NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 1998

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Subsequent Educational

Attainment of High School

Dropouts

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-085
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 1998

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Subsequent Educational

Attainment of High School

Dropouts

Jennifer Berktold

Sonya Geis

Phillip Kaufman

MPR Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-085
2

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Ricky Takai

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for

collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and

other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report

full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct

and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such

statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems;

and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide

consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and

report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the

Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the

general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is

appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our

success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or

suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from

you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

June 1998

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Subsequent

Educational Attainment of High School Dropouts, NCES 98-085, by Jennifer Berktold,

Sonya Geis, and Phillip Kaufman. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington DC:

1998.

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219-1365
iii

HIGHLIGHTS

This study examines the educational and employment attainment of 1988 eighth graders

who dropped out of high school, based on data from the 1988 National Education Longitudinal

Study (NELS:88/94). The following are key findings about their subsequent education and employment experiences:

About half of dropouts completed high school.

• By 1994, among 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, 16 percent had completed a

high school diploma, 29 percent had completed a General Educational Development

(GED) or equivalency certificate, and 24 percent were working on a diploma or GED.

The remaining one-third of dropouts (32 percent) had no credential and were not pursuing any further education (figure 1).

Completion status for dropouts was associated with a number of student and academic

characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, test scores, and grades earned before dropping out.

High school completion among dropouts was associated with socioeconomic status.

• Socioeconomic status (SES) was strongly associated with the proportion of dropouts

who completed high school. Dropouts from families in higher SES quartiles were more

likely to complete high school than others. For example, almost three-quarters (74 percent) of dropouts whose families were in the highest SES quartile finished high school,

compared with 33 percent of dropouts whose families were in the lowest SES quartile

(table 1).

Dropouts who demonstrated academic ability, but not necessarily academic performance,

were most likely to complete high school.

• Among dropouts, higher 1988 test scores were associated with the likelihood of having

completed high school by 1994. For example, three out of four dropouts (76 percent)

who scored in the highest test quartile completed high school, compared with 30 percent of those who scored in the lowest test quartile (table 1).

• Although both test scores and grades were associated with dropouts who completed a

diploma, test scores, but not grades, were associated with those who completed a GED.

For example, 51 percent of dropouts scoring in the highest test quartile completed a
HIGHLIGHTS

iv

GED, compared with 18 percent of those scoring in the lowest test quartile. However,

similar proportions of those who passed the GED had grade averages in the A to B, C,

or the D or F range: about 24 percent of dropouts had A or B averages, 27 percent had

C averages, and 27 percent had D or F averages (table 1).

By 1994, two years after most of the cohort completed high school, high school completion

among dropouts was associated with some educational, but few employment, characteristics.1

In 1994, most dropouts were either working, looking for work, or at home.

• About the same proportion of dropouts as 1988 eighth graders who had never dropped

out reported working full time or part time in 1994 (60 and 63 percent, respectively; table 9a). Working, however, was the only activity in which both these groups partook in

1994. Those who never dropped out were much more likely to be taking academic

courses. More than half (57 percent) of those who had never dropped out were enrolled

in 2- or 4-year postsecondary institutions in 1994, compared with 8 percent of dropouts

who were similarly enrolled. Dropouts, by comparison, were much more likely than

those who had never dropped out to report keeping house or being full-time homemakers (18 compared with 5 percent). In addition, dropouts were also more likely to be

looking for work (16 percent) than their counterparts who had not dropped out (6 percent; table 9a).

One quarter of dropouts enrolled in postsecondary education.

• About one in four dropouts (26 percent) had enrolled in a postsecondary institution by

1994. About 11 percent of dropouts had enrolled in a 2- or 4-year degree program; 11

percent had enrolled in a certificate program; and the remaining 4 percent had enrolled

in other postsecondary programs (figure 7a).

• Among dropouts, those who completed high school by either a diploma or GED were

much more likely than those who had not completed high school to obtain postsecondary education (42 percent of completers versus 14 percent of noncompleters reported

having some postsecondary education; table 15).

 

1This may be a result of the small sample size of dropouts. When available, differences among dropouts by completion status

were noted, if not available, differences were noted between dropouts on the aggregate compared with those who had never

dropped out.
v

FOREWORD

This report is part of the Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports (PEDAR)

series. The PEDAR series consists of reports that focus on postsecondary education policy issues,

taking advantage of a variety of education data sources, especially recently completed data collections. Other reports in the series include How Low Income Undergraduates Financed Postsecondary Education: 1992–93 (NCES 96-161); Nontraditional Undergraduates: Trends in

Enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and Persistence and Attainment Among 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students (NCES 97-578); Transfer Behavior Among Beginning Postsecondary Students: 1989–94 (NCES 97-266); and Early Labor Force Experiences and Debt Burden (NCES

97-286).

This report examines the high school education attainment of members of a 1988 eighthgrade cohort who had previously dropped out of high school. Using such factors as circumstances

contributing to the first dropout event and reasons cited for dropping out, the report profiles

dropouts who returned to complete their high school education, either in the form of a diploma or

an alternative credential. The report then looks at reports of postsecondary enrollment and employment outcomes provided by these youth in 1994, two years after most of the cohort had

graduated from high school, in order to evaluate how completing high school affected dropouts’

subsequent employment opportunities or postsecondary educational attainment.

The data used for this analysis were drawn from the National Education Longitudinal Study

of 1988 (NELS:88/94), a survey that began with eighth graders in 1988 and followed them every

two years through 1994.

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NELS:88/94 Data Analysis

System (DAS), a microcomputer and World Wide Web application that allows users to specify

and generate their own tables from the NELS:88/94 data. The DAS produces design-adjusted

standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences shown in the tables.

Additional information about the DAS, and how it may be obtained, is included in appendix B of

this report.

We hope that the information provided in this report will be useful to a wide range of interested readers and that the results reported here will encourage others to use the NELS:88/94

data.
vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to the production of this report. At

MPR Associates, Laura Horn offered guidance and helpful criticism each step of the way; Ellen

Liebman provided programming assistance; and Barbara Kridl, Andrea Livingston, Karyn Madden, Mary Sukkestad, and Francesca Tussing edited and assembled the final report.

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of C. Dennis Carroll, Mary

Frase, and Ellen Bradburn at NCES; Jay Stampen at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Ellie

Greenberg at the Colorado AHEC System; and Robin Zuniga at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, who reviewed the preliminary results of the report. Department of

Education reviewers who helped guide the report through the final revisions included Robert

Burton, David Goodwin, Andrew Kolstad, and Jeff Owings. Thanks to all; your insights and

helpful criticism greatly enhanced the final product.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Highlights ............................................................................................................................. iii

Foreword .............................................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ ix

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... xi

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Definitions and Data ............................................................................................................ 5

Dropout Characteristics and High School Experiences ...................................................... 9

Dropout Characteristics .................................................................................................... 9

Dropout Characteristics in the NELS:88/94 Data ........................................................ 11

Academics .................................................................................................................. 11

Expectations ............................................................................................................... 14

Circumstances of Leaving School ..................................................................................... 15

Reasons for Leaving ................................................................................................... 15

Parenthood ................................................................................................................. 19

Interventions ............................................................................................................... 20

Model of Completion Among Dropouts .............................................................................. 23

1994 Enrollment and Employment ...................................................................................... 27

Current Activities ............................................................................................................. 27

Labor Market ................................................................................................................... 30

Unemployment ........................................................................................................... 31

