Keeping Students on Track to Graduate: A Synthesis of School Dropout Trends, Prevention, and Intervention Initiatives.

This article reviews the literature on dropout trends, prevention, and intervention initiatives for school-aged children. Theoretical and consequential trends are highlighted to offer educators a perspective in which to view the dropout problem. This article also examines current trends in prevention and intervention initiatives aimed at reducing dropout. Drawing from current research, practical suggestions and recommendations are provided to guide dropout prevention and intervention planning efforts. High school graduation rate is often looked upon as a barometer of the performance of the American school system, as well as a proxy for the general health of American society (Heckman & LaFontaine, 2010). Unfortunately for the United States, almost onethird of all public secondary students drop out of school each year (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). This high percentage of students leaving school prior to graduation does not bode well for the performance of America’s educational system. To combat this problem, policymakers and school districts need to work together to implement effective dropout prevention initiatives. To assist in these efforts, this paper offers educators an examination of theoretical and consequential trends associated with dropping out of high school, data-driven prevention and intervention initiatives designed to reduce dropout rates, and practical suggestions and recommendations to guide dropout prevention and intervention planning efforts. Theoretical Perspective on Dropout Trends A robust body of research highlights the negative consequences associated with dropping out of high school and how these outcomes impact individuals, families, and communities (Edmonson & White, 1998; Levin, Belfield, Muennig, & Rouse, 2006; Lochner & Moretti, 2004; Mitra, 2014; Moretti, 2007; Muennig, 2007). For example, over the course of a lifetime, projections are that a student who drops out will earn $630,000 less than a high school graduate earns (Rouse, 2007). Despite these well-known negative outcomes, students continue to drop out of school. To combat this societal problem, understanding why students drop out of school is necessary. While specific reasons for dropping out vary from person to person, several theories have emerged to provide a lens through which to investigate this problem. In an attempt to explain dropout behavior, Jordan, Lara, and McPartland (1994) and Watt and Roessingh (1994) pioneered a framework which articulates how students are either Pushed, Pulled, or Fall out of school. “Pullout” theories rely on a contextual framework to explain dropout and assume that school is only one part of the adolescent’s life that coincides with other external factors, which include family, peers, and the economic climate (Stearns & Glennie, 2006). Based on this perspective, a variety of external factors pull students out of school, including financial obligations, employment, family needs, childbirth, or illness (Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). Within this framework, it can be argued that students examine the opportunity cost for staying in school based on these proximal variables, and this analysis guides their decision to remain in school or drop out. If the external factors are weighed more heavily than the benefits of remaining in school, the student will choose to drop out. In contrast, “Push-out” theories focus on internal school factors that influence a student’s decision to remain in school. This framework concentrates on factors located within a school that could potentially push students out, such as poor academic supports, mismatch between instruction and student ability level, transportation resources, and discipline policies (Doll et al., 2013; Stearns & Glennie, 2006; Rotermund, 2007). For example, schools with limited busing systems may inadvertently cause decreased student attendance which could impact the student’s decision to remain in school. While individual Push-out factors may impact a student, a student likely will experience a combination of these factors. For instance, a student who misses a large amount of school over the course of a year (e.g., attendance rate below 90%) due to transportation issues likely will fall behind in his/her courses also. Without proper intervention or academic support, the student may feel discouraged and unsupported by the school. It is important to remember the major tenet of the Push-out theory is that the aversive situation was created within the school environment (Doll et al., 2013). Finally, “Fall-out” theories posit that students drop out as a result of inadequate academic progress, which causes them to fall off track. Fall-out and Pull-out factors can be easily confused; the major difference between the two theories is that Pull-out factors have distinct external attractions/distractions that are directly pulling the student out of school whereas Fall-out factors do not have these attractions and/or distractions. Fall-out factors highlight a process in school dropout whereby a student’s disengagement in school gradually increases over time (Doll et al., 2013). Students who are influenced by Pull-out factors may not become disengaged with school because they are not