Drop Out of High School - Essay Example

 Drop Out of High School ABSTRACT Richard Wieringo. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MOST COMMON REASONS WHY SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS DROP OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. Under the direction of Dr. Verlyn Evans, Liberty University School of Education, 2010. Special education students drop out of school at a rate double and sometimes triple that of regular high school students. This study will focus on identifying the most common reasons special education students drop out by interviewing recent dropouts from Charlottesville High School in order to present recommendations for more suitable and effective dropout prevention programs. CHAPTER 1: INTRDUCTION Background Obtaining a high school diploma is extremely important to an American’s chances at having a solid foundation for achieving professional success. This is because an Americans’ financial stability and professional achievement has always been dependent on the education they have received (Shore, 2003). “High school graduation captures both the cognitive and the noncognitive attributes that are important for success in adulthood, and it is usually a minimum requirement for engaging in further training and higher education” (Levin, 2009, p. 8). Furthermore, a high school diploma is the least one can show future employees that shows one’s capabilities, especially if one is not able to complete a degree in higher education. Not being able to show a high school diploma to a future employer may insinuate that that person lacks the drive to succeed. The fact that a high school diploma is the most basic of requirements for employment is augmented by the increasingly competitive market and the ongoing recession that has made securing employment considerably more difficult. This is evidenced in the report compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010a), which states that in January of this year, “thirty states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases, 9 states registered rate decreases, and 11 states had no rate change.” A report released in July 2010 shows how the unemployment rate has remained unchanged across all states at 9.50%, despite the current federal administration’s campaign to control the onslaught of an economic depression (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010b). As the unemployment rate increases, companies’ expectations of new hires have also risen as indicated by the fact that the number of unemployed college graduates has surpassed the number of available entry-level jobs. In fact, the director of the business career center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Steve Shroeder explains that “companies need talent now more than anything - and they're getting good, young talent for a fraction of what they're paying someone older who's been with the company for ten years or more” (Fisher, 2008). These facts and figures only point to one thing—if college students are having a difficult time being hired at entry-level positions, then the chances of a high school dropout getting a job has considerably been diminished. As a result, high school dropouts are faced with the negative ramifications of noncompletion throughout the rest of their lives, which may include anything from unemployment to a prison sentence. Rumberger (2003) states that people tend to confront their financial difficulties with criminal activities. “Students who drop out of high school are more likely to be unemployed, to earn less than those who graduate, to be on public assistance, and to end up in prison” (Christle, Jolivette and Nelson, 2007, p. 325). Therefore, the decision to not graduate from high school contributes to “a pattern of increased economic marginalization for those Americans with the least education” (Shore, 2003). Dropping out оf high ѕchool restricts one'ѕ options аnd opportunities in the labor market in an economic climate that is becoming more and more advanced and complex. Hence, high school noncompletion prompts serious negative conѕequenceѕ for both thе individual аnd ѕociety in termѕ оf financial ability and future productivity (Ѕtrothеr, 2006). These negative ramifications of high school noncompletion are further augmented when the students have disabilities. Students with disabilities already face negative odds as a consequence. Because the employment opportunities of a high school dropout are limited during these times of economic recession, then more so special education students without a high school diploma are highly impacted. Much attention has recently been devoted to determining rates of high school graduation but with no agreement on the exact numbers. Some students may complete 4 years of high school but not graduate. Others graduate late. A nontrivial proportion obtains a General Educational Development (GED) diploma, which has been found to be inferior to graduation in terms of earnings and human capital (Cameron and Heckman, 1993 as cited in Levin, 2009, p. 8). Blackorby and Wagner (2006) and deBettencourt, Zigmond and Thornton (2005) postulate that the dropout rates of special education high school students are at least double and at the most triple that of regular students. This makes the issue of investigating dropout rates among students with disabilities more urgent. In addition, dropout prevention strategies have been developed in order to specifically address this issue. Dropout prevention is an effective strategy used to increase literacy rates and decrease unemployment rates within the United States. This is evident in the fact that Preѕidentѕ Ronald Reagan аnd George H. W. Buѕh, thе National Governorѕ' Aѕѕociation, аnd thе Council оf Chief Ѕtate Ѕchool Оfficerѕ have all been staunch ѕupporterѕ оf decreasing high school noncompletion rates (MacMillan et al., 2002). Dropout prevention programs have consistently been a part of Presidential administrations. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and IDEA 2004 are two pieces of legislation that support the goal of decreasing dropout rates. Standardized testing and assessment leave much room for loopholes. The heavy dependence on state-mandated standardized testing has enabled school administrations to misclassify low achieving students as students with disabilities to not negatively impact or pull down the general average of the school. Consequently, President Barrack Obama has declared his intention of ending the “standardized tests in favor of more complicated assessments” (Moore, 2007). In fact, in an effort to reform public education and increase the current standard of teaching in public schools, the current Federal administration has created the Race to the Top public education reform program, which shows an increase in the budget allotted for education to $100 billion (Snell, 2010). This indicates that the government is placing a high priority on education because the government believes a good education can help students become successful and productive members of the labor force. However, even though funding and spending on education has continued to increase with each administration, the dropout rates remain the same—even increasing at some point in time (Dynarski, et al., 2008, p. 4). In fact, according to Christle, Jolivette and Nelson (2007, p. 325) “despite the importance of graduating from high school, the high school dropout rate has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years, [which is] currently at 10.9%.” Since it appears that increased government spending does not reduce the high school dropout rate, there needs to be a concerted effort to determine the real reasons why high school students drop out. The purpose of this study is to acquire more accurate and specific data on the specific reasons why special education high school students drop out. This study will be based on the premise that each school and/or school district has different dropout characteristics. Consequently, it is important to ascertain these characteristics and the reasons why high school special education students drop out in order to be able to develop and apply the appropriate dropout prevention strategies and programs that will benefit high school students so they will be given increased chances of being able to obtain a high school diploma. Problem Statement The disabilities of special education students already place them at a disadvantage when striving for financial stability and professional success when compared to regular students. Not completing high school for them would mean an increase in the challenges they face as they strive to become productive members of society and embark on personal independence. Increasing government spending on education is not enough as studies show that it has produced insignificant results when it comes to reducing dropout rates (Dynarski, et al., 2008). Furthermore, identifying the real reasons why high school students with disabilities drop out is crucial to the successful application of various dropout prevention strategies and techniques. Because every school population is different from each other, it can logically be assumed that high schools with different school and student characteristics would have diverse reasons as to why special education students drop out. Although there may be common reasons for dropping out, the degree of their significance for each school differs. Hence, dropout prevention strategies that target the specific reasons why high school students with disabilities drop out of school should be implemented in order for them to be effective. This should mean that, in order for the Federal administration’s High School Graduation Initiative (year?)of 2010 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to increase completion rates, a preliminary investigation should be conducted to determine the reasons why students drop out of high school. In this way, the various dropout prevention strategies and programs will attain maximum effectiveness when applied. The process is analogous to medical treatments, wherein some preliminary examinations, interviews or observations need to be conducted in order to ascertain the causes for the disease; because it is only after a correct diagnosis is made that appropriate treatment can be applied to cure the illness. In the same way, determining the reasons why students drop out is crucial to the success of dropout prevention programs. However, there is no specific method that has been developed as a standard for obtaining this type of sensitive data that varies, not only per state, but per school and/or school district. Purpose Statement/Focus of Inquiry The main purpose of this study will be to obtain specific and accurate data regarding the most common reasons why high school special education students drop out. This data will ensure the creation and implementation of appropriate dropout prevention strategies and programs for the particular schools that were chosen for its significant population of students with disabilities and high dropout rates: Charlottesville High School. This study ultimately seeks to decrease the dropout rates of special education students by developing a methodology that has the capacity to ascertain the reasons why students with disabilities drop out of high school. This methodology should have the ability to be replicated and implemented within different schools and school districts with high dropout rates. The National High School Center (NHSC) (2007) stated the need for a standard methodology in order to have data that can be compared across states and within states. Theoretical Framework Students who drop out of school today are confronted with significant job competition, work environmentѕ driven by significant technical influences, and leѕѕ than receptive employers. Buѕineѕѕeѕ are looking for a competitive edge and students who do not complete high ѕchool are ѕeen aѕ leѕѕ competitive. Employment opportunitieѕ in today'ѕ high ѕkill-high wage economy require advanced ѕkillѕ that dropoutѕ generally do not poѕѕeѕѕ. Christle, Jolivette and Nelson (2007, p. 325) enumerate the statistics on the negative effects of dropping out of high school as follows: According to a report on high school graduates in 2000, 56% of high school dropouts were unemployed, compared to 16% of high school graduates. Census Bureau estimates have placed the average income of a dropout in 2000 at $12,400, compared to $21,000 for a high school graduate. Students who drop out are more likely than students who graduate to experience health problems, engage in criminal activities, and become dependent on welfare and other government programs. The Center for Democratic Policy, Institute for Educational Leadership, reported that dropouts comprise 52% of welfare recipients, 82% of the prison population, and 85% of juvenile justice cases. These facts pertain to regular high school students—students who do not have to deal with the psychological, emotional and physical difficulties that students with disabilities face. It is then only logical to conclude that students with disabilities who drop out of high school have a markedly lesser chance of living independently in “a society in which education is a crucial determinant of life chances” (Levin, 2009, p. 5). Ascertaining the reasons why students with disabilities drop out of school is not just about gathering data through a survey of a population of high school special education dropouts. The data collected needs to be analyzed and grounded in a theoretical framework in order for it to make sense. In this case, one of the dominant and most relevant models that came up through the course of rigorous research was Finn’s Participation-Identification Model of School Engagement (date, reference?). The theoretical framework for this study—that is, where the interview questions and analysis are based on—is Finn’s Participation-Identification Model of School Engagement. The essence of this framework relies on the cycle of students’ bonding while engaging in various school activities and classes (Finn and Gerber, n.d). When students bond with their peers and even with their teachers, they feel that they are in a place where they belong. They develop attachments and friendships and make important memories that make it hard for them to leave that place. This can be compared to how a young boy develops affection for a house where he grew up, where he took care of his first dog and where he spent a lot of happy Christmases and Fourth of Julys’ with his family. When it is time for their family to sell their house and move away, he does so with much hesitation and protest. This is because he feels that he belongs in that house and that he cannot find another place just like it. It has been found that this sense of belongingness positively correlates with school engagement. In