Hours on the Job ........................................................................................................ 32

Occupation ................................................................................................................. 32

Wages ........................................................................................................................ 34

Postsecondary Experience ................................................................................................ 37

Expectations ............................................................................................................... 39

Friends in Postsecondary Education ............................................................................ 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS

viii

Page

Summary .............................................................................................................................. 43

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A—Glossary ........................................................................................................ 47

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology ............................................................... 59
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to 1994

high school completion status, by selected student characteristics................................. 10

2 Among 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed high school, 1994

cumulative grade point average, by 1988 composite test scores.................................... 14

3 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to their

1994 high school completion status, by number of credits earned at time of

first dropout event ....................................................................................................... 17

4 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who gave various reasons for

dropping out, by 1994 completion status...................................................................... 17

5 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who gave various reasons for

dropping out, by 1994 completion status...................................................................... 18

6 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to 1994

completion status, by timing of parenthood after dropping out of high school............... 20

7 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who by 1992 had talked with

various people about continuing school, by 1994 completion status.............................. 22

8 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who completed high school by

1994, by selected characteristics, and this percentage after taking into account the

covariation of the variables in the table......................................................................... 24

9a Percentage of 1988 eighth graders participating in various enrollment- and

employment-related activities in February 1994, by 1994 completion status.................. 28

9b Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree,

percentage participating in various enrollment- and employment-related activities in

February 1994, by 1994 completion status................................................................... 29

10 Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree,

percentage distribution according to number of months unemployed in 1993 and

average number of months unemployed, by 1994 completion status ............................. 31
LIST OF TABLES

x

Table Page

11 Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree,

percentage distribution according to number of hours worked per week at primary

job in 1993, and average hours worked per week, by 1994 completion status .............. 34

12 Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree,

percentage distribution according to occupational type of primary job in 1993, by

1994 completion status................................................................................................ 35

13 Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree,

percentage distribution according to total earnings and average total earnings in 1993,

by 1994 completion status............................................................................................ 36

14 Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree and

who worked 35 or more hours per week at their primary job in 1993, percentage

distribution according to total earnings and average total earnings in 1993, by 1994

completion status......................................................................................................... 37

15 Percentage distribution of 1988 eighth graders according to their highest

postsecondary attainment as of 1994, by 1994 completion status.................................. 39

16 Percentage distribution of 1988 eighth graders according to the highest level of

education they ever expected to complete, by 1994 completion status.......................... 41

17 Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree,

percentage distribution of number of friends planning to go to college in 1992, by

1994 completion status................................................................................................ 42

B1 Standard errors for report table 1: of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage

distribution according to 1994 high school completion status, by selected student

characteristics.............................................................................................................. 61

B2 Results of an analysis of variance used in report table 2 and report figure 2: of 1988 eighth

graders who dropped out and later completed high school, 1994 cumulative grade point

average, by 1988 composite test scores........................................................................ 67
xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out of high school at least once, percentage

distribution according to 1994 completion status.......................................................... 6

2 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed high school, 1994

cumulative grade point average, by 1988 composite test scores.................................... 13

3 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed high school, percentage

distribution according to grade at time of first dropout event, by whether they earned

a diploma or a GED by 1994........................................................................................ 16

4 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who gave various reasons for

dropping out of high school, by gender ........................................................................ 19

5 Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who participated in various

interventions immediately before or after dropping out, by 1994 completion status....... 21

6 Among 1988 eighth graders who worked fewer than 40 hours per week in 1993,

percentage distribution according to desire to work more hours, by 1994 completion

status........................................................................................................................... 33

7a Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to highest

postsecondary level attained: 1994............................................................................... 38

7b Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to

enrollment in a postsecondary institution, by 1994 completion status............................ 40

1

INTRODUCTION

In each of the past 10 years, about five students out of 100 have decided to drop out of high

school.2 Since anecdotal and empirical evidence indicates that these youth will have a harder time

advancing in their educations and careers, they have often been the subject of inquiry for both intervention and prevention purposes.

Students have different reasons for dropping out. Some simply dislike school; some cannot

get along with their teachers; or some perceive school as a waste of their time. Others begin

working full time, either by choice or by necessity, and cannot maintain their schedules as students. For young women, pregnancy, childbirth, and subsequent childcare responsibilities may interfere with school, while young men who become fathers may have childcare duties or be

required to work to support the family.

Once students stop attending high school, however, their formal education has not necessarily ended. They may choose to reenroll, sometimes after a hiatus of several years, and eventually earn a high school diploma, enroll in an alternative school, or work toward a General

Educational Development (GED) certificate. Some students drop back in and out of high school

before they either earn a credential or give up altogether.

Although the obstacles that originally prevented dropouts from completing high school may

continue to deter their educational progress, some dropouts do earn a high school credential and

continue their education. Why do some dropouts leave school and never go back, while others

return to earn a diploma and even enroll in postsecondary programs? What characteristics distinguish a dropout who later graduates from one who receives an alternative credential? Does a

dropout who completes high school have better opportunities for postsecondary education or employment in the work force? This report addresses these questions by first looking at students’

circumstances at the time they first dropped out, and then by examining their employment and

educational situations two years after most of the cohort had graduated from high school.

Using the 1988 National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88/94), a survey of 1988

eighth graders, this report examines the secondary educational attainment of high school

 

2M. McMillen and P. Kaufman, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the

United States: 1995 (Washington, DC: 1997), p. 85.
INTRODUCTION

2

dropouts. It assesses the circumstances under which the dropouts first left school, along with their

reasons for dropping out; the extent to which they participated in intervention programs (such as

individual or family counseling); the number of people they talked to about their decision to leave

school; and how close they were to high school graduation before they dropped out.

The report then examines the postsecondary enrollment and employment status of the dropouts in 1994, two years after most of the cohort had graduated from high school. In order to

evaluate how staying out or returning to high school affected their employment opportunities or

continued education, comparisons are drawn primarily between 1988 eighth graders who completed high school without dropping out, dropouts who completed a diploma or equivalency certificate, and dropouts who had not completed high school.

Some studies, such as McMillen and Kaufman (1996), have evaluated the differing postsecondary and employment experiences of those with and without a high school diploma.3

 They

concluded that dropouts who graduated from high school faced serious impediments in other

stages of adulthood. For example, they reported that dropouts enrolled in postsecondary education in smaller numbers and exhibited higher rates of unemployment. By isolating dropouts for

analysis, this report builds on this earlier research.

Although a sizable body of literature compares the employment and educational outcomes

of regular diploma recipients with those who obtained a high school equivalent,4 fewer studies

have focused on comparing groups of dropouts with each other. When they have done so, however, conclusions have at times been conflicting. For example, while some studies evaluating the

economic returns to earning a GED suggest that recipients of an equivalency certificate fare better

in the labor market than those with no credential, other researchers have found GED recipients to

be indistinguishable from high school graduates and dropouts. Using 1979 through 1987 data

from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), Cameron and Heckman (1993) concluded that young men with GEDs earned the same average hourly wages and worked the same

number of hours as those with no credential.5 Building on this research, Cao et al. (1996) examined the labor market experience of low-income women in the NLSY and Washington State Family Income Study (FIS). Overall, their analyses of these data sets produced similar results, finding

it “impossible to distinguish among high school graduates, GED recipients, and dropouts in terms

 

3M. McMillen and P. Kaufman, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the

United States: 1994 (Washington, DC: 1996).

