and dropout from school [ Figure 6 ]. Parental separation and ill heath often led to the need for girl children to work or stay back at home to care for younger siblings. Older boys dropped out to find work. Children who were orphans found foster homes with relatives. However, these were often short lived with the children being moved from home to home. Education was the loser in these cases. Alcohol abuse, dependency, and illicit brewing of alcohol by the parents were issues in some. The outcome was family bickering, quarrels, and the development of problems in children. A few children were from families who led a nomadic existence, moving from place to place seeking employment resulting in the child moving from school to school.

Issues related to school

Some families pointed out issues such as an inability to buy textbooks and a lack of transport to attend school. Several had failed a class and dropped out of school in subsequently. Some were moved to a different school and later stopped attending. There was reason to suspect academic backwardness in most of these children. All of them were given an opportunity to attend the outpatient department of the medical college for a more detailed evaluation. 14 attended and 9 of them were thought to have Specific Developmental disorders of Scholastic skills. This could not be confirmed since all of them had poor opportunities for schooling and a general deprivation making the diagnosis uncertain.

This constituted the largest group amongst reasons given for dropout at Stage 1 of screening. In Stage 2, financial issues fell to the fifth place (13.6%) as a reason for school dropout. This occurred because another, more proximal and predominant, “reason” was found for the dropout. However, it must be stated that financial issues remained significant in most cases of dropout.

This remained a significant reason for dropout accounting for 17% of the cohort. The problem was commoner in older males (girls accounted for less than 20%). Dropout occurred at a later age as compared to other groups.

Change in “reasons for dropout”

In Stage 2 of the programme, children were assessed by the Medical team. As a result, 51 (13.9%) children were reassigned other “reasons” [ Figure 7 ].

Reassignment of “reasons” for dropping out

The darker line (Stage 1) in Figure 7 shows “reasons” assigned in the first stage of the programme and the lighter grey line (Stage 2) shows reassigned “reasons” after assessment by the Medical team. The net “losers” were Financial (−36%), Family (−3%), and Physical (−5%) while the net “gainers” were Mental Retardation (+31%), Employment (+25%), and School (+17%).

A total of 341 children were readmitted to school [ Figure 8 ]. Children who were diagnosed with Mental Retardation were given a choice of admission to a special school or a local government school. The decision was based on the degree of retardation, presence of behavioural problems, and accompanying physical disability.

Children with predominant physical problems were directed to the relevant departments at the Government Medical College, Thrissur. Those with mobility issues were given assistance by the social services department.

Those who were employed were screened and readmitted to school.[ 5 , 11 , 12 ] Cases were registered against the employers under the CLP Act. Those with Financial problems were given assistance as well as advice, as deemed appropriate, by the Revenue officials. Children with problems at school and those with family-related issues were referred for further assessment to the Department of Psychiatry at the Government Medical College, Thrissur.

This study formed a part of a social programme aimed at returning children back to school by helping remediate what was perceived as the predominant reason for dropout. There was a great degree of overlap between parents' and teachers' perception on “reasons” at Stage 1. In Stage 2, 51 (13.9%) had a reassignment of these “reasons.” It would be important to unpick this. Of these 51, 25% were in employment, a fact that had been hidden from teachers at stage 1. Most parents feared reprisal and action by law enforcement agencies. Some were ashamed to admit that their children were working to supplement family income.

31% were diagnosed with Mental Retardation in the mild category in Stage 2. This had not been recognized by teachers or parents. 17% with school-related issues were children who were suspected to have some form of learning difficulty. Children in these two groups reported recurrent failures in examination though they were not retained in a class. This led to truancy and finally a refusal to go to school. Some of these children had been reenrolled in schools for mentally retarded children later. A small number of children who were in the mild category dropped out due to an inability to cope with the curriculum in mainstream schools.

Various developmental disorders have been implicated as a reason for dropout from school.[ 3 , 8 ] In the NFHS III survey (IIPS 2007),[ 13 ] “lack of interest” was cited as the most common reason for dropping out of school (36% boys and 21% girls). In an earlier NSSO survey (1998), 24.4% of respondents gave this as a reason for dropping out of school.[ 12 , 14 ] In this study, we had combined the two “reasons”—“problems at school” and “lack of motivation” of which the latter is similar to “lack of interest.” This study has shown that lack of motivation is determined by complex dynamics beyond sociodemographic factors. The role of poor academic achievement related to learning difficulties, poor physical health, exclusion due to perceived “slowness in learning,” and nutrition would need to be elucidated further.[ 15 – 17 ] The PROBE[ 18 ] survey suggests that if a child is unwilling to go to school, it is often difficult for the parents to overcome her reluctance (just as it is hard for a child to attend school against his parents' wishes). The fact that school participation is contingent on the motivation of the child is another reason why various aspects of “school quality” are likely to matter.

Physical disorders of various types accounted for the largest amongst the “reasons” for dropout and this calls for action from health departments and social service agencies. A third of children, though capable of attending, could not because of mobility issues. Children with specific disabilities of vision or hearing benefitted from special schools.

The link between child labour and dropout from school has been studied from different perspectives. It is thought that children drop out of school due to a need to supplement family income through work.[ 19 ] In Kerala, children prefer less arduous work and choose ones they believe will get them some skills such as diamond polishing or gold smithy.[ 20 ] Thus, this “reason” for dropout is more complex than a direct connection between child labour and school dropout. Basu and Van argue that the issue of poverty and child labour needs to be disaggregated. Otherwise, poverty alleviation alone would be seen as a solution. Lack of finances combined with a lack of access to credit when faced with a need to buy books, uniforms, and pay school fees could lead to dropout from school. This in turn could lead to child labour. On the other hand, once a child drops out of school, poor parental motivation combined with lack of perception of the benefits of accruing literacy and numeracy, could lead to child labour. These findings imply that easier access to credit could help reduce child labour and improve school attendance.[ 21 ] Dreze and Kingdom[ 22 ] considered parental decision making and the household situation to play an influential role in sustaining school access for the child. When children do not want to attend school, parents find it difficult to make them continue. Often, there is no cost benefit analysis of the benefits of attaining cognitive skills. The best available alternative is often chosen (girl children looking after a younger child, boys earning money through employment).

In this study, financial “reasons” though seen as predominant in 13.6% of children, actually ran as a common factor in most of the other “reasons.”

Issues in families accounted for 17% in this cohort. The narrative around this points to an intimate link between issues in families, financial issues, and child employment, calling for action from health and social sectors.

Thus, one could argue that school dropout is a phenomenon or symptoms which could be explained based on a variety of “reasons,” none of which are watertight compartments. There is relatively little research into determining the reasons why so many children drop out of schools in India. This in turn leads to a tendency to highlight single causes or explanations.[ 3 , 23 – 25 ] In Kerala, attention to pedagogical factors has increased retention of children in schools and it is perhaps time to look at other approaches to reduce dropouts further.

It might be better to think of “proximal mediating risk factors” as associated with school dropouts.[ 8 ] We would advocate that in examining the causes for dropping out of school, a “space of reasons” is examined. In this “space of reasons,” we would include poverty and lack of finances being associated with childhood developmental factors (such as learning difficulties, intellectual disorders, ADHD) and school pedagogical factors (access to school, irrelevant curricula, and poor parental perception of these issues). Thus, one would need to approach the issue from different angles or through many lenses. A multipronged approach would work better.

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None.