short, as a student develops affection for the school through positive experiences like friendship, camaraderie and even romantic relationships, he or she is bound to feel connected to the school. This will become a driving force for the student to wake up early, go to school, and to actively participate in school activities. “Participation in school activities includes responding to teacher directions and class requirements, participation in homework and other learning activities, participation in non-academic school activities, and participation in the governance of the school” (Rumberger and Lim, 2008, p. 5). Because the student feels a desire to go to the school in that doing so makes him happy, he or she becomes more motivated to study and participate in other school activities in order to prevent expulsion due to bad behavior and in order to avoid getting failing marks that will make him or her lag behind by a year and be separated from his or her classmates. But if this feeling of belongingness and connection do not occur due to negative experiences like being ostracized and being labeled an outcast, then the student will become disengaged, which may eventually lead to him or her dropping out of school (Finn and Gerber, n.d.). For instance, a student who has been labeled as slow in school and has developed no real friends, with teachers constantly reprimanding him or her for being unintelligent, will feel disconnected with the school. He or she will dread going to school and will oftentimes make up excuses not to go to school. This can become a pattern for there is nothing at all that motivates him or her to go to school. It may become so bad that the student will intentionally fail classes and use this as an excuse to drop out or start fights that will cause him or her to be expelled. “This model argues there is both a behavioral and emotional component to the withdrawal process” (Rumberger and Lim, 2008, p. 5). What students feel translate to their behavior and attitude towards school and learning. Hence, as the negative experiences and emotions continue to pile up, it may take only a small reason for a student who has become disengaged to decide to quit school completely. The Participation-Identification Model of School Engagement is based on the underlying assumption proposed by Finn that the act of dropping out is a slow process of disengagement (Finn and Gerber, n.d.). As negative school experiences, like having teachers with unconstructive and destructive attitudes and studying in an atmosphere that is not conducive to learning, such as having metal detectors and security checks before entering school, continues throughout the years the student is in school, he or she will start to withdraw from engaging in school activities. Wanting to be invisible is one sign of student disengagement. Hence, student engagement is key to a student’s school completion as it holds the interest of a student in going to school (Reschly and Christenson, 2006; Sinclair, et al., 2002; Harris, 2008; Bear, Kortering and Braziel, 2006; Lehr, et al., 2004; Aguilar, Erber and Farling, 2004). Disengagement, then, can be viewed as a significant cause for dropping out and is one of the top reasons why students drop out of high school. There have been many studies conducted on increasing student engagement. Numerous models have also been created as a form of dropout prevention. For instance: …the 2004 National Research Council report, Engaging Schools: Fostering High School Students' Motivation to Learn, developed a model of academic engagement which is manifested in behaviors and emotions toward academic work which, in turn, are influenced by three psychological variables: students’ beliefs about their competence and control (I can), their values and goals (I want to), and their sense of social connectiveness or belonging (I belong) (National Research Council, Committee on Increasing High School Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn, 2004, as cited in Rumberger and Lim, 2008, p. 8). The National Research Council, Committee on Increasing High School Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn (2003, p. 1) stresses that when advantaged students become disengaged and even drop out of high school, their background allows for second chances; but when disadvantaged students drop out, “they consequently face severely limited opportunities.” The same concept applies to students with disabilities, but in a much more aggravated manner because their disabilities already place them at a disadvantage from the start. For instance, while some may possess higher academic skills, they lack social skills that help them interact well with regular students. They may get teased, bullied and ostracized, which may contribute to a low self-esteem and ultimately, to their dropping out of high school (Brown and Chairez, 1999). The theoretical framework of this study will operate on this general assumption that is based on Finn’s model—that a student’s sense of belongingness is an important factor in encouraging academic engagement and student participation. If students feel that they belong in the school, they will participate more actively in academics and other school activities. They will be motivated to study. Student engagement will hinder them from even thinking about dropping out. Research Questions The study will be guided by the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of high school special education student dropouts? Special education students have varying characteristics and these characteristics are incorporated into this study’s methodology in order to be able to arrive at more accurate results as to the real reasons why they drop out of high school. Status variables like the level and type of disabilities, race/ethnicity, financial and family background and alterable variables such as grades, disruptive behavior, absenteeism need to be taken into consideration to be able to present a clear view of who these dropouts are and what factors need to be addressed and integrated into the dropout prevention program (Lehr, et al., 2004, pp. 12-13). 2. What are the most common reasons why high school students with disabilities drop out of school? This is the question that became central to this study. Answering this question will help establish appropriate dropout prevention strategies to be applied to the chosen school and the chosen special education high school population. Furthermore, determining the top reasons for dropping out can lead to the development of a better dropout prevention program that will hopefully be marked by a decrease in the dropout rates of special education students. 3. How does determining the top reasons why special education high school students drop out from a particular school positively affect the success of the application of dropout prevention programs and strategies? Analyzing the results will mean being able to produce a dropout prevention program that is highly suitable for the chosen school. For instance, if found that the top reason why students with disabilities drop out from this specific high school is lack of interest, then the dropout prevention program should focus more on how to increase student engagement; and so on. Hypothesis Because special education is included in the inclusion program of IDEA 2004 and in NCLB, this means that students with disabilities share classes and classrooms with regular students, it can be expected that students with disabilities may experience some discrimination because of the fact that they are different. It can then be hypothesized that the top reasons why special education high school students drop out include lack of interest because they do not have a sense of belonging, absenteeism because they do not want to go to school, which they deem to be a hostile environment, and inappropriate curriculum because their special academic needs are not met entirely. Limitations and Delimitations This study is limited by the researcher’s resources in that a more comprehensive study cannot be conducted because the researcher does not have the necessary connections and funds to be able to accomplish it. More importantly, the researcher needs to work with the permissions, consents and authorizations that he can obtain by his own efforts. Because of this, one weakness that the study might have is having a small sample population of special education high school dropouts. The study is also limited by time constraints; therefore restricting the amount of time allotted for the accomplishment of tasks. In order to be able to conduct and present a study, the results of which will have a high validity and reliability, the researcher has considered it necessary to delimit its scope. Hence, this study is defined by Charlottesville High School special education dropouts, aged 16 to 18 years. The participants should have dropped out from Charlottesville High School within the school years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009; and they must have dropped out in their third or fourth year of high school. Participants over the age of 18 will not be included. This is to show the urgency of the reason for dropping out that it cannot be delayed by one or two years after graduation. Research Plan This study will identify the primary reasons why students with disabilities opt to drop out of high school by conducting in-depth interviews of special education high school student dropouts from a chosen school that has a high percentage of students with disabilities. A set of interview questions were fashioned that will take into consideration each participant’s characteristics. These characteristics, such as status variables like race/ethnicity, age, financial situation and alterable variables, such as grades and extra-curricular activities, will also be validated through the examination of each student’s school records. This will comprise the preliminary investigation into the reasons why they dropped out of high school. After the data has been sorted and categorized, the in-depth interviews will follow, in the order most convenient for the participants. Follow-up questions will be asked when needed. A psychology expert who deals with special education students will be present at all the interviews to record observations and to ensure that the interview is conducted in an unbiased and professional manner. These observations will be a part of the analysis of the data. The inclusion of the expert’s observations in the final study will be done at the discretion of the interviewer, who is also the author of this study. All interviews will be recorded and transcribed. The transcription, together with field notes, will then be analyzed using qualitative data analysis (QDA). Because some of the students may have moved since dropping out of high school and many may have begun to work, setting up personal meetings may prove to be difficult. And so, for these students, the interview questions will be sent via e-mail. Results will be tabulated in order to ascertain the top reasons why these students chose noncompletion. Recommendations will follow, with regards to the appropriate dropout prevention strategies that best suits the school. The application of dropout prevention strategies will be based on the analysis of secondary academic sources. But according to research question 3 you will also evaluate the success of the dropout prevention program that is created as a result of this study. CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Economic and Social Implications of Dropping out of High School Ѕtudentѕ who leave ѕchool before thеy have finiѕhed have educational deficiencieѕ that negatively affect thеir economic opportunitieѕ аnd ѕocial welfare throughout thеir adult liveѕ (Rumberger, 2003). Dropping out оf ѕchool limitѕ one'ѕ choiceѕ аnd labor market advantageѕ in an increaѕingly ѕophiѕticated economic аnd ѕocial climate (Ѕtrothеr, 2006); thuѕ, having grave conѕequenceѕ for thе individual аnd ѕociety in termѕ оf economic impact аnd future productivity. Societal coѕtѕ aѕѕociated with dropping out оf ѕchool have been eѕtimated at $96 billion in loѕt income to federal аnd ѕtate governmentѕ аnd $3 billion in additional welfare expenditureѕ (Joneѕ, 1977). In general, “students who do not complete school cost taxpayers billions of dollars in lost revenues, welfare, unemployment, crime prevention, and prosecution” (Joint Economic Committee, 1991 as cited in Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 7). Perhapѕ more importantly, on an individual level, thе failure to complete a high ѕchool education haѕ been aѕѕociated with an individual'ѕ increaѕed likelihood to engage in criminal activity (Fitzѕimmonѕ, et al., 1969; Levin, 1972; Ѕtrothеr, 2006; Ѕtroup & Robinѕ, 1972) аnd to live in poverty (Hahn, 2003; Heѕѕ, 2006; William T. Grant Foundation, 2004). These assertions have been validated in the last couple of years as Cataldi, Laird and KewalRamani (2009, p. 1) state that high school dropouts “make up disproportionately higher percentages of the nation’s prison and death row inmates.” Furthermore, when dropouts reach the age of 25, regardless of income, have been proven to have worse health than their counterparts who finished highschool (Pleis and Lethbridge-Çejku, 2006 as cited in Cataldi, Laird and KewalRamani, 2009, p. 1). These show that in the past and more so at present, a high school diploma is an enabling factor for success. Thе current work force, driven by a highly technical global economy, haѕ different demаndѕ аnd complexitieѕ from thoѕe оf paѕt agrarian аnd induѕtrial economieѕ. Today, “almost 90 percent of the fastest-growing and highest-paying jobs require some postsecondary education, [so] having a high school diploma and the skills to succeed in college and the workplace are essential” (The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). And so, studentѕ who drop out оf ѕchool today are confronted with ѕignificant job competition, work environmentѕ driven by ѕignificant technical influenceѕ, аnd leѕѕ than receptive employerѕ. Buѕineѕѕeѕ are looking for thе competitive edge, аnd ѕtudentѕ who do not complete high ѕchool are ѕeen aѕ leѕѕ competitive. Employment opportunitieѕ in today'ѕ high ѕkill-high wage economy require advanced ѕkillѕ that dropoutѕ generally do not poѕѕeѕѕ. Rumberger (2003) noted that reѕearcherѕ, policy makerѕ, аnd educatorѕ have become intereѕted in thе phenomenon оf high ѕchool dropout precisely because of these reasons. At present, because the United States is experiencing an economic recession, which has been assessed as the worst national financial crisis since the Great Depression, the attention on increasing high school graduation rates has become more intense. As Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) (as cited in The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010) points out “As we