4For a review of this literature, see M. Johnson and T. Valentine, “Outcomes of GED Graduation: An Annotated Bibliography

of Research Reports” (unpublished report prepared by the College of Education, Athens, Georgia, December 1992).

5S. Cameron and J. Heckman, “The Nonequivalence Of High School Equivalents,” Journal of Labor Economics 11 (1) (1993):

1–41.
INTRODUCTION

3

of hours of work.”6 Their analyses of the FIS data indicated that high school graduates, GED recipients, and dropouts all earned similar wages. On the other hand, Cao et al. (1996), using the

NLSY data, found that high school graduates earned more than GED recipients, who in turn

earned more than dropouts with no credential. In addition, Murnane, Willett, and Boudett (1995),

using the NLSY data through 1991, found that earning a GED, as opposed to having no credential, had positive effects on the rate of wage growth for young men.7

Although the NELS:88/94 survey does not contain data about the academic performance of

dropouts enrolled in a postsecondary institution, other researchers have found some evidence that

GED recipients are less successful in postsecondary education than regular high school graduates.

One such study conducted at a community college in Ohio found that students with a high school

diploma had higher GPAs and attempted and completed more credit hours than did students with

GEDs.8 However, this study compared a group of students with regular diplomas (who probably

had not dropped out) with GED recipients (who most likely had dropped out). It is unclear

whether similar results would have been found among groups of dropouts with different high

school credentials.

 

6

J. Cao, E.W. Stromsdorfer, and G. Weeks, “The Human Capital Effect of General Education Development Certificates on Low

Income Women,” The Journal of Human Resources 31 (1) (Winter 1996): 215.

7R.J. Murnane, J.B. Willett, and K.P. Boudett, “Do High School Dropouts Benefit From Obtaining a GED?” Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (2) (Summer 1995): 133–147.

8P.A. Schillo, “A Comparison of the Academic Success of GED Certificate Students and High School Graduates at Lorain

County Community College” (Bowling Green State University, June 1990).

5

DEFINITIONS AND DATA

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/94) surveyed a cohort of

eighth graders in 1988 and subsequently followed them at two-year intervals through 1994. Baseyear respondents who were not enrolled in school in 1990 or 1992 completed special dropout

questionnaires. For the purposes of this report, students were considered dropouts if by 1992 1)

they ever reported dropping out of high school; 2) they ever reported passing the GED exam; 3)

their high school transcripts showed that they had dropped out or passed the GED exam; or 4) if

in the 1994 survey, they reported that they were working on an alternative credential or they reported that they had not graduated and were not working on an alternative credential. Members

of the 1988 eighth-grade cohort were classified as dropouts after they had dropped out for the

first time, regardless of whether they eventually completed a credential. Educational outcomes

were taken into account, however. This analysis compares dropouts who completed high school

(completers) with those who did not (noncompleters). It further distinguishes among dropouts

who either earned a high school diploma or an alternative credential, those who were still working

to complete high school, and stayouts (i.e., dropouts who had not earned a high school diploma

or equivalency certificate and were not working toward one).9

Due to its longitudinal nature, the NELS:88/94 survey is useful for studying the educational

and occupational achievements of dropouts, as researchers can monitor dropouts’ movements in

and out of school as they work toward a diploma or alternative credential or track their progress

in the work force. Since the analysis is longitudinal by design, only students who participated in all

four waves of data collection are included.

One limitation of the NELS:88/94 data is its time frame, which provides a six-year horizon

beginning in eighth grade (1988–1994), potentially too short a time after “normal” graduation to

provide a complete picture of dropouts’ educational activities or to demonstrate the full implications of their educational choices in the labor market. This report may underestimate the proportion of dropouts who will eventually earn a credential and, in particular, the percentage of

dropouts who will earn a GED. The average age of GED test-takers is 25 years old, even though

 

9

In previously published reports, “stayout” has referred to dropouts who never returned to high school. Because the

NELS:88/94 data captures only a point in time for these youth, it is possible that they had previously returned to high school

and were not attending at the time of the survey, or that they might return in the future. Furthermore, the definition of “dropping out” used in this report differs from the definition used in other NCES publications.
DEFINITIONS AND DATA

6

the typical high school graduate is 17 or 18 years old.10 In 1994, 24 percent of the NELS:88/94

cohort members who had ever dropped out reported that they were working toward a GED or

were still in high school (figure 1). However, there is some evidence that the number of dropouts

Figure 1—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out of high school at least once, percentage distribution 

Figure 1—according to 1994 completion status

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Completed 

alternative credential

29%

Working on a 

diploma/alternative 

credential

24%

Completed high 

school diploma

16%

Stayout

32%

who return to school tapers off as they age. Kolstad and Kaufman (1989), in analyzing the educational paths of dropouts in the 1982 High School and Beyond (HS&B) study, found that 38 percent of the dropouts had earned a diploma or GED by 1984, two years after most members of

their cohort had graduated. The total had risen to 44 percent by 1986, suggesting that the major-

 

10American Council on Education, Who Took the GED? GED 1995 Statistical Report, ed. J. Baldwin (Washington, D.C.

1996), table 3.
DEFINITIONS AND DATA

7

ity of those who would ever earn a credential had done so within the first two years of the majority of cohort members’ graduation.11 The NELS:88/94 survey data were most recently collected

in 1994, two years after most of the 1988 eighth-grade cohort had graduated from high school.

Kolstad and Kaufman’s results suggest that analyzing the attainment of dropouts at this juncture

in their lives will capture the majority, but not all, of dropouts who will ever return to school.

Another implication of the lack of suitable time frame pertains to long-term economic outcomes. Building on the literature on human capital investments, King (1978), in his study of the

labor market outcomes of high school dropouts using the National Longitudinal Survey, found no

differences between dropouts and nondropouts after one year in the work force. However, he did

find that “age earning profiles of the graduates were steeper than those of the dropouts.”12 After

analyzing the data from these respondents after having been in the workforce for 13 years, he

concluded: “While the differences between graduates and dropouts were generally not pronounced immediately upon leaving school, they became significant over the ensuing 13-year period—at least as measured in 1971.”13 The longitudinal scope of the NELS:88/94 data is,

unfortunately, less than 2 years after high school, so the question then becomes: does high school

attainment among dropouts associated with any evident employment or education trends in these

first years after high school?

 

11A. Kolstad and P. Kaufman, “Dropouts Who Complete High School With a Diploma or GED” (paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, March 27, 1989).

12R.H. King, “The Labor Market Consequences of Dropping Out of High School” (Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio

State University, 1978), p. 89.

13Ibid.

9

DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL

EXPERIENCES

The first wave of the NELS:88/94 survey began in 1988, initially sampling eighth graders.

Subsequent follow-ups indicated that about one in five of this 1988 eighth-grade cohort (21 percent) dropped out of high school at least once between 1988 and 1994.14 Figure 1, which indicates the high school education status of dropouts after the Third Follow-up in 1994, shows that a

sizable proportion of these dropouts had continued their high school education. For instance, by

1994, just under half (44 percent) of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out had completed high

school (either a diploma or an alternative credential), and 24 percent were working on a diploma

or GED (table 1). The remaining one-third of dropouts (32 percent) had no credential and were

not pursuing any further education (figure 1).

DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS

In previous reports such as Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, students from low income families were found to be more likely to drop out than students from high income families.

