The Imperative of Dealing with Dropouts: Theory, Practice and Reform

Introduction Kronick & Hargis (1990) in Dropouts: Who Drops Out and Why and the Recommended Action, focus on curricular and non-curricular reasons why students drop out of school. This holistic approach is important for both a theoretical understandin of the problem, as well as, more effective delivery of services to this population. Now, what is this population? Research by Kronick & Hargis (1990) over three years has illuminated that first and foremost there is a problem of definition and secondly, there is a problem of operationalizing this definition once the definition has been established. What are some terms that have been used? How have they been confused? How are they different behaviorally? The most general term is probably at-risk. Kronick & Hargis (1990) found that school was not for me," was the main reason students stated as to why they left school. They also found that going to work was the main reason males gave for leaving school; whereas, being pregnant was the main reason females stated for leaving school. These behaviors were defined by Kronick & Hargis (1990) as describing dropouts. Dropouts were then operationalized into four groups. 1. Quiet dropouts These students are low achievers who have experienced continued failure through most of their time in school. Their reaction to chronic failure is not overt an attention getting. Their primary distinguishing characteristic is their stoicism. 2. Low achievers These students have experienced continued failure, but are unlike group one, because they react to failure in disruptive, annoying ways. This group avoids failure by avoiding school through truancy. Paradoxically, they are punished fo their behavior while in school and if they try to avoid school. 3. Non-Curricular The causes of the problems of this group reside outside of school. There may be problems of abuse, alcohol, drugs, poverty, health, and myriad others as to why the child doesn't learn and becomes truant and eventually quits school. The child cannot learn if he/she comes to school tired, hungry, and afraid. 4. Persisters This group has poor performance, but has compensatory behaviors to continue to attend school. These compensatory behaviors could include, athletics, art, or cheating. Some from this group may actually graduate but they are barely literate (Kronick & Hargis, 1990, pp 7-0). Another term that must be defined in this line of work is pushout. Pushouts are more generally curriculum casualties, victims of a locked-step curriculum. Thes are students who are forced to adapt to the curriculum rather than having the curriculum modified to meet their needs. Remember that a great many students stated as their main reason for leaving school that "school was not for me. " (Kronick & Hargis, 1990) From this brief interlude, it is easy to see that just the definition of terms is difficult. At-risk, dropout, and pushout are all different, but this difficulty of definition should only make us work harder at defining the proble and beginning interventions. Why Worthy of Study Dealing with dropouts is a worthwhile undertaking because it may serve as a prevention for corrections, mental health and welfare. More obviously, keeping students in schools brings money to the school based on average daily attendanc and finally, if we don't keep students in school, our position in the international trade markets will drop. In fact, there has been a long history between the needs of commerce and public education in America. At the turn of the century, it was hardly important to have a high school degree to go to work At the turn of the next century, lack of a high school diploma may relegate one to impacted poverty. If students who are dropping out continue at the current rate (35 percent, in m opinion), they not only will be underemployed, which is personal tragedy, but they will also pay a great deal less in taxes over the course of a life time, which is significant loss to society. …