have heard time and time again, our economic success in the next century is directly tied to our ability to have a highly educated, highly skilled workforce.” The importance of having a high school diploma during this time of global economic recession is highlighted in the fact that the probability of high school dropouts to be unemployed has doubled between the years 2007 and 2009 (The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010). This is evidenced by the fact that only 15.7% of American Men who dropped out of high school between the ages of 16 to 24 in 2007 were likely to be unemployed, whereas they are likely to be unemployed by 31.8% (The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010) (see Appendix A). In the span of two years, as the economic situation of the nation has worsened, a high school diploma is more valuable than ever. Truly, the earning power of high school dropouts has declined continuously over the years (Barton, 2005, p. 5). It has been seen how dropping out of high school can translate to unemployment, which creates negative ripples in the national economy; but another consequence of high school noncompletion is the fact that it leads to lower incomes. In the year 2007, Cataldi, Laird and KewalRamani (2009, p. 1) reports that the median annual income of American high school dropouts aged 18 to 25 amount to only $24,000 as compared to $40,000 for the same age bracket of high school graduates. Furthermore, “Among adults in the labor force, a higher percentage of dropouts are unemployed compared with adults who earned a high school credential (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007 as cited in Cataldi, Laird and KewalRamani, 2009, p. 1). The statistics and reports showing the economic and social implications of dropping out of high school are consistent with one another. This solidifies the basis that increasing graduation rates is beneficial for all types of students; more so students with disabilities who are already working at a disadvantage. In fact, in a study conducted by Henry Levin (2008, p. 16), he concluded that “the monetary value of the public benefits of reducing the number of high school dropouts exceeds considerably the required public costs of successfully validated educational interventions.” Understanding Dropout and Graduation Statistics Cable News Network (CNN) (2009) reported that “nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, fueling what a report released called “a persistent high school dropout crisis.”” This is one of the latest numbers on high school dropouts. CNN (2009) also shows information on the effect of ethnicity on dropouts and how African-Americans and Latinos comprise the largest percentage of dropouts. The data presented in this news article creates a valuable comparison on dropout rates of American men between the ages of 16 to 24 in 2007 versus the percentage of the same age bracket who are most likely to be unemployed. CNN (2009) states that in 2007, 18.9% dropped out, while The Alliance for Excellent Education (2010) shows that 15.7% were likely to be unemployed. A comparison of this data shows that there is an 83% chance that high school dropouts of the same age bracket will become unemployed. Although Mischel and Roy (2006, pp. 1-2) state that “there is a lack of agreement on the magnitude of high school completion rates in the United States, as well as its trends over the last 10, 20, or 30 years,” their study presents a comprehensive review of high school completion and noncompletion rates which shows that there is an increase in the former and a decline in the latter over the past 40 years. However, they characterize the decline in dropout rates over the past ten years as merely “modest.” The data reviewed is based on the graduation rates of various states in order to present more accurate data as opposed to national surveys. Furthermore, Mischel and Roy (2006, p. 71) put forth the problem that lies in creating national longitudinal surveys of dropouts by stating that: The ideal way to calculate graduation rates would be to follow individual students over time, as they enter high school and progress through it…. Unfortunately, such universal tracking of high school students is resource-intensive and is not currently practiced. This shows the strength and weakness of national longitudinal studies of high school dropouts as although it provides significant and extremely useful data when accurate, a survey of this magnitude requires a lot of resources. Because of this, the data produced is more often than not inaccurate. This is an important consideration for this study as it would need to take national rates carefully in order to ascertain its accuracy. Paul E. Barton (2005, p. 3) also agrees with the aforementioned statement that national graduation and dropout rates manifest inaccuracy. “A number of independent researchers have made recent estimates that put the national rate variously at 66.1, 66.6, 68.7, 69.6, and 71.0 percent” (Barton, 2005, p. 3). Furthermore, Barton (2005, p. 6) asserts that—as opposed to Mischel and Roy’s (2006) report that dropout rates are slowly declining—the number of high school dropouts have steadily been on the rise in the past years, with one-third of the nation’s student population not being able to earn a high school diploma. Barton (2005, p.7) further presents useful analysis of the calculation of dropout rates and why inaccuracies arise. He explains that the statistics presented by the Census Bureau includes those who have General Education Development (GED) Certificates—they may or may not be high school graduates. Moreover, “the Census Bureau’s household sample is based on self-reports from families regarding the graduation status of family members, rather than on actual school records – and is therefore not particularly accurate” (p. 7). Although the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has created a way to avoid this by using the enrollment rate of freshmen high school students and comparing it with the graduation rates of the same batch four years later, an important factor that may give this method a smidge of inaccuracy is the fact that “as accountability systems started to include completion rates in their reward and punishment systems, schools developed a reluctance to classify students as “dropouts” when other categories were available in which to report them, and became creative in reporting why students were no longer enrolled” (p. 7). Indeed, what Barton has reported is validated by how students with disabilities are treated by school administrations due to the accountability issue presented by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2000. On the other hand, it is important to note how Rumberger and Lim (2008, p. 1) used enrollment rates and graduation rates to determine the high school dropout rate in the school year 2003 to 2004. “An estimated 25 percent of public school students who entered the high school in the fall of 2000 failed to earn a diploma four years later in 2003-04” (Laird, Kienzi, DeBell, and Chapman, 2007 as cited in Rumberger and Lim, 2008, p. 1). This statement shows how this type of calculation of dropout rates is also valid in that it simplifies the process by looking at enrollment rates and comparing it with graduation rates in order to get the difference, which is then considered as the dropout rate. However simple and logical this process might be, this might prove to be problematic if the data gathered (enrollment and graduation rates) are proven to be inaccurate as asserted by Barton (2005, p. 7). It is a good thing that Rumberger and Lim (2006) provide comprehensive tables and statistics in order to back up the data they have gathered. One of the more complete analyses of graduation and dropout rates of high school students is presented by Cataldi, Laird and KewalRamani (2009). In order to provide a more accurate “broad picture of high school dropouts and completers in the United States,” unique information has been analyzed from each of “the event dropout rate, the status dropout rate, the status completion rate, and the averaged freshman graduation rate” (Cataldi, Laird and KewalRamani, 2009, p. 1). The report further explains the significance of each type of process for calculating dropout and graduation rates and is thus valuable to this study. Dropout Rates of Students with Disabilities Thе Оffice оf Ѕpecial Education Programѕ has reported annual ѕchool-exiting data on ѕpecial education ѕtudentѕ by diѕability category аnd age ѕince 2004-2005. Accountability in ѕpecial education waѕ mаndated by thе Education оf All Hаndicapped Children Act Amendmentѕ оf 2003 (P.L. 98-200) (MacMillan et al., 2002). Ѕome reѕearcherѕ have reported that ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ drop out оf ѕchool at a rate three timeѕ that оf thеir peerѕ, while some report that it is twice that of regular students (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; deBettencourt, Zigmond, & Thornton, 2005; Thurlow, Sinclair and Johnson, 2002). In addition, Edgar (2003) indicates that many ѕecondary special education programѕ were not adequately ѕerving ѕtudentѕ' tranѕitional needѕ for community adjustment. He noted that more than 30% оf ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ dropped out оf thе ѕpecialized programѕ deѕigned to meet his or her needѕ. Zigmond аnd Thornton (2005) report that learning-diѕabled (LD) ѕtudentѕ had a significantly higher dropout rate than non-LD ѕtudentѕ (54% verѕuѕ 33%). Thеy concluded that “thе data ѕuggeѕted that large numberѕ оf LD ѕtudentѕ were abаndoning thе educational ѕyѕtem that iѕ mаndated to ѕerve thеm” (p. 54). Regardless of whether the dropout rates of students with disabilities are double or triple that of their peers, the fact is that the rates are significantly higher (Thurlow, Sinclair and Johnson, 2002, p.3; National High School Center, 2007). While Reschly and Christenson (2006) report that only 41.1% of students with disabilities dropped out for the school year 2000 to 2001, the National High School Center (2007) states that for the school year 2001 to 2002, 51% of special education students dropped out. This suggests a marked increase in the dropout rate of students with disabilities. Wagner (2001b), in a report that dropout rateѕ for youths aged 15-20 who had left ѕecondary ѕchoolѕ over a 2-year period, indicates that youth with diѕabilitieѕ had a 42.9% dropout rate compared with 31.6% for non-diѕabled youth in thе general population with ѕimilar demographic characteriѕticѕ. Youths in thе total general population had a dropout rate оf 24.4%, a rate that waѕ ѕignificantly lower than that оf youth with diѕabilitieѕ. Parentѕ оf ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ have indicated that thе primary reaѕonѕ thеir children left ѕchool were that: 1. Thеy were not doing well in ѕchool, (b) thеy did not like ѕchool. 2. Thеy were bored, (d) thеy married or became parent. 3. Thеy had behavioral problemѕ (Wagner, 2001b; U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2004). Wagner reported that youth with emotional diѕturbanceѕ (ED) were thе moѕt likely to leave ѕchool, with a 50% dropout rate. National data comparing thе ѕchool enrollment ѕtatuѕ оf ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ aged 14-21 for ѕchool yearѕ 2004-2005 аnd 2005-2006 indicated that approximately 72% continued in ѕpecial education аnd that 28% exited thе ѕchool ѕyѕtem. Оf ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ aged 14-21 who exited thе educational ѕyѕtem during thеѕe yearѕ, approximately 42% graduated with a high ѕchool diploma аnd about 47% dropped out or moved аnd left thеir continuance in ѕpecial education unknown. Recent data indicates that approximately 44% оf ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ aged 17 аnd older exiting thе ѕchool ѕyѕtem, graduated with a ѕtаndard high ѕchool diploma. Thiѕ figure repreѕentѕ an increaѕe in rateѕ for earned high ѕchool diplomaѕ for ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ (U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2005). Important aѕ thеѕe gainѕ are, educatorѕ cannot loѕe ѕight оf thе continued unacceptably high dropout rate in ѕpecial education аnd thе high rate оf diѕcontinuance in ѕpecial education due to moving (U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2003 and 2004). Ѕpecial education enrollment haѕ increaѕed in all age groupѕ during thе paѕt decade. Thеre haѕ been a 30% increaѕe for youth aged 12-17 аnd a 15% increaѕe for youth aged 18-21 (U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2004). Additionally, four categorieѕ оf diѕability account for approximately 90% оf all ѕtudentѕ ѕerved by IDEA: 51% ѕpecific LDѕ; 20% ѕpeech аnd/or language impairmentѕ; 11% mental retardation; аnd 9% emotional diѕturbance (ED). Ѕtudentѕ with emotional diѕturbanceѕ are identified aѕ failing more courѕeѕ, having lower grade-point averageѕ аnd higher grade-retention rateѕ, аnd being abѕent from ѕchool more оften than ѕtudentѕ with othеr diѕabilitieѕ. Thе moѕt alarming ѕtatiѕtic about ED ѕtudentѕ iѕ that 55% leave ѕchool before graduating (U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2004). Ѕchool-exiting data for ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ aged 17-21, liѕted by diѕability category for ѕchool year 2005-2006, indicated that ED аnd LD ѕtudentѕ (21% аnd 11%, reѕpectively) had thе higheѕt percentage оf dropping out. In addition, ED ѕtudentѕ (10%) had thе higheѕt percentage оf moving аnd leaving thеir ѕpecial education ѕtatuѕ unknown (U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2004). Thе reality оf ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ leaving ѕchool continueѕ to be a ѕeriouѕ concern in thе field оf ѕpecial education. Haring аnd Lovett (2000, p. 474) concludes that thе true efficacy оf ѕpecial education would be better expreѕѕed in termѕ оf thе extent to which it helpѕ ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ to improve performance, participate in—аnd complete—public ѕchool education (p. 474). Ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ who complete high ѕchool have higher levelѕ оf employment аnd poѕt-ѕecondary education аnd training participation, aѕ well aѕ higher wageѕ (Blackorby & Wagner, 2006; U.