Among 16–24 year olds who were from families in the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes,

the status dropout rate was 23.2 percent, compared with the 2.9 percent status dropout rate of

those from families in the top 20 percent.15

The racial−ethnic backgrounds of students also seemed to be associated with dropping out,

although this may be associated with variations in income level. Hispanic students, in particular,

for whom English may not be their first language, have higher dropout rates than black or white

students. In 1995, 30 percent of Hispanics between the ages of 16 and 24 were dropouts, compared with 12 percent of black youth and 9 percent of white youth.16 Some of this difference,

however, can be accounted for by immigrants not enrolled in U.S. schools: “a third of the 30 percent dropout rate registered for all Hispanic youths is associated with the large proportion of

 

14U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988,

Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System. This represents 622,000 dropout youth, drawn from approximately 2,800

survey respondents.

15M. McMillen and P. Kaufman, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the

United States: 1995 (Washington, DC: 1997), p. 14.

16Ibid. p. 13.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

10

Table 1—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to 1994 high school 

Table 1—completion status, by selected student characteristics

Completed Did not complete

Working

High toward

school GED or diploma

Total diploma certificate* Total or GED Stayout

 Total 44.0 15.5 28.5 56.0 23.7 32.3 

Gender 

 Male 44.6 12.9 31.7 55.4 22.8 32.6 

 Female 43.3 18.2 25.1 56.7 24.7 32.0 

Race–ethnicity

 Asian/Pacific Islander 32.5 20.5 12.0 67.5 28.0 39.5 

 Hispanic 38.8 15.3 23.5 61.3 21.2 40.1 

 Black, non-Hispanic 41.5 15.7 25.8 58.5 29.4 29.1 

 White, non-Hispanic 46.5 15.2 31.3 53.6 22.7 30.9 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 43.0 18.0 25.0 57.0 14.0 43.1 

Socioeconomic status 1988 

 Low quartile 33.0 12.6 20.4 67.0 24.9 42.1 

 Middle quartiles 49.6 17.4 32.2 50.4 23.8 26.6 

 High quartile 73.9 21.0 52.9 26.1 16.4 9.7 

Composite test quartile 1988

 Low quartile 29.5 11.6 17.9 70.5 28.5 42.0 

 Middle quartiles 54.6 19.5 35.2 45.4 18.8 26.6 

 High quartile 75.8 25.0 50.8 24.2 17.7 6.6 

Grade point average (high school transcripts)

 A or B average 50.4 26.1 24.3 49.6 14.2 35.4 

 C average 49.0 22.5 26.5 51.0 23.8 27.2 

 D or F average 35.5 9.0 26.6 64.5 24.4 40.1 

Student’s educational expectations 1988

 High school or less 33.2 10.1 23.1 66.8 21.5 45.2 

 Some postsecondary education 40.8 14.2 26.6 59.2 27.2 32.0 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 53.8 20.0 33.8 46.2 22.4 23.8 

Parents’ educational expectations 1988

 High school or less 34.2 9.5 24.8 65.8 22.9 42.9 

 Some postsecondary education 43.0 14.8 28.2 57.0 25.9 31.1 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 53.1 20.8 32.3 46.9 22.6 24.3 

*GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

11

young Hispanic immigrants who come to this country without a high school education and are not

subsequently enrolled in U.S. schools.”17 Proficiency with the English language posed an added

barrier to Hispanic students. Of 16–24 year olds who enrolled in U.S. schools and spoke Spanish

at home in 1995, 33 percent who reported speaking English not well did not complete high

school, compared with 19 percent who reported speaking English well.18

Dropout Characteristics in the NELS:88/94 Data

In the NELS:88/94 data, socioeconomic status (SES) was strongly associated with the proportion of dropouts who completed high school. Dropouts from families in higher SES quartiles

were increasingly likely to complete high school. For example, almost three-quarters (74 percent)

of dropouts whose families were in the highest SES quartile finished high school, compared with

33 percent of dropouts whose families were in the lowest SES quartile (table 1).

Dropouts’ racial−ethnic background was not associated with their likelihood of completing

high school. Although the proportions of dropouts completing some form of high school appeared

to differ by race–ethnicity, there was not enough statistical evidence to conclude that these differences were significant (table 1). Similarly, when dropouts completing high school were examined

according to their method of completion, no significant differences were found in the proportions

of those completing high school diplomas with respect to racial−ethnic background. Asian/Pacific

Islanders were less likely than white, non-Hispanic dropouts, however, to earn a GED (12 percent

versus 31 percent) (table 1).19

Gender appeared to be associated with high school graduation among dropouts. For example, young women who dropped out were more likely than their male counterparts to return to

school and earn a high school diploma (18 percent versus 13 percent) (table 1).20

Academics

Dropouts who had high school grades at a C average or higher and eighth grade test scores

in the top three quartiles were more likely to return to school and complete a diploma or GED

than those who had not performed as well. Among dropouts, higher 1988 test scores were

 

17Ibid. p. 31.

18Ibid. p. 35.

19While there also appear to be differences between Asian/Pacific Islanders and the other three groups in the proportion of

dropouts who earned a GED, these differences are associated with large standard errors, making the estimates somewhat unreliable. Thus, the differences are not statistically significant.

20There was some evidence that men were more likely than women to obtain a GED (32 percent versus 25 percent). This difference was significant at the 0.10 level, but not at the conventional 0.05 level.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

12

associated with the likelihood of having completed high school by 1994. For example, three out of

four dropouts (76 percent) who scored in the highest test quartile completed high school,

compared with 30 percent of dropouts scoring in the lowest test quartile (table 1). Similarly,

dropouts’ high school grades were also associated with their completing high school. About 49

percent of dropouts whose high school transcripts indicated that they had a C average completed

a diploma or alternative credential, compared with 36 percent who had a D or F average (table

1).21

The association between dropouts’ test scores and their likelihood of staying out was especially apparent. Among dropouts who scored in the highest quartile, 7 percent stayed out, compared with 42 percent among those who scored in the lowest quartile. Grades were similarly

related. Dropouts who had a D or F average when enrolled in school were more likely to stay out

than those who had a C average in high school (40 percent versus 27 percent; table 1).22

Among dropouts who completed high school, both grades and test scores were associated

with completing a diploma. Dropouts who had a C average or higher in high school were more

likely than those who had a D or F average to eventually attain a diploma (23 to 26 percent of A–

C students did so, compared with 9 percent of D and F students). Similarly, dropouts who had

scored in the highest test quartile were more likely to complete a diploma than those who had

scored in the lowest quartile (25 percent versus 12 percent; table 1).

Although test scores were associated with dropouts completing a GED, grades were not.

Dropouts’ likelihood of completing a GED increased with their test scores. For example, 51 percent of former students scoring in the highest test quartile completed a GED, compared with 18

percent of former students scoring in the lowest test quartile. However, similar proportions of

those who passed the GED had grade averages in the A to B range, C, or the D or F range: about

24 percent of dropouts with A or B averages, 27 percent with C averages, and 27 percent with D

or F averages earned an alternative credential (table 1).

Although dropouts who complete a GED may have academic ability (as indicated on their

composite test scores), they did not necessarily perform as well in school as dropouts who returned to high school and earned a diploma (as indicated by their grades). Figure 2 shows the relationship between the students’ overall grade point average in high school and their composite

test scores in the eighth grade.

 

21Although there also appear to be large differences between dropouts with D and F averages and those with A and B averages,

these differences are associated with large standard errors, making the differences not statistically significant.

22Because of small sample size, a very large standard error was associated with dropouts who had A or B averages and stayed

out. As a result, any comparisons made with this group were statistically insignificant.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

13

Figure 2—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed high school, 1994 cumulative grade point 

Figure 2—average, by 1988 composite test scores*

NOTE: 1988 composite test quartiles were based on the full sample of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed

high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988,

Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Low quartile Middle quartiles High quartile

Composite test quartile 1988

Grade point average (high school transcripts)

Diploma

Alternative credential

In general, dropout completers who had higher test scores in the eighth grade tended to

have higher grade point averages in high school and dropouts who returned and received a high

school diploma had higher grades in high school. However, the relationship between grades and

test scores was different for dropouts with diplomas versus dropouts with GEDs. While hightesting dropouts with diplomas had correspondingly higher grades in high school, dropouts with

GEDs had about the same grade point averages regardless of how well they had scored on the

achievement test in the eighth grade. That is, higher achievement in eighth grade did not translate

into high grades for dropouts with GEDs as it did for dropouts with diplomas (table 2).23

 

23This discussion is based on an Analysis of Variance derived from the DAS (see appendix B).
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

14

Table 2—Among 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed high school, 1994 cumulative 

Table 2—grade point average, by 1988 composite test scores

Received a Received a 

high school GED or

 diploma certificate*

 Total 2.70 1.91

Composite test quartile 1988

 Low quartile 2.21 1.75

 Middle quartiles 2.59 1.93

 High quartile 3.14 2.15

*GED refers to General Education Development exam.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 

1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Expectations

The educational expectations of both dropouts and their parents were associated with dropouts’ actual academic outcomes six years later and were somewhat related to dropouts’ high

school completion. Among dropouts who in 1988 expected to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher,

about half (54 percent) had completed high school in 1994. Dropouts with lower educational expectations in 1988, however, were less likely to finish high school. One-third of those who expected to complete no more than a high school diploma completed high school, and 40 percent of

those expecting to complete some postsecondary education completed high school. Similarly,

dropouts whose parents in 1988 had expected them to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher were

also more likely to complete high school than dropouts whose parents had expected them to complete no more than a high school diploma (53 percent versus 34 percent; table 1).

Among dropouts who completed high school, however, the educational expectations of parents and students in 1988 were associated only with a dropout’s likelihood of completing a diploma, not with completing a GED. About 20 percent of dropouts who expected to earn a

bachelor’s degree or higher earned a diploma, compared with 10 percent of dropouts who expected to complete high school or less. Parent expectations also corresponded with higher proportions of dropouts earning diplomas. About 21 percent of dropouts whose parents expected

them to earn a bachelor’s degree or higher received diplomas, compared with 10 percent of dropouts whose parents expected them to at most complete high school. Although the expectations of

parents and students also appeared to be associated with the likelihood of dropouts getting a

GED, there was not enough statistical evidence to conclude that these differences were significant

(table 1).
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

15

CIRCUMSTANCES OF LEAVING SCHOOL

Comparing the circumstances under which students decide to leave school with their later

educational outcomes can help determine who is most at risk of permanently disconnecting from

the educational system. The dropouts at greatest risk of not completing high school left school at

a very young age, had job-related reasons for leaving school, and did not connect with institutional sources of support (such as their high school administration or an alternative school). Another factor associated with never completing is becoming a parent more than nine months after

dropping out.

The year that dropouts first left high school was associated with how they subsequently

completed high school. Of dropouts who returned to finish high school, those who first left school

in 9th grade were more likely than those who first dropped out in 11th or 12th grades to complete

a GED (85 percent in 9th grade versus 62 to 69 percent in 11th and 12th grades), whereas students who first dropped out in 11th or 12th grades were more likely than 9th graders to earn a

diploma (38 and 31 percent versus 15 percent; figure 3).

This association between when dropouts left school and their 1994 completion status is

further demonstrated with respect to the number of credits earned: students with more than 15

credits when they first dropped out were much more likely to complete diplomas than were students with 10 or fewer credits (24 percent versus 11 to 12 percent; table 3).24

Reasons for Leaving

In 1990 and 1992, dropouts who were not in school at the time of the follow-up surveys

provided their reasons for dropping out and answered a series of questions about intervention activities and the people with whom they had discussed their decision to leave school.25 When reasons for dropping out were aggregated into three general categories—school-, family-, or jobrelated—dropouts were more than twice as likely to give school-related reasons as family- or jobrelated reasons (77 percent versus 34 and 32 percent, respectively; table 4). This is consistent with

the data concerning their academic records, where 92 percent of all dropouts had grade

 

24There is some evidence that students with 10.01–15 credits were also less likely to earn a diploma than those with more than

15 credits. This distinction was significant at the 0.10 level, not at the conventional 0.05 level.

25Questions on reasons for dropping out and intervention activities were asked in both the 1990 and 1992 supplementary questionnaires. Responses from the 1992 questionnaire were included only if the 1990 information was missing. The data on discussions with various people about leaving school were taken solely from the 1992 dropout supplement. See appendix A for a

complete description of these variables.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

16

Figure 3—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out and later completed high school, percentage

Figure 3—distribution according to grade at time of first dropout event, by whether they earned 

Figure 2—a diploma or a GED by 1994

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

15

22

38

31

78

62

69

85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

9th grade or earlier 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade

High school diploma Alternative credential Percent

averages of C’s or lower (table 2). Dropouts who had not completed high school by 1994, however, cited employment reasons for having left more frequently than did dropouts who had completed high school. About 37 percent of dropouts who had not completed a credential cited at

least one job reason for having left high school in 1990 or 1992, compared with 24 percent of

dropouts who completed a diploma or GED (table 4).

The specific reasons that dropouts reported for leaving high school are shown in table 5.

Noncompleters were more likely to cite having gotten a job as a reason for dropping out (31 versus 22 percent). Completers were about as likely as noncompleters, however, to cite such reasons
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

17

Table 3—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to their 1994 high

Table 2—school completion status, by number of credits earned at time of first dropout event

Completed Did not complete

Working

High toward

school GED or diploma

Total diploma certificate* Total or GED Stayout

 Total 44.0 15.5 28.5 56.0 23.7 32.3

Number of credits earned

 when first dropped out

 5 or less 41.6 11.1 30.5 58.4 23.0 35.4

 5.01 to 10 37.9 12.2 25.7 62.1 22.5 39.7

 10.01 to 15 39.0 12.1 26.9 61.0 26.2 34.9

 More than 15 55.0 24.1 30.8 45.0 20.4 24.6

*GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 

1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Table 4—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who gave various reasons for dropping out, 

Table 4—by 1994 completion status1

Any Any Any

family job school

reason reason reason

 Total 34.0 32.3 77.1

Completed high school 33.8 24.2 76.3

 High school diploma 30.2 21.2 73.1

 GED or certificate235.2 25.4 77.6

Did not complete high school 34.2 36.9 77.8

 Working toward diploma or GED 31.4 37.3 80.0

 Stayout 36.2 36.6 76.2

1Dropouts could cite multiple reasons for leaving high school. Thus, percentages sum to more than 100.