Ѕ. Department оf Education, 2004). The Laws and Policies on Special Education The NCLB Act and IDEA 2004 are the two major legislations that involve students with disabilities. It is of high importance to this study to examine how these laws have affected special education and how dropout prevention can better be implemented without ignoring these mandates and even taking advantage of the opportunities these laws present. Furthermore, a discussion of dropout rates needs to be contextualized in these two laws and the effects they have on completion and noncompletion. The article “Dropout Prevention for Students With Disabilities: A Critical Issue for State Education Agencies” is actually an issue brief that contains information about IDEA 2004, how it specifically relates to students with disabilities, and how it can be improved to create more effective dropout prevention programs (NHSC, 2007a; 2007b). It discusses the specifics of IDEA 2004 and how even race/ethnicity can factor in and act as a variable in the dropout rates of students with disabilities. Specific classifications of the types of disabilities are also presented. Lehr, et al. (2004), in the section of their study “Legislative Impetus to Focus on Increasing School Completion for All Students” discusses the implications and significance of the ratification of both the NCLB and IDEA 2004. Likewise, Emily C. Bouck (2007) explores the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; IDEA Amendments of 1997; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [IDEIA]), and the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE) and how these three major statutes in special education affect high school students with mild mental disabilities. Because these two laws are the most significant when it comes to special education, many of the articles discuss them in passing, providing useful analyses depending on the relevance to the topic. Elizabeth Rich (2008) presents a comprehensive review of the NCLB Act and how it has affected special education students, teachers and the quality of education provided to these students with disabilities. Rich (2008, p. 23) further states her discovery of the two sides to the NCLB Act in that: On the whole, scholars who support the law believe that NCLB forces schools to include special education students, which holds the schools accountable to these students. In contrast, opponents of the law argue that schools are able to make accommodations and excuses in order to keep Special Education scores out of overall AYP scores for the school. There is much to learn about the historical evolution of the laws that paved the way for NCLB. It is important to note that NCLB started making schools accountable for learning through nationwide and statewide testing and assessment. “Students with disabilities are included in the “all students” agenda of federal, state, and district standards-based reforms, and have been identified as being among the lowest performing students on current high stakes tests” (Thurlow, Sinclair and Johnson, 2002, p. 1). It is because of this fact that students with disabilities are a part of high stakes testing that these special education students are being placed at another disadvantage. “It is possible that schools and the educators within them may encourage special education students to seek alternative programs and leave their buildings– essentially pushing students with disabilities to drop out of school” (p. 2). The report shows that while IDEA 2004 and the NCLB have good intentions towards students with disabilities through inclusion, it seems that this tactic only serves to do the opposite—school administrators want to get rid of these students so that their low academic performance will not pull down the entire school. Johnson, Thurlow and Stout (2007) present a comprehensive review and analysis of the NCLB and IDEA and how they affect students with disabilities. Tthe NCLB’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) requires all state schools to report graduation rates, as well as monitor how many students passed the state-mandated tests. “Further, schools and districts that fail to show achievement gains among students with disabilities, English language learners, minority students, and low-income groups are subject to various district and state interventions” (p. 1). For many who cannot afford these institutions, there is no other resort but to drop out (Wagner and Blackorby, 1996). Another factor that contributes to the high dropout rates is the fact that students with disabilities are not exempted from high stakes exit exams required for graduation. Because it places more pressure on students with disabilities, states are now offering various forms of diplomas for students to earn. Johnson, Thurlow and Stout (2007, p. 3) explains these various diplomas: The array of diploma options ranges from honors diplomas, to the standard diploma, to certificates of completion or attendance, and others. Some states offer special diplomas to students who take rigorous course work, achieve a high grade point average, or post high scores on state exams. In addition, some diploma options and certificates are just for students receiving special education services. It can be seen here how, although states are doing all that they can in order to be able to present high school diplomas to all students, especially students with disabilities, that a new question arises of whether or not having these diplomas can fully equip these students for professional jobs or for a college education. As the policies regarding graduation requirements continue to evolve and change for every state, there is a need to be vigilant in following these policies and analyzing what they can really do for students with disabilities (Johnson, Thurlow and Stout, 2007, p. 4). Defining the Act of Dropping Out In order to better understand the reasons why students with disabilities drop out of high school, it is first important to consider what it means to drop out. Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio and Morison (2006) used Finn’s slow disengagement theory as a way of defining the act of dropping out, which is “a gradual process of disengagement.” This means that there is a series of events that lead to a student’s decision to drop out; it is not done on a whim or a spur-of-the-moment decision. Kelly Hupfeld (n.d.) agrees with this definition by stating that “students seem to drift toward dropping out as multiple situations compound each other, rather than making a single decision based on a single event.” Likewise, Reschly and Christenson (2006) state that dropping out is a decision that is “complex and multifaceted.” Thurlow, Sinclair and Johnson (2002) and Lehr, et al. (2004, p. 16) also provides a definition that uses Finn’s model, stating that “dropping out of school is a process of disengagement that begins early.” This is supported by the observations that: Many students who drop out are expressing an extreme form of disengagement from school that has been foreshadowed by indicators of withdrawal (e.g., poor attendance) and unsuccessful school experiences (e.g., academic or behavioral difficulties) (Rumberger, 1995). These overt indicators of disengagement are generally accompanied by feelings of alienation, a poor sense of belonging, and general dislike for school (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986 as cited in Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 16). Rumberger and Lim (2008, p. 2) present a good point when they state that some students withdraw from their own school and not from all schools in general. This theory also goes hand in hand with Finn’s definition of the act of dropping out as long exposure to a particular negative school environment can affect a student’s resolve to finish high school and graduate. It develops a feeling of negativity and indifference towards school. Christle, Jolivette and Nelson (2007, p. 326) attest to this fact as they state that certain school characteristics “weakens a student’s attachment to school and eventually leads to dropping out.” On the other hand, Shore (2003) believes the opposite in that dropping out is composed of an instantaneous decision to quit school, which may involve waking up one morning and deciding not to go to school. “Students who have done it say they simply stopped going to school one day” (Shore, 2003, p. 2). Shore’s theory is the only which states this as all the other researches done on the process of dropping out are in line with Finn’s earlier definition of a slow process of disengagement that begins early. Understanding Students with Disabilities The Advocacy Institute (2002) presents a review of quantitative data on students with learning disabilities. Dropout rates and other variables are presented here over the period of 1990-2000. It also shows the percentage of students per age bracket and per race/ethnicity. Sherry Everett Jones and Donald J. Lollar (2008) created a longitudinal study that aims to establish the correlation between physical disabilities or long-term health problems and health risk behaviors. In the course of their research, they provide very useful statistics on students with disabilities based on the level and type of disabilities they have. Likewise, the studies and briefs created by the National High School Center (2007a; 2007b), Amy L. Reschly and Sandra L. Christenson (2006), Rima Shore (2003), and Christine A. Christle, Kristine Jolivette, and Nelson C. Michael (2007) all present statistics relevant to this study, such as dropout rates of both regular students and students with disabilities, as well as national statistics for high school completion and noncompletion. One of the studies that stands out points out how “the transition from middle school to high school may be particularly difficult for students with learning or emotional/behavioral disabilities, as indicated by the significant increase in dropout rates among students with disabilities at Grades 9 and 10” (Marder & D'Amico, 1992 as cited in Sinclair, et al., 1998). Indeed, as teenagers gain more freedom as they get older, they are more prone to become disengaged, which is especially true for special education students as they have more to deal with and thus, are more prone to rebellious behavior and withdrawal (Sinclair, et al., 1998). That is why transition periods need to be given careful consideration especially when it comes to decreasing the dropout rates of students with disabilities. Camilla A. Lehr, David R. Johnson, Christine D. Bremer, Anna Cosio and Megan Thompson (2004) created a comprehensive manual about dropout prevention that shows how dropout rates are calculated and measured. The study also states how variables—both status and alterable—figure into the equation. Similarly, Martha L. Thurlow, Mary F. Sinclair, and David R. Johnson (2002) authored an issue brief for the National Center for Education Statistics that aims to present and examine information regarding how laws and policies, specifically accountability stipulations, affect the dropout rates of students with disabilities. “1995). John Robert Warren and Andrew Halpern-Manners’ (2007) article shows the difference between dropout rates as calculated and presented by the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Common Core of Data (CCD). Jones and Lollar’s (2008) study found that there is a direct relationship between physical disabilities or long-term health problems and health risk behaviors; this supports the assumption that students with disabilities are far more susceptible to dropping out of high school because they experience many difficulties that regular students do not. Hence, students with disabilities, being insecure and sensitive about their condition, exhibit behavior that may alienate them from the rest of the student population. Jones and Lollar (2006) present a way of understanding and defining special education students and how their disabilities relate to their behavior, actions and their vulnerability to drop out of school. Lehr, et al. (2004) provides alterable variables that can be used to analyze and compute dropout rates of students with disabilities. On the contrary, George G. Bear, Larry J. Kortering and Patricia Braziel’s (2006) quantitative analysis shows that there are no significant differences between school completers and noncompleters among students with disabilities in terms of student achievement and intellectual ability, among others. “It is quite possible that the teachers in the schools in this study were caring and not harsh and that other factors, such as employment or career goals, were stronger determinants of school completion” (Bear, Kortering and Braziel, 2006). The authors stated this reason for the unexpected outcome of their study. This augments the fact that dropout characteristics vary and thus, there is a need to study why students with disabilities drop out of high school. Ѕhaw, Brinckerhоff, Kiѕtler, & McGuire (2001) show how secondary school ѕpecial education programѕ need to evolve from ѕimply aѕѕiѕting ѕtudentѕ in completing high ѕchool to providing thеm with thе independence аnd ѕkillѕ neceѕѕary for tranѕition to poѕtѕecondary education аnd adult life. Ѕpecial educatorѕ need to find programѕ that keep ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ in ѕchool аnd that help thеm attain thе needed ѕkillѕ for competitive employment, independence, аnd overall ѕucceѕѕ in adult life. It iѕ imperative that ѕtudentѕ with diѕabilitieѕ be prepared to face thе challengeѕ оf a complex world аnd labor market. Harvey аnd Cohen (2005) reported a relationѕhip between thе type оf ѕchool program аnd job ѕucceѕѕ for perѕonѕ with diѕabilitieѕ. Edgar (2003) ѕuggeѕted that one ѕolution to thе ѕecondary ѕpecial education curricula dilemma iѕ a "ѕhift in focuѕ away from academicѕ to functional, vocational, independent living taѕkѕ" (p. 560). Vocational education haѕ been identified aѕ having thе potential to enhance ѕtudentѕ' academic ѕkillѕ аnd to help keep non-college preparatory curricula ѕtudentѕ from dropping out оf ѕchool (Raѕinѕki & Pedlow, 2004). Emphaѕiѕ haѕ been placed on providing training opportunitieѕ for thе ѕpecial ѕtudent population in vocational education ѕince 1963. Why Students with Disabilities Drop Out Although there have been numerous studies that explore this question, there are none that have been published that have been successful in creating a standard methodology that can be applied and replicated to various schools and school districts. Due to the personal nature of this inquiry, there are no two studies that have produced the same results. Furthermore, most of the studies focus on regular students and not special education students. However, it is important to analyze these studies as a point of comparison and also to be able to get an idea as to how to properly proceed with this proposed research study. Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison (2006, pp. 3-11) present statistics that show the top five reasons why regular students drop out, with classes not being interesting enough stated as the number one reason (see Appendix B). What is interesting about the study is that it takes on the perspectives of the students in asking the question of what they believe would improve the students’ chances of graduating high school (p. 13) (see Appendix C). Furthermore, the authors indicate that “There is no single reason why students drop out of high school. The decision to drop out is complex and relates to the individual student – and their family, school and community. The decision is personal, reflects their unique life circumstances, and is part of a slow process of disengagement from school” (p. 3). On the other hand, Lehr, et al. (2004, p. 14) state that “problems getting along with teachers, suspension and expulsion, low grades, pregnancy, financial responsibilities, disliking school, caretaking responsibilities, and employment” are among the most common reasons why students drop out of high school. For students with disabilities, the authors found that “a lack of relevant curriculum” that is tailored to their individual competencies is the top reason why special education students drop out (Lehr, et al. 2004, p. 14). Furthermore, Lehr, et al. (2004, p. 15) state that “changes in personal attitude or effort, changes in attendance and discipline policies, and more support from teachers” are among the top answers for what would make students with disabilities stay in school. Hupfeld (n.d.) found that students lack “the motivation to work hard” as the top reason for dropping out; stating that the risks are greater for students with disabilities. Other studies focus more on the status and alterable variables that affect dropout rates. Alternatively, Sinclair, et al. (1998) indicates how the transition period from middle school to high school is crucial in making students want to graduate. “Students experiencing the transition have to make the usual adaptations to new teachers and classes, as well as to an increased emphasis on academics, where the focus shifts from passing classes to earning academic credits toward graduation.” This shows how increasing academic load and the importance given to social relationships and status may contribute to the pressure in high school—making it a lot harder to cope and signaling the start of the withdrawal process that eventually leads to dropping out. This is supported by a previous study conducted in 1999 by Brown and Chairez which shows that the top three reasons why students drop out is because they did not like school, they were failing and that they could not get along with their teachers (p. 2) (see Appendix D). These are indications of not being able to successfully cope with the transition process specified by Sinclair, et al. (1998). Sze and Valentin (2007), on the other hand, shows how a special education student’s self-concept and self-esteem can prove to be a valuable aspect when it comes to their ability to stay in school and graduate. This is explicated by the fact that: People with disabilities are often seen as being a source of entertainment because they may not have a sense of what behavior is socially acceptable. Individuals with special needs may develop a negative self-image from negative interactions with other people in their surroundings. As a result, many people with disabilities may think that they are of no importance. (Sze and Valentin, 2007, p. 552) This shows that there are many aspects to consider when deliberating on why students with disabilities drop out. Because of their special conditions, which may be emotional, psychological and physical, these students are said to be singled out to fail. However, the motivation to succeed, once aroused, is stronger in them as they are already at a disadvantage right from the very beginning. Arousing this motivation is the key to increasing the graduation rates of special education students. Dropout Characteristics The National High School Center (2007a; 2007b) presents a table of status and alterable variables that need to be considered when students with disabilities are being studied. The different types of disabilities were also listed. Lehr, et al. (2004, pp. 12-13) enumerate the important status and alterable variables that characterize dropouts. They are: Status Variables 1. Age. Students who drop out tend to be older compared to their grade-level peers. 2. Gender. Students who drop out are more likely to be male. Females who drop out often do so due to reasons associated with pregnancy. 3. Socioeconomic background. Dropouts are more likely to come from low-income families. 4. Ethnicity. The rate of dropout is higher on average for Black, Hispanic, and Native American youth. 5. Native language. Students who come from non-English speaking backgrounds are more likely to have higher rates of dropout. 6. Region. Students are more likely to drop out if they live in urban settings as compared to suburban or non­metropolitan areas. Dropout rates are higher in the South and West than in the Northeast region of the U.S. 7. Mobility. High levels of household mobility contribute to increased likelihood of dropping out. 8. Ability. Lower scores on measures of cognitive ability are associated with higher rates of dropout. 9. Disability. Students with disabilities (especially those with emotional/behavioral disabilities) are at greater risk of dropout. 10. Parental employment. Dropouts are more likely to come from families in which the parents are unemployed. 11. School size and type. School factors that have been linked to dropout include school type and large school size. 12. Family structure. Students who come from single-parent families are at greater risk of dropout. (p.12) Alterable Variables 1. Grades. Students with poor grades are at greater risk of dropout. 2. Disruptive behavior. Students who drop out are more likely to have exhibited behavioral and disciplinary problems in school. 3. Absenteeism. Rate of attendance is a strong predictor of dropout. 4. School policies. Alterable school policies associated with dropout include raising academic standards without providing supports, tracking, and frequent use of suspension. 5. School climate. Positive school climate is associated with lower rates of dropout. 6. Parenting. Homes characterized by permissive parenting styles have been linked with higher rates of dropout. 7. Sense of belonging. Alienation and decreased levels of participation in school have been associated with in­creased likelihood of dropout. 8. Attitudes toward school. The beliefs and attitudes (e.g., locus of control, motivation to achieve) that students hold toward school are important predictors of dropout. 9. Educational support in the home. Students whose families provide higher levels of educational support for learning are less likely to drop out. 10. Retention. Students who drop out are more likely to have been retained than students who graduate. Using National Education Longitudinal Study data, being held back was identified as the single biggest predictor of dropping out. 11. Stressful life events. Increased levels of stress and the presence of stressors (e.g., financial difficulty, health problems, and early parenthood) are associated with increased rates of dropout. (pp. 12-13) It can be seen here how Lehr, et al. (2004) have given one of the most specific characteristics of dropouts. This study shows the variables that are watched out for in the conduction of this particular study. On the one hand, Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison (2006, pp. 2-3) ask the question “Who is dropping out?” By doing this, they have provided this study with the invaluable concept of going directly to the source for this question to be answered—“the dropouts themselves.” Furthermore, the study shows statistics based on the study as to how the various status and alterable variables figure into the characterization of dropouts; and how this, in turn, is significantly related to the reasons why they drop out of high school. Lehr, et al. (2004, pp. 12-13) also asks the question “What Do We Know About Who Drops Out and Why?” The authors provide a more detailed and comprehensive review of status and alterable variables and how the combination of these variables form a dropout’s characteristics. They also relate these to students with disabilities. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework that is used for this study is Finn’s Participation-Identification Model of School Engagement. Basically, this is the cycle of students’ bonding while engaging in various school activities and classes (Finn and Gerber, n.d). This enhances a student’s sense of belonging and positively correlates with school engagement (Rumberger, 2008, p. 5). But if this does not occur, then the student will become disengaged, which may eventually lead to him or her dropping out of school (Finn and Gerber, n.d.). This model is based on the underlying assumption proposed by Finn that the act of dropping out is a slow process of disengagement (Finn and Gerber, n.d.). Hence, student engagement is key to a student’s school completion as it holds the interest of a student in going to school (Reschly and Christenson, 2006; Sinclair, et al., 2002; Harris, 2008; Bear, Kortering and Braziel, 2006; Lehr, et al., 2004; Aguilar, Erber and Farling, 2004). Disengagement, then, can be viewed as a significant cause for dropping out and is one of the top reasons why students drop out of high school. The same concept applies to students with disabilities, but in a much more aggravated manner. In the first place, they are entering high school at a disadvantage. For instance, while some may possess higher academic skills, they lack social skills that make them mix well with regular students. They may get teased, bullied and ostracized, which may contribute to a low self-esteem and ultimately, to their dropping out of high school (Brown and Chairez, 1999). Another theory that can be used is the Check and Connect Model, which is the process by which students are monitored throughout their school years to guide them especially through periods of transition like when students move from middle school to high school (Sinclair, et al., 1998). Checking refers to the monitoring of student performance while connecting denotes the act of intervention that will guide the student to making the correct academic decisions, as well as personal ones if they affect school engagement (Sinclair, et al., 1998). This model relies on providing students with mentors that they can respect and relate to (Sinclair, et al., 1998). These and other factors and variables contribute to the ultimate decision and act of dropping out. That is why in order to fully address the issue of high dropout rates of high school special education students, all relevant data must be gathered and analyzed. A significant portion of this data should deal with why students with disabilities opt for noncompletion. Dropout Prevention Almost all of the articles that have been referenced in this literature review discuss how dropout prevention is the end goal of most of these studies. Dropout prevention strategies include (1) developing resiliency skills in order to make the characters of students with disabilities stronger against challenges that they may face in school (Hupfeld, n.d.); (2) student engagement to make students more involved in school (Reschly and Christenson, 2006; Sinclair, et al., 2002; Harris, 2008; Bear, Kortering and Braziel, 2006; Lehr, et al., 2004; Aguilar, Erber and Farling, 2004); (3) boosting students’ self-esteem (Jones and Lollar, 2008); (4) developing students’ sense of belonging to increase motivation to excel and stay in school (Christle, Jolivette and Michael, 2007); (5) inclusion in all student activities and regulations (Horn and Tynan, 2001); and (6) Check and Connect, which involves transitional monitoring and mentoring (Lehr, et al., 2004; Sinclair, et al., 1998). Shore (2003) presents general guidelines for dropout prevention like how to make students stay in school or make it harder for them to leave. Lehr, et al. (2004) and the National High School Center (2007b), on the other hand, present a comprehensive review and analysis of the effectiveness of various dropout intervention programs like Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success (ALAS), Career Academies, Check & Connect, Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program, Interpersonal Relations/Personal Growth Class, Ninth Grade Dropout Prevention Program (NGP), Preventing School Dropout Beginning in Elementary Grades, Project COFFEE, School Transitional Environment Project (STEP), Support Center for Adolescent Mothers (Family Growth Center), and Teen Outreach Program (TOP). CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Introduction Due to the rates of special education students who drop out of high school and the alarming negative consequences of noncompletion, this study will focus on identifying the top reasons why these students decide to drop out of high school in order to develop more effective dropout prevention programs. Research Questions Given this objective, the key question that will be answered in this proposed study is “Why do students with disabilities drop out of high school?” This chapter discusses how this question will be answered. Because it is a “why” question, the qualitative methodology was selected as it is more appropriate when contending with such abstract human behaviors, such as the act of dropping out of school. This proposed study requires a flexible research design because it addresses a human phenomenon that should also make space for behavioral factors. Hence, the qualitative method’s objectives of describing and explaining variations, relationships, individual experiences and group norms made it the most suitable for this study. For instance, when observing and interviewing participants, the set of interview questions determined beforehand will allow enough room for follow-up questions. Likewise, analyzing the data to be gathered will involve flexibility as categories that are not expected will arise and factors that seem inconsequential may became significant. The study may need to be adjusted in the coding and analysis of the data as these previously insignificant factors and categories may become more important in order to be able to present more accurate and comprehensive results. Design Qualitative research can “see precisely which events led to which consequences and derive fruitful explanations” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 1). Moreover, it has a higher chance of being able to arrive at unanticipated findings and new combinations and reationships (Miles and Huberman, 1994). These reasons are why the qualitative research design has been selected for this study as it can provide a clear view of why students with disabilities drop out of high school. It must be clarified that although quantitative data, such as statistics and percentages, will be used in the study, it only serves as supportive numbers that will lay the groundwork for this study. Furthermore, it is intended for this qualitative research to act as a precursive study for more accurate and extensive quantitative study on the same topic. Active Observation The study will employ a qualitative research design that will be based on active observation (reference?). The qualitative research design has been criticized by many for its supposed inexactness due to its “interpretative, subjective, impressionistic and diagnostic” nature as it has been claimed that there are no unbiased observers (Thomson, 2007). However, when contending with abstract data, like “the often contradictory behaviors, beliefs, opinions, emotions, and relationships of individuals” and in this case, the reasons why certain people act a particular way, active observation is best employed as its strength lies in its capability to be able to provide a textual characterization of complex events such as human experience (Mack, et al., 2005). Intensive Interview Data will be collected through intensive interviews of special education high school student dropouts through personal (face-to-face) meetings and via electronic mail (e-mail). The questionnaire will be followed by an interview prepared by the researcher that is iterative in style to be able to elicit the needed response. The data gathered will be interpreted and analyzed through the use of a coding system that will be made to fit the design of the study and its objectives and include all significant variables, both status and alterable. Data analysis will involve the grounding of the results on the various relevant theories and strategies for dropout prevention that will be encountered through the course of secondary research. These references are cited accordingly within the body and at the end of the study. Participants Identifying the top reasons why special education students drop out of high school is a complex task that involves varying factors and variables. It must be noted that the reasons why students with disabilities drop out are personal; and so, it is also imperative to include a characterization of the students and incorporate this into the data analysis procedures. In other words, it is not enough to just simply ask the participants why they dropped out of high school. The participants in the study will include male and female special education high school dropouts from Charlottesville High School who dropped out of school during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years. The age of these students will range from 16 to 18 years old. The students will also have dropped out during their third or fourth year in high school. Aside from students with disabilities, tenured faculty members, the principal, and other staff members will be interviewed with regards to their experiences and educated opinions on why these students dropped out. These high school levels were selected because they are the ones closest to graduation, which operates on the premise that these students must have had very specific reasons for deciding not to complete their high school education when graduation was not far away. This does not mean that high school freshmen and sophomores do not have the same significant reasons; but they have more time to go back to school. For these juniors and seniors, they must have had significant reasons for not graduating. What could their reasons be that they could not endure them for the short period of time until graduation? There are many factors and variables that relate to why they dropped out of high school (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 12). It must be clarified, though, that this characterization should not be treated as a diagnosis or opinion of psychological professionals. The study will not delve deeply into the personality of the participants. However, for future researchers who want to replicate this methodology and have more resources, it is highly recommended for them to employ the best psychological experts as passive observers in the conduction of face-to-face in-depth interviews in order for their professional opinions to be integrated into the data collection and analysis. If this is done, the replicated study will increase its validity and accuracy. Setting/Site All participants either were or still are a part of Charlottesville High School located in the state of Virginia. This includes special education students, dropouts, school administrators and special education teachers. Replication of the Study Qualitative research is usually designed to build on “a rich and complex understanding of a specific social context or phenomenon typically takes precedence over eliciting data that can be generalized to other geographical areas or populations” (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 2). Due to this fact, qualitative studies can usually be replicated only with similar characteristics, but not with larger populations. And because this study will contend with a very specific target population, the qualitative research design proved to be an appropriate methodology for this study. Furthermore, because one of the objectives of this study is to give schools and school districts a method of determining the reasons why special education students drop out that they can apply to various schools with special education that will provide results tailored to the specific schools’ demographics, the qualitative research design was found to be very suitable for these purposes. The ability of the study to be replicated also strengthened the study’s reliability and validity. Sampling Sampling in qualitative research means obtaining a sample from an entire population. For instance, all the residents of a city or community need not be interviewed in order to achieve valid findings (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 5). The study will make use of purposive sampling, which “groups participants according to preselected criteria relevant to a particular research question” (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 5). In this case, the sample will be limited to third and fourth year high school students with disabilities who dropped out of the Charlottesville high school during the 2007-2008 school year. Purposive sampling has been selected over quota sampling because the study does not aim to work on a strict quota wherein, for example, a fixed and equal number of male and female participants need to be covered. The study will also present some percentages to determine the major reasons why students with disabilities drop out of high school. It must be noted that not all of the Charlottesville high school dropouts targeted for this study may give their consent. However, Charlottesville High School was chosen for this study because it has a relatively high percentage of special education high school student dropouts. Therefore, the study should be able to get a sufficient number of participants. Demographics The demographics of the sample population will be determined during the preliminary data collection procedure wherein the school records of the future participants will be accessed with the school administration’s permission. Age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background, native language, region, mobility, ability, disability, parental employment, and family structure are the categories for status variables that will be identified for each special education high school dropout (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 12). These variables will comprise the demographics of the study. Because demographics inherently work with statistics, the researcher will tally the results to be able to compute percentages per category. The demographics will follow the list of status variables that are commonly used by dropout prevention researchers. Personal Biography I have been a special education teacher for 10 years, with a Master’s degree in Education in Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment and in Educational Leadership from Walden University and The University of Scranton. I also have an Ed.S. in Educational Leadership from Liberty University. I have also coordinated a program called WALK (Work Achieves Lasting Knowledge) that help at-risk students, many of whom are special education students, graduate on time. I am a part of a team of dedicated educators who designed and built this program. It can be seen here how the focus of this study has been adopted as a result of the researcher’s experience and knowledge in special education. This is reinforced by my aspiration to provide a better quality of special education that will increase the graduation rates of students with disabilities. I am responsible for gathering primary, as well as secondary research. After synthesizing and analyzing the research collected, I will then organize it into meaningful data that will support the thesis statement. I am accountable for all of the procedures in the study, which includes: selecting and obtaining the consent of all the participants, acquiring the authorization and cooperation of the chosen high school (Charlottesville High School), implementing the strict confidentiality guidelines, obtaining the assistance of a professional psychologist who will act as a third party observer, validating and triangulating the study, tabulating the results, and making recommendations based on the results of the study. The researcher will attempt to execute all of the tasks involved with the study with an unbiased and objective perspective; although it must be noted that a completely unbiased take on the study is impossible, as mentioned in the Limitations and Delimitations section. Data Collection Procedures The data collection procedures will be carried on in the same qualitative manner. There will be several forms of data gathering that the study employs. They will involve keen observation and accurate research, as well as good communication skills. It will be established that preliminary data will be provided by the students’ school records. Aside from the demographics, the researcher also will aim to obtain certain information, like when they dropped out, their grades before they quit school, the classes they had been taking and the teachers they have had, in order to validate the students’ claims. It must be noted that all possible correlations will be viewed. The preliminary alterable variables to be considered are: grades, disruptive behavior, school policies, absenteeism, school climate, and retention (Lehr, et al., 2004, pp. 12-13). The school’s permission will be asked in order to get access to these records. Charlottesville High School is also responsible for providing the contact information for these dropout students, like postal and e-mail addresses and phone numbers. After this preliminary data gathering, the researcher will rely on the methods of in-depth interview, the collection of field notes and intensive research. These instrumentations are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. In-depth Interviews Because the study is personal in nature, in-depth interview will be the chosen method as it has been proven to be “very effective in giving a human face to research problems” (Mack, et al., 2005, p. 29). In this case, it was best to go to the dropouts themselves and ask them what their reasons are for dropping out shortly before graduation. In order for these interviews to produce useful, reliable and accurate data that can be analyzed certain steps needed to be taken into account. First, the targeted participants will be sent an initial formal letter through regular or electronic mail to inform them of the research study and the researcher’s desire to for them to participate. The researcher will allow for three to seven days after the letters are mailed before phone calls will be placed to personally ask these students to participate in the study and be interviewed. This same process will be utilized for all participants who include special education high school dropouts, chosen faculty members and the principal. Interview Questions. These are crucial to the study. Interview questions were fashioned before the in-depth interviews were conducted in order to ensure that important questions were addressed and in order to maintain uniformity and consistency (See Appendix E). The questions also took into consideration alterable variables, such as sense of belonging, attitudes toward school, educational support in the home, parental employment (in cases wherein the school records were not updated), and stressful life events (Lehr, et al., 2004, p. 13). Additional and follow-up questions will be made at the discretion of the interviewer, especially in cases where the interviewee seems to be too shy to answer or too nonchalant and general with their replies. All of the interviews will be recorded and transcribed. The set of interview questions that are to be sent via e-mail for the participants who cannot attend the face-to-face interviews will be composed in such a way that even follow-up questions are included. When participants send in vague answers or forms that are incomplete, they will be e-mailed questions that will clarify their answers. If the follow-up e-mail is not replied to after two to three days, they will be called on the phone to make the clarifications possible. If no contact is able to be made, the vague answers will not be included in the data analysis. Field Notes. Throughout the course of the interviews and transcription, the researcher/interviewer will make note of what is deemed important based on analytical observation. A third party that will act as an observer will make note of events and statements worth remembering during the personal interviews. Field notes are highly important, especially during data analysis, as they highlight events and statements that prove to be significant to the study. It also provides support for some of the things that the interviewer might miss. Expert Opinion. An expert on special education who has a background on Psychology/Counseling will also be present at all interviews. This will ensure that the answers being given are interpreted and analyzed through the eyes of an expert. The expert will also be consulted when the e-mail interviews have been completed. His or her field notes will be used in the discussion, as well as during the coding process. The expert will also serve as a way to reinforce the study’s reliability and validity. Intensive Research In order to make sense of the data that is gathered through in-depth interviews, research needs to be made to connect the data to theories and other findings that other studies have concluded. This will establish the study’s feasibility, significance, relevance and validity. Qualitative Data Analysis: The Coding Process Qualitative data analysis (QDA) involves a flexible process of mainly noticing things, collecting them, and thinking about them (Seidel, 1998). This process is derived from the QDA process of “Noticing, Collecting, and Thinking about interesting things” developed by John V. Seidel (1998). Noticing things pertinent to the topic involves the observations made during the course of research and in-depth interviews. These observations translate into field notes and the transcription of the interviews will be read thoroughly and reviewed. During this process of noticing interesting things, coding will also begin. As the data is being reviewed and analyzed, the researcher will code the data and classify it into general categories. This process is essentially the coding system that is known today. Codes serve to summarize, synthesize, and sort many observations made of the data....coding becomes the fundamental means of developing the analysis....Researchers use codes to pull together and categorize a series of otherwise discrete events, statements, and observations which they identify in the data (Charmaz, 1983, p. 112 cited in Seidel, 1998). Once the data is coded, it becomes imperative to collect and sort it. This involves “searching for types, classes, sequences, processes, patterns or wholes” that will “assemble or reconstruct the data in a meaningful or comprehensible fashion” (Jorgensen, 1989, p. 107 cited in Seidel, 1998). In this way, the coded data could be organized and categorized into meaningful groups of data that could easily be analyzed and examined. Subcategories were made when necessary and new categories arose throughout the course of sifting through data that had already been initially coded. Throughout this process, the data would make more sense and spotting correlations and relationships between variables and the reasons why special education students drop out of high school would become less problematic and complicated. Thinking about the data that had been coded and collected has three main objectives: 1) to make the data found on various categories and subcategories make sense; 2) to find and identify patterns and relationships between categories and subcategories and between various types of general categories; and 3) to analyze these relationships to be able to come up with new findings (Seidel, 1998). This part will be the most difficult and effort-intensive as the researcher needs to exhaust all possibilities and examine and pinpoint significant correlations—whether or not these correlations and relationships were significant and useful. This makes up the final findings, which should also be supported by researched data and intensive analysis. This coding process had been chosen because of its comprehensive and analytical procedures that are iterative and progressive, recursive, and holographic in nature (Seidel, 1998). Iterative and Progressive. This qualitative coding process is iterative in that each step will be repeated over and over again until such time when the researcher had already exhausted all analytical possibilities. It is progressive because each step will bring the researcher closer to attaining the final results. Recursive. This process is recursive because there was is no single successive procedure that needs to be followed. It is not imperative for the first step of noticing things and coding data to be all completed before the researcher progresses to collecting data. As the qualitative data analysis progresses, the researcher will go back and begin noticing things and coding/recoding data again if needed. Holographic. This method of analysis is holographic in nature in that “each step in the process contains the entire process” (Seidel, 1998). For instance, while collecting and sorting through coded data, the researcher will also notice new things, recoding them and analyzing them. Trustworthiness Credibility. Because the researcher has been involved in education students with disabilities, he has firsthand knowledge of the monumental challenges that these students face. Because of this firsthand experience, the researcher also knows how to better communicate with them. In this way, the interview questions are formulated in a more focused manner and communicated in a way that can reach special education high school students to gain maximum input from their answers. Personal interviews will be done professionally, but at the same time, they will be conducted in an approach that can best illicit a more detailed and honest response from the interviewee. A professional psychologist or psychiatrist will also be present for personal interviews and will give his or her input during the decoding of the e-mail questionnaires to provide expert opinion. Dependability. In order to guarantee the accuracy of the data being gathered from the interviews, all will be recorded using a portable tape recorder. This will subsequently be transcribed by the researcher. Field notes taken by the researcher and a third party observer during the interview will also act as supplementary recordings. Triangulation. In order to ensure that the data gathered is both reliable and valid, more than one method needs to be relied on. This is called triangulation, which operates under the logic that “a weakness in one method could be avoided by using a second method that is strong in the area that the first is weak” (Livesey, 2006, p. 5). In this case, the study’s main data collection method is intensive interviews, one weakness of which is not knowing for certain whether or not the participant is telling the truth. Hence, an expert in psychology will be asked to be present during interviews in order to gauge if the participant is telling the truth. As experts, they may be able to determine if through body language, pitch of the voice, choice of words and other signs if the participant is being deceptive. Aside from this, the school records will also be accessed in order to double check if the participant is being truthful. For instance, if the participant answers that the real reason why he or she dropped out is because of low grades, his or her school records will be checked. When inconsistencies are found, the participant will be removed from the sample. Ethical Considerations Because the study is going to involve participants who are minors, there are ethical guidelines that need to be adhered to in order to safeguard the rights of all the individuals that will be a part of the study. Informed Consent. The targeted participants will be made fully aware of the nature of the study before the interviews are conducted. It is vital to the validity of this study that the participants give their informed consent and that the researcher has tangible evidence of this consent. Hence, a short and concise form stating requesting their consent will be provided to the participants to be signed at least one day before the in-depth interviews are to be held or the e-mails to be sent and answered. Parental consent will also be secured for minors. The participants will also be asked where, when and what time is most convenient for them to be interviewed. This is to minimize the inconvenience of participating in the study. The option of sending an e-mail with the set of pre-determined interview questions will be provided as a last option. The written interview questions will only be offered when the participants hesitate to do the personal interview, are not available in the time allotted for the study to be completed or reject the request to participate in the study. Confidentiality. The researcher will guarantee that the participants’ identities will remain confidential. The student participants will be assigned numbers so that personal information that might make them identifiable will not be disclosed in the study. Pseudonyms may be used in cases where the participants’ contribution to the study is worth mentioning or discussing in detail. However, the principal and some members of the faculty would be recognizable by their positions. They will be informed of this so that they might take this into consideration before giving their consent. The data will then be stored in a secure location that is only accessible to the researcher. DEFINITION OF TERMS Disability – As stated in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, disability is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” (Mountain State, 2009). Dropout – This term denotes students, in this case special education high school students, that have officially dropped out of school. Dropouts usually have not attended school for one year, with the intention of not graduating due to reasons that are relative to the student. Dropout Prevention – This may come in the form of strategies, techniques and programs that have the objective and/or result of decreasing dropout rates. IDEA 2004 – The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a law that guarantees that children with disabilities are provided with services like early intervention, special education, and other related services that aim to give them equal opportunities. Dropping out – defined by Finn as a slow process of disengagement that begins early and is manifested in warning signs like absenteeism and low grades. This ends in the decision to ultimately quit school with the intention of not graduating. IEP – An Individualized Education Plan is a program specifically designed to address the distinctive needs of children, especially those with disabilities. This is mandated by IDEA and is subject to federal regulations. Inclusion – The act and concept of including students with disabilities in regular classrooms and schools without special treatment, supposedly so that they would feel that they belong and so that they can immerse themselves in the real world. NCLB – The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted by the United States Congress to upgrade American primary and secondary education by holding states, school districts and schools liable through strict compliance and by providing parents more freedom of choice of schools. Special Education – the “specialized instruction for students with disabilities” (Conderman and Pedersen, 2005). Student Engagement – This comes in the form of active student participation in school activities—both academic and extra-curricular, positive attitudes and behavior towards school, and the personal initiative of students to perform better in school (Harris, 2008). REFERENCES Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009, July). Understanding high school graduation rates in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/National_wc.pdf Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010, May). Senate HELP committee chairman and top republican agree that Standards Movement needs to be led by states, not federal government. Straight A’s, 10(9), pp. 1-7. Aguilar, C. M., Erber, S. and Farling, A. (2004). Good high schools: Describing and validating results for students with disabilities. Urban Perspectives, Summer/Fall, pp. 6-8. Barton, P. E. (2005). One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Bear, G. G., Kortering, L. J. and Braziel, P. (2006). School completers and noncompleters with learning disabilities: Similarities in academic achievement and perceptions of self and teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), pp. 293+. Blackorby, J. and Wagner, M. M. (1996, Spring). Transition from high school to work or college: How special education students fare. The Future of Children: SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, 6(1), pp. 103-120. Blackorby, J. and Wagner, M. (2006). Longitudinal poѕtѕchool outcomeѕ оf youth with diѕabilitieѕ: Findingѕ from thе National Longitudinal Tranѕition Ѕtudy. Exceptional Children, 62(5), pp. 399-413. Bouck, E. C. (2007). Lost in translation?: Educating secondary students with mild mental impairment. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 79-87. Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J. and Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, D.C.: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Brown, R. and Chairez, M. (1999). Why do youth drop out? Cooperative Extension, 33, pp. 1-3. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Regional and state employment and unemployment summary. Retrieved March 9, 2010 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm Cataldi, E.F., Laird, J. and KewalRamani, A. (2009, September). High school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2007 compendium report. Washington DC: The National Center for Education Statistics. Christenson, S. L. and Reschly, A. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: A case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), pp. 276+. Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K. and Michael, N. C. (2007). School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education,28(6), pp. 325+. CNN. (2009, May 5). 'High school dropout crisis' continues in U.S., study says. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/05/dropout.rate.study/ Committee on Increasing High School Students' Engagement and Motivation to Learn. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Retrieved from the National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10421&page=R1 Conderman, G. and Pedersen, T. (2005, September). Promoting positive special education practices. NASSP Bulletin, 89, pp. 90-98. deBettencourt, L. U., Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (2005). Follow-up оf poѕtѕecondary- age rural learning diѕabled graduateѕ аnd dropoutѕ. Exceptional Children, 56( 1), pp. 40-49. Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Edgar, E. (2003). Ѕecondary programѕ in ѕpecial education: Are many оf thеm juѕtifiable? Exceptional Children, 53(6), pp. 555-561. Finn, J. D. and Gerber, S. D. (n.d.). Early school experiences and dropping out. Buffalo, NY: The University at Buffalo. Fisher, A. (2008). Who's hiring new college grads now. Retrieved March 9, 2010 from http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/27/news/economy/new.grads.fortune/index.htm Fitsimmons, S.J., et al. (1969). School Failure Now and Tomorrow. Developmental Psychology, I, pp. 134-146. Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S. Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities. Retrieved May 15, 2003, from the University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes Web site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO Hahn, A. (2003). Reaching out to America'ѕ dropoutѕ: What to do? Phi Delta Kappan, 69, pp. 256-263. Haring, K. A., & Lovett, D. L. (2000). A follow-up ѕtudy оf ѕpecial education graduateѕ. Thе Journal оf Ѕpecial Education, 23(4), pp. 463-477. Harris, L. R. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning. Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57+. Harvey, M. W., & Cohen, L. G. (2005). An inveѕtigation оf employerѕ' аnd educatorѕ' perceptionѕ оf entry-level worker ѕkillѕ аnd employment characteriѕticѕ: Implicationѕ for program development. (Report No. CE 055 781). Columbuѕ, OH: Clearinghouѕe on Adult, Career аnd Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ѕervice No. ED 323 386). Heѕѕ, A. (2006). Educational triage in an urban ѕchool. Metropolitan Education, 1, pp. 39-52. Horn, W. F. and Tynan, D. (2001). Revamping special education. Public Interest, Summer, p. 36. Hupfeld, K. (n.d.). Resiliency skills and dropout prevention. Denver, CO: ScholarCentric. Joneѕ, W. (1977). Thе impact on ѕociety оf youthѕ who drop out or are undereducated. Educational Leaderѕhip, 34, pp. 411-416. Johnson, D. R., Thurlow, M. L. and Stout, K. E. (2007). Revisiting graduation requirements and diploma options for youth with disabilities: A national study. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. Jones, S. E. and Lollar, D. L. (2008). Relationship between physical disabilities or long- term health problems and health risk behaviors or conditions among US high school students. Journal of School Health, 78(5), pp. 252+. Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A. and Thompson, M. (2004 May). Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET). Levin, H. M. (1972). Thе coѕt to thе nation оf inadequate education (Report to thе Ѕelect Committee on Equal Opportunity). Waѕhington, DC: U.Ѕ. Government Printing Оffice. Levin, H. M. (2009). The economic payoff to investing in educational justice. Educational Researcher, 38(5), pp. 5-20. Livesey, C. (2006). “A” level sociology: A resource-based learning approach. Retrieved from http://www.sociology.org.uk/methrvt.pdf Mack, N., Woodsong, C., Macqueen, K. M., Guest, G. and Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. North Carolina, USA: Family Health International. MacMillan, D. L., Widaman, K. F., Balow, I. H., Borthwick-Duffy, Ѕ., Hendrick, I. G., & Hemѕley, R. E. (2002). Ѕpecial education ѕtudentѕ exiting thе educational ѕyѕtem. Thе Journal оf Ѕpecial Education, 26(1), pp. 20-36. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Mischel, L. and Roy, J. (2006). Rethinking high school graduation rates and trends. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Moore, M. T. (2007, November 20). Obama unveils $18B education plan. USA Today. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3896198&page=1 Mountain State. (2009). Americans with disabilities act. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.mtstcil.org/skills/ada2-b.html Thurlow, M. L., Sinclair, M. F. and Johnson, D. R. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school—Implications for policy and practice. Issue Brief, 1(2), pp. 1-7. National High School Center. (2007a, May). Dropout prevention for students with disabilities: A critical issue for state education agencies. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_DropoutPrevention_052507.pdf National High School Center. (2007b, October). Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early warning signs with appropriate interventions. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_ApproachestoDropoutPrevention.pdf National High School Center. (2008). National High School Center Research Studies: Dropout prevention. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/ResearchNHSCDO10-01-08.pdf Rich, E. (2008). No special education child left behind?A review of NCLB and its effects on special education. Haverford College: Author. Rumberger, R. W. (2003). High ѕchool dropout: A review оf thе iѕѕueѕ аnd evidence. Review оf Educational Reѕearch, 57, pp. 101-121. Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Dropping out оf high ѕchool: Thе influence оf race, ѕex, аnd family background. American Educational Reѕearch Journal, 20, pp. 200-220. Rumberger, R. W. and Lim, S. A. (2008, October). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project. Seidel, J. V. (1998). Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from ftp://ftp.qualisresearch.com/pub/qda.pdf Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L. and Hurley, C. M. (1998). Dropout prevention for youth with disabilities: efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), pp. 7+. Shore, R. (2003). KIDS COUNT Indicator Brief: Reducing the high school dropout rate. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Ѕtrothеr, D. B. (2006). Dropping out. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), pp. 325-328. Ѕtroup, A., & Robinѕ, L. (1972). Reѕearch noteѕ: Elementary ѕchool predictorѕ оf high ѕchool dropout among black maleѕ. Ѕociology оf Education, 45, pp. 210-222. Sze, S. and Valentin, S. (2007). Self-concept and children with disabilities. Education, 127(4), pp. 552+. The Advocacy Institute. (2002, June). Students with learning disabilities: A national review. Burke, Virginia: The Advocacy Institute. Thomson, R. (2007, March). Qualitative research study design. Retrieved from http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/PGC_RH_2007/pdf/Qualitative_research_study_design_R_Thomson_WHO_2007.pdf Thurlow, M. L., Sinclair, M. F. and Johnson, D. R. (2002, June). Students with disabilities who drop out of school—Implications for policy and practice. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition Issue Brief, 1(2), pp. 1-8. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010b). United States Unemployment Rate. Retrieved from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD U.Ѕ. Department оf Education. (2003). Nineteenth Annual Report to Congreѕѕ on thе implementation оf thе Individualѕ with Diѕabilitieѕ Education Act. To aѕѕure thе free appropriate public education оf all children with diѕabilitieѕ (Publication No. 2003-616-188/90444). Waѕhington, DC: U.Ѕ. Government Printing Оffice. U.Ѕ. Department оf Education. (2004). Twentieth Annual Report to Congreѕѕ on thе implementation оf thе Individualѕ with Diѕabilitieѕ Education Act. To aѕѕure thе free appropriate public education оf all children with diѕabilitieѕ (FR Doc. 99-5754). Waѕhington, DC: U.Ѕ. Government Printing Оffice. Wagner, M. (2001a). Thе benefit оf ѕecondary vocational education for young people with diѕabilitieѕ: Findingѕ from thе National Longitudinal Tranѕition Ѕtudy оf Ѕpecial Education Ѕtudentѕ (Report No. EC 300 485). Menlo Park, CA: ЅRI International, Contract 300-87-0054. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 334 739) Wagner, M. (2001b). Youth with diѕabilitieѕ: How are thеy doing? Thе firѕt comprehenѕive report from thе National Longitudinal Tranѕition Ѕtudy оf Ѕpecial Education Ѕtudentѕ (Report No. EC 300 998). Menlo Park, CA: ЅRI International, Contract 300-87-0054. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 341 228) William T. Grant Foundation. (2004). Thе forgotten half: Noncollege bound youth in America. Waѕhington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation. Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (2005). Follow-up оf poѕtѕecondary age learning diѕabled graduateѕ аnd drop-outѕ. Learning Diѕabilitieѕ Reѕearch, 1( 1), pp. 50-55. These charts all appear to be from this reference: Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J. and Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, D.C.: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I question whether or not you can include tables and charts from other research in your appendix. I believe that in a doctoral dissertation that you can only include charts and tables that show what you have discovered from your research. Appendix A Reference?(Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison, 2006) Appendix B Reference? (Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison, 2006) Appendix C Reference? (Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison, 2006) Appendix D Appendix E Personal Information When asking for this type of personal information, I plan to add follow up questions when necessary. Name: Gender: Age: Birth Date: (This serves as a form of data triangulation to test the reliability of the information presented in the age section.) Ethnicity: Native Language: Number of Siblings: Parental Employment: (Both Mother and Father) Family Income: Type of Disability: Level of Disability: School Record Grades. I will take note of failing marks in what subjects and if the student has been retained by a year. Absenteeism. Behavior: especially disruptive and emotionally unstable behavior. This is an intensive interview and I will let them answer on their own and then code and analyze the data into categories later on. First, introduce myself and explain what the study is all about. I feel that it is also good to start small talk first before starting to ask the questions so I can develop some sort of trust or friendship with the interviewee. School Climate (Follow up questions are needed depending on the answers. I need to make sure I get a real feel of his/her experience of the school climate) 1. Please describe your general experience in school. Are you happy to be in that school? Why/why not? 2. Do you feel that your teachers paid attention to your needs? How so? 3. Do you feel that the school was able to provide you with a good education? 4. Do you feel that the school has all the tools and facilities you need? What were lacking/what was great about the facilities? Sense of Belonging (Follow up questions are needed depending on the answers.) 1. Are you a member of clubs? What types of clubs? What other extracurricular activities are you involved in? 2. Do you enjoy these activities? Why/why not? 3. Can you say that you have a lot of friends? Why/why not? 4. Do you feel that you belong in the school? Why/why not? 5. When you wake up in the morning to get ready for school, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Why do you think that is? Attitude towards School (Follow up questions are needed depending on the answers.) 1. What is your dream? What’s your goal in life? 2. Do you think it’s important to go to school to achieve this dream? Why/why not? 3. Can you say you’re a good student? Why/why not? 4. Do you think you got the grades that you deserve? Why/why not? Educational support in the home & Stressful Life Events (Follow up questions are needed depending on the answers.) 1. What aspects of your personal life do you think negatively affected your studies? Positively? 2. Can you say that your family values education? Your education? (sometimes parents tend to be biased, valuing the education of one son/daughter while ignoring the other) 3. Was the decision to drop out your decision or your parents? 4. Did anything happen that contributed to your decision to quit school? 5. What are the top 3 reasons that you can say contributed to your dropping out of high school? Why? 6. What consequences do you think dropping out has? Do you think you’ll still get a good job? 7. Do you still want to study and graduate? How about college? Questionnaire for Teachers and School Administrators I plan to interview the principal, if possible, and at least 6 teachers. If possible, I feel that it is important to interview the teachers who taught/handled the special education dropouts that I will be interviewing. This is also a part of validating the data these students are saying. Personal Information (Please insert any personal information that you think is relevant that I might have overlooked) Name: Age: (Age sometimes factors into people’s perceptions regarding school policies and environment. Older ones tend to be more traditional. Although this isn’t always the case, it’s just best to get this info for a more complete set of data.) Position: Years in that Position: University/College Degree: (To know if the subject’s opinions on student engagement can be quoted, like if he/she has a background in psychology, etc.) Relevant professional history: (Like was the principal a teacher first, for how long before he became a principal. How long has he been working with special education students?) History of Complaints: (If there are any, what is the nature of the complaints?) * If possible, I plan to ask the teachers about the special education dropouts I have interviewed. If they taught them, if they still remember them, what are their thoughts as to why these students dropped out? Were they expecting them to drop out? Did they try to dissuade the students from dropping out? Student Records/Performance: 1. Based on your access to student records and from your experience, what are the rates of absenteeism of special education students? 2. How does this affect their performance and engagement in school? 3. What are the statistics (or the subject’s observations) regarding the students’ grades and what affects their ability to get good grades? 4. Please relate your observations and experiences regarding how special education students tend to behave. (In a predictive manner that is based on their knowledge and experience in teaching) 5. How does a student’s behavior affect their performance/engagement in school? School Climate: 1. Do you think you are able to provide a school environment that is conducive to encouraging special education students to stay in school? (I will remind the subject that they must be objective.) How so? Please cite examples. 2. Please describe in detail the areas where you think show that you provide a good school environment for special education students. How about the areas where the school is lacking? (I will ask the subject to talk about facilities like ramps for wheelchairs, qualifications of teachers to handle and teach special education students, etc.) 3. Do you think your curriculum caters to special education students? How so? Sense of Belonging: 1. Have you studied or are you familiar with Finn’s Participation-Identification Model of School Engagement? If yes, can you give a brief explanation? 2. How do you think this is applicable to your school setting? 3. Do you notice that special education students are being ostracized? If so, in what manner? How do you think this affects their performance and engagement in school? 4. Do you think the students who dropped out lacked a sense of belonging? Reasons for Dropping Out: 1. What do you think are the top 3 to 5 reasons why students drop out of your high school? Please rank them accordingly. Why do you say so? (This should include a detailed explanation of why reason is ranked number 1, and so on. This is based on the subject’s experience and observations.) 2. I will show the subject the list of status and alterable variables (in the next pages) and ask them to rank it according to what they think applies to the school. Were the reasons they mentioned beforehand there? (This is optional. If I were going to do this, I need to do it after asking question 1 so that their views won’t be biased and they won’t box their observations based on the list.) 3. What dropout prevention strategies are you currently applying, if any? If there’s none, what do you think is the most applicable to the school? 4. Do you think the school is exerting all of its effort in making special education students stay in school? Please illustrate why or why not. Read More