2GED refers to General Education Development exam.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

or dropping out as not liking school (44 and 47 percent), not getting along with teachers (32 and

27 percent), not keeping up with school work (29 and 33 percent), or pregnancy (24 and 21 percent; table 5).
Table 5—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who gave various reasons for dropping out, by 1994 completion status1

Completed Did not complete

Working 

High toward

Total school GED or diploma

all dropouts Total diploma certificate2Total or GED Stayout

Any school reason 77.1 76.3 73.1 77.6 77.8 80.0 76.2 

 Did not like school 45.6 43.5 44.3 43.2 46.8 47.8 46.1 

 Could not get along with teachers 28.6 32.1 27.6 33.9 26.6 20.4 30.9 

 Could not get along with students 16.9 16.4 9.1 19.4 17.3 18.4 16.5 

 Was suspended from school 14.2 15.8 11.5 17.5 13.3 13.9 13.0 

 Did not feel safe at school 9.5 10.8 14.2 9.5 8.7 9.1 8.4 

 Expelled from school 11.0 12.4 9.8 13.5 10.2 8.9 11.0 

 Felt did not belong at school 23.3 28.4 34.1 26.1 20.4 18.7 21.5 

 Could not keep up with schoolwork 31.6 28.9 19.9 32.5 33.2 35.4 31.6 

 Failing school 39.1 35.7 30.8 37.7 41.1 43.8 39.2 

 Changed schools and did not like new one 12.1 11.4 10.8 11.6 12.6 13.6 11.9 

Any family reason 34.0 33.8 30.2 35.2 34.2 31.4 36.2 

 Wanted to have a family 7.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 9.2 7.9 10.0 

 Pregnant 21.9 23.6 20.6 24.8 20.9 23.8 19.1 

 Became the parent of a baby 15.0 17.1 15.9 17.6 13.8 13.3 14.1 

 Had to support my family 10.5 11.2 11.7 11.0 10.1 11.1 9.4 

 Had to care for a family member 9.5 10.1 6.6 11.5 9.2 8.7 9.6 

 Got married or planned to get married 14.3 14.1 13.3 14.4 14.5 12.0 16.2 

Any job reason 32.3 24.2 21.2 25.4 36.9 37.3 36.6 

 Got a job 27.3 21.6 19.2 22.5 30.7 30.1 31.1 

 Could not work and go to school at same time 18.8 13.1 13.8 12.9 22.1 24.5 20.4 

Any other reason

 Friends had dropped out of school 11.7 12.4 3.8 15.8 11.4 13.6 9.8 

 Had a drug or alcohol problem 4.4 5.9 5.0 6.4 3.6 2.6 4.5 

 Wanted to travel 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.4 5.3 6.4 4.6 

1Dropouts could cite multiple reasons for leaving high school. Thus, percentages sum to more than 100.

2GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: This table shows the percentage of dropouts with various graduation statuses who responded affirmatively to the following reasons for dropping out of high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis

System.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

19

Parenthood

Although one-third of dropouts cited family reasons for dropping out, young women were

much more likely to give a family-related reason for dropping out than young men (53 percent

versus 15 percent; figure 4). In order to examine the relationship between teen parenthood and

the completion of high school, table 6 shows the timing of parenthood with respect to dropout

date according to 1994 completion status.

Figure 4—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who gave various reasons for dropping out 

Figure 3—of high school, by gender*

*Because respondents could select more than one reason for leaving high school, percentages sum to more than 100.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

15

37

86

53

28

68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Any family reason Any job reason Any school reason

Male Female

Percent

Dropouts who had children within nine months after dropping out (i.e., were expecting to

become parents when they dropped out) were no less likely to complete high school than those
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

20

who never had children (48 percent of both groups completed high school). Both groups, however, were more likely to complete high school than those who first became parents more than

nine months after dropping out (31 percent; table 6). There was also some association between

parenthood and graduation among dropouts who earned high school diplomas, although this was

not the case for dropouts with GEDs. Dropouts without children were more likely to earn a diploma than dropouts who had children more than nine months after dropping out (6 percent; table

6). However, dropouts who had a baby nine or fewer months after leaving high school were as

likely to complete high school diplomas as those who had no children (15 percent and 14 percent).

Table 6—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to 1994 completion

Table 5—status, by timing of parenthood after dropping out of high school

Completed Did not complete

Working

High toward

school GED or diploma

Total diploma1 certificate2 Total or GED Stayout

 Total 44.0 15.5 28.5 56.0 23.7 32.3 

Timing of parenthood in relation to

 dropping out

 No children 48.4 14.3 34.1 51.6 22.9 28.7 

 Had baby up to 9 months

 after dropping out 48.1 15.4 32.7 51.9 20.0 31.9 

 Had baby more than 9 months

 after dropping out 31.2 6.0 25.2 68.8 25.4 43.4 

1

Percentage of total dropouts who completed a diploma is out of the range of the timing of parenthood as a result of 

cases where date of first dropout event was unavailable, thus creating a situation where the timing of parenthood variable

had to be set to missing. 

2

GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Interventions

Various organizations attempt to help dropouts make the transition back into the role of

student. Many dropouts who successfully completed high school had considered using or had

used such a resource. Almost half (46 percent) of dropouts “looked into” an alternative school or
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

21

GED;26 and about 30 percent of dropouts spoke to a counselor or social worker (figure 5). Dropouts who had completed a credential were more likely than those who had not to consider these

interventions: 54 percent of completers compared with 41 percent of noncompleters considered

an alternative school or GED, and 40 percent of completers compared with 24 percent of noncompleters spoke to a counselor or social worker about returning to school (figure 5).

Figure 5—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who participated in various interventions

Figure 5—immediately before or after dropping out, by 1994 completion status*

* Based on dropouts’ responses to the question “In the past 2 years, did any of the following things happen to you?” This question 

was asked in both the first and second follow-up surveys. Because respondents could select more than one intervention, percentages 

sum to more than 100. See appendix A for a complete description.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988,

Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

41

24

8 8

3 3

40

8

15

6

8

46

30

8

10

4 4

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Looked into

alternative

school or GED

Saw counselor/

social worker

Went to youth

center/outreach

program

Went to family

counseling

Was in drug

rehabilitation

program

Was in alcohol

rehabilitation

program

No credential Diploma or alternative credential Total

Percent

 

26Because of the way the question was phrased on the survey, “I looked into an alternative school or GED,” one could not distinguish between students who attended an alternative school and those who merely considered attending. See appendix A for

more details.
DROPOUT CHARACTERISTICS AND HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES

22

In 1992, dropouts were also asked whether they had discussions with any third parties about

continuing school since dropping out. About 86 percent of dropouts reported that they had talked

with their parents, and about 76 percent had discussed the prospects of continuing school with

their peers or with other relatives (table 7). Dropouts who had earned a diploma by 1994 were

more likely than those who had earned a GED to have spoken with various school-related individualssuch as principals (47 versus 12 percent) and school counselors (57 versus 33 percent)about continuing their education. Although there appears to be a similar difference

between diploma recipients and GED recipients with regard to having such discussions with

teachers (56 versus 38 percent), there is not enough statistical evidence to conclude that these

differences were significant (table 7).

Table 7—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who by 1992 had talked with various people

Table 7—about continuing school, by 1994 completion status

Coun- Other Social Adult

Parents Sibling Teacher Principal selor Peer relative Clergy worker friend

 Total 86.2 52.3 40.3 19.6 35.9 76.5 75.5 11.2 13.7 69.7 

Completed high school 86.9 46.9 42.8 21.5 39.3 73.8 69.5 11.0 11.0 62.8 

 High school diploma 88.7 52.2 55.9 47.1 56.5 82.8 81.8 19.9 15.7 67.2 

 GED or certificate* 86.3 45.0 38.1 12.2 33.1 70.5 65.0 7.8 9.3 61.2 

Did not complete

 high school 85.8 55.0 38.9 18.7 34.2 77.8 78.5 11.4 15.1 73.2 

 Working toward 

 diploma or GED 90.7 51.9 40.9 20.8 38.1 83.7 84.1 13.2 15.8 78.5 

 Stayout 82.1 57.4 37.3 17.1 31.3 73.5 74.4 10.0 14.6 69.2 

*GED refers to General Education Development exam.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.
23

MODEL OF COMPLETION AMONG DROPOUTS

As this analysis has shown thus far, there are different elements associated with a dropout’s

completion of high school. Because these factors are interrelated and working together simultaneously, it can be difficult to ascertain the independent influence of each on the outcome of completion. This type of analysis cannot reveal the unique relationship between each variable and high

school completion status. This section uses linear regression to illustrate how certain characteristics are associated with a dropout’s decision to complete high school, after controlling for a set of

other characteristics. For information about the methodology, see appendix B.

Table 8 shows the results of an analysis of high school completion, via either a diploma or

GED, among dropouts. The first column displays the unadjusted percentages—the proportion of

dropouts who completed high school before controlling for the other variables in the table—and

the second column displays the adjusted percentages for a hypothetical dropout with average values on the other variables. The italicized row in each set of characteristics represents the comparison group for significance testing, and the asterisks indicate cases where the percentage for a

given group is significantly different from that of the comparison group. For example, the percentage of dropouts whose composite test scores were in the low and middle quartiles were less

likely to have completed high school than those with high composite test scores both before and

after adjusting for the other variables in the table.

This analysis shows that adjusting for variation among these variables results in somewhat

different patterns from those based on individual comparisons of the unadjusted percentages.

Dropouts whose families were in the highest SES quartile were still more likely to complete high

school than their counterparts in the other SES quartiles; completing high school was still more

likely among dropouts with test scores in the highest quartile than among those in the other three

quartiles; and dropouts who had children more than nine months after dropping out were still less

likely to finish high school than their counterparts who never had children or were expecting at

the time of the dropout event. However, adjusting for covariation resulted in different relationships with two variables: student expectations and GPA. Although dropouts who expected to

complete a bachelor’s degree or higher were still more likely to finish than dropouts who expected

to complete no more than high school, prior to adjustment, dropouts expecting to earn a
MODEL OF COMPLETION AMONG DROPOUTS

24

Table 8—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage who completed high school by 1994, by

Table 8—selected characteristics, and this percentage after taking into account the covariation of the

Table 8—variables in the table1

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard 

percentage2percentage3coefficient4error

5

 Total 44.0 44.0 84.3 10.8 

Gender 

 Male 44.6 43.7 (†) (†) 

 Female 43.3 44.3 0.7 4.5 

Race–ethnicity

 Asian/Pacific Islander 32.5 31.1 -11.5 18.0 

 Hispanic 38.8 46.4 3.9 6.3 

 Black, non-Hispanic 41.5 46.7 4.1 7.2 

 White, non-Hispanic 46.5 42.5 (†) (†) 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 43.0 52.8 10.3 15.6 

Socioeconomic status 1988

 Low quartile 33.0* 36.5* -30.3 7.8 

 Middle quartiles 49.6* 47.5* -19.3 7.8 

 High quartile 73.9 66.8 (†) (†) 

Composite test quartile 1988

 Low quartile 29.5* 31.0* -33.6 5.7 

 Middle quartiles 54.6* 49.3* -15.3 7.2 

 High quartile 75.8 64.6 (†) (†) 

Grade point average (high school transcripts)

 A or B average 50.4 44.4 3.5 9.2 

 C average 49.0* 45.9 5.0 5.1 

 D or F average 35.5 40.9 (†) (†) 

Student’s educational expectations 1988

 High school or less 33.2* 38.0* -11.4 5.5 

 Some postsecondary education 40.8* 42.3 -7.1 5.4 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 53.8 49.4 (†) (†) 

Grade year of first dropout event

 9th grade or earlier 39.5 50.0 (†) (†) 

 10th grade 44.2 45.6 -4.4 6.2 

 11th grade 44.5 46.0 -4.0 7.9 

 12th grade 42.2 38.2 -11.8 6.2 

Timing of parenthood in relation to dropping out

 No children 48.4* 48.1* 13.7 4.7 

 Had baby up to 9 months after dropping out 48.1* 51.7* 17.3 7.7 

 Had baby more than 9 months after dropping out 31.2 34.4 (†) (†) 

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference category.

1Dropouts who completed high school did so by earning either a high school diploma or an alternative credential.

2Unadjusted percentages are from the NELS:88/94 Data Analysis System.

3

See appendix B for an explanation of the adjustment procedure.

4Weighted least squares (WLS) coefficients were multiplied by 100 to match the percentage scale (see appendix B).

5

Standard error of WLS coefficient, adjusted for design effects and multiplied by 100 to match the percentage scale

(see appendix B).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.
MODEL OF COMPLETION AMONG DROPOUTS

25

bachelor’s degree were also more likely to complete high school than those dropouts who expected to get some postsecondary education. This change is attributable to the inclusion of other

variables such as test scores in the model; for example, dropouts with higher academic ability are

also more likely to have higher expectations.27 Another possible explanation could come from the

inclusion of socioeconomic status in the model, considering that, for example, completers in the

lowest SES quartile were less likely to expect to complete a bachelor’s degree than those in the

middle or top quartiles.28 Even though dropouts who had C averages while enrolled were more

likely to complete high school than dropouts who had mostly D and F averages before dropping

out, after adjusting for covariation, GPA was no longer a significant factor. As with educational

expectations, test scores are also associated with GPA.29

 

27U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988,

Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

28Ibid.

29Ibid.

27

1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

In order to establish enrollment and employment differences, the postsecondary enrollment

and employment experiences of 1988 eighth graders are evaluated with respect to two factors: 1)

dropping out and 2) high school completion. Dropouts are compared with those 1988 eighth

graders who did not drop out. Further, dropouts are divided into two categories, based on completion status. This enables one to examine the ways in which dropouts who completed high

school (dropout completers) resemble those who completed high school without having dropped

out (traditional completers), as opposed to dropouts who did not complete high school (noncompleters). Consequently, the achievements of these youth can be benchmarked, providing evidence

pertaining to the relationship of returning to complete high school after dropping out with postsecondary and employment opportunities.

However, traditional completers enrolled in postsecondary degree programs are involved in

activities very different from high school graduates working full time (see table 9a). As a result,

comparisons between the all-inclusive groups of dropouts and those who had not dropped out

may not be as meaningful as comparisons of dropouts to graduates without significant postsecondary experience. Thus, in an attempt to normalize the years of education across all students, the

analysis is restricted to 1988 eighth graders not enrolled in or having completed associate’s or

bachelor’s degree programs (i.e., their highest postsecondary attainment in 1994 was not an associate’s or bachelor’s degree nor any postsecondary activity that would lead to the completion of

an associate’s or bachelor’s degree). Comparisons are then drawn between the employment and

educational attainment of these youth according to whether they dropped out and, for dropouts,

whether they completed high school.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES

In February 1994, slightly less than two years after most of their cohort had graduated from

high school, those who had ever dropped out from the eighth-grade cohort of 1988 tended to be

working or looking for a job. A smaller percentage of dropouts, however, particularly among

those who had returned to school and earned a diploma or GED, were enrolled in postsecondary

education.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

28

Table 9a—Percentage of 1988 eighth graders participating in various enrollment- and employment-related 

Table 9a—activities in February 1994, by 1994 completion status1

Vocational/ Appren- Active Keeping Temporary

technical Academic ticeship/ duty house layoff/

Working courses courses at govern- in (full-time waiting Looking

full- or at any 2- or 4-year ment armed home- to for

part-time school college training forces maker) report work

 Total 62.4 6.4 46.8 1.7 2.8 7.3 1.6 8.1 

Never dropped out 63.1 6.5 57.2 1.6 3.3 4.6 1.5 6.2 

Dropped out 59.7 6.2 7.8 2.1 1.1 17.6 2.2 15.5 

 Completed high school 63.9 8.0 15.9 1.6 2.2 13.6 1.5 14.9 

 High school diploma 70.5 5.7 19.1 0.3 3.0 17.7 0.9 7.0 

 GED or certificate2

60.3 9.3 14.1 2.2 1.7 11.4 1.9 19.1 

 Did not complete high school 56.5 4.7 1.3 2.5 0.2 20.8 2.7 16.0 

 Working toward diploma

 or GED 51.8 8.3 2.0 2.8 0.3 19.8 3.8 18.3 

 Stayout 59.9 2.1 0.9 2.3 0.2 21.6 1.8 14.2 

1

In the Third Follow-up Survey, both students and dropouts were asked to respond to the following question: “Now, 

please think back to the middle of February 1994. At that time were you . . . ?” for each activity listed. Thus, percentages 

sum to more than 100.

2GED refers to General Education Development exam.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

About the same proportion of dropouts as 1988 eighth graders who had never dropped out

reported working full time or part time in 1994 (60 and 63 percent, respectively; table 9a). Those

who had never dropped out, however, were much more likely to be taking academic courses.

More than half (57 percent) of those who had never dropped out were enrolled in 2- or 4-year

postsecondary institutions in 1994, compared with 8 percent of dropouts who were similarly enrolled. Dropouts, by comparison, were much more likely than those who had never dropped out

to report keeping house or being a full-time homemaker (18 versus 5 percent). In addition, dropouts were also more likely to be looking for work (16 percent) than their counterparts who had

not dropped out (6 percent; table 9a).

Postsecondary enrollment appeared to make a difference in the types of activities that those

who had never dropped out were participating in. To illustrate, 63 percent of all traditional completers were working full time or part time. After controlling for enrollment in an associate’s or

bachelor’s degree program, however, 71 percent of traditional completers not working toward a

postsecondary degree reported working full- or part-time (tables 9a and 9b).
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

29

Table 9b—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree1, percentage

Table 9b—participating in various enrollment- and employment-related activities in February 1994, by 1994

Table 9b—completion status 2

Vocational/ Appren- Active Keeping Temporary

technical Academic ticeship/ duty house layoff/

Working courses courses at govern- in (full-time waiting Looking

full time or at any 2- or 4-year ment armed home- to for

part time school college training forces maker) report work

 Total 67.3 6.8 15.1 2.1 4.7 12.0 2.2 11.0 

Never dropped out3

71.3 7.3 22.8 2.2 7.1 7.9 2.1 7.9 

 No postsecondary education4

73.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 10.1 10.4 2.4 9.7 

Dropped out 60.5 6.0 2.1 2.0 0.8 18.9 2.4 16.3 

 Completed high school 67.7 8.0 5.3 1.9 1.8 15.3 1.9 16.0 

 High school diploma 74.8 4.8 4.9 0.4 3.5 21.5 1.2 7.6 

 GED or certificate564.0 9.7 5.4 2.8 0.9 12.0 2.2 20.4 

 Did not complete high school 55.8 4.7 0.0 2.1 0.2 21.3 2.8 16.5 

 Working toward diploma

 or GED 50.4 8.5 0.1 1.7 0.1 20.7 4.1 19.5 

 Stayout 59.5 2.1 0.0 2.4 0.2 21.7 1.9 14.4 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2

In the Third Follow-up Survey, both students and dropouts were asked to respond to the following question: “Now, please

think back to the middle of February 1994. At that time were you . . . ?” for each activity listed. Thus, percentages sum to more

than 100.

3Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

4

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary

education.

5GED refers to General Education Development exam.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Among dropouts, high school completion appeared to be associated with working full time

or part time. Although noncompleters were less likely to be working than completers who both

had or had not dropped out, dropout completers who were not taking courses leading to a postsecondary degree were no less likely to be working than traditional completers (56 percent for

dropout noncompleters versus 68 and 71 percent; table 9b).

Having dropped out, regardless of completion status, was associated with other 1994

activities. After eliminating students in postsecondary programs, those 1988 eighth graders who

had never dropped out, but were not working toward a postsecondary degree, remained more

likely to be taking academic courses at a 2- or 4-year college in February 1994 than their
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

30

counterparts who had dropped out but completed high school (23 versus 5 percent). Traditional

completers not working toward a postsecondary degree were also more likely than dropout

completers to be on active duty with the armed forces (7 versus 2 percent). On the other hand,

even though both groups had completed high school, those who had done so after dropping out

were more likely to report they were homemaking full time than those who had never dropped out

(15 versus 8 percent). Furthermore, dropout completers were twice as likely as traditional

completers not enrolled in a postsecondary degree program to report they were looking for work

(16 percent versus 8 percent; table 9b).

Dropout completers and noncompleters, however, were not always comparable either. For

instance, among those not pursuing a degree, completers were more likely than noncompleters to

report being enrolled in academic courses (5 versus less than 1 percent; table 9b).

Completers who had earned a high school diploma were less likely than most other dropouts

to report that they were looking for work. About 8 percent of dropouts with a diploma were

looking for work in 1994, compared with 14 percent of stayouts and 20 percent of dropouts

working toward a credential. There is some evidence that diploma completers may also be less

likely than GED completers to be looking for work (table 9b).30

LABOR MARKET

This study found few differences in both the likelihood of employment and earnings among

different groups of dropouts in 1993, one year after most of the 1988 eighth-grade cohort had

graduated from high school. Overall, whether students had dropped out, not whether they had

gone back to continue their secondary education, was more likely to be associated with such labor

market behavior as unemployment.31 However, dropouts who had completed a high school diploma were, in some cases, more likely to resemble their counterparts who had never dropped out

and were not pursuing a postsecondary degree. For GED completers, labor market characteristics

were similar to those of their dropout peers without a high school credential. This analysis supports Cameron and Heckman’s findings that dropouts with a GED and stayouts did not differ with

respect to income and occupation.32

 

30The distinction between dropouts with a diploma and with a GED was significant at the 0.10 level, not at the conventional

0.05 level.

31It is unclear from the data whether this was an artifact of small sample size or a result of the similarities that resulted from

the youth being in the work force for so few years. In his book, Human Capital (1964), Gary Becker discusses the impact of

years in the work force versus education on labor market experiences.

32S. Cameron and J. Heckman, 1993.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

31

Unemployment

Among 1988 eighth graders not enrolled in a postsecondary degree program, dropouts were

more likely to have been unemployed in 1993 than those who had completed high school without

dropping out. About 85 percent of traditional completers not working toward an associate’s or

bachelor’s degree were unemployed for no months in 1993, compared with 69 percent of dropout

completers. This was also reflected in the average number of months they were unemployed, with

traditional completers averaging 5.7 months of unemployment for 1993, compared with 7.2 of

dropouts (table 10).

Table 10—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, percentage 

Table 10—distribution according to number of months unemployed in 1993 and average number of months 

Table 10—unemployed, by 1994 completion status1

Average

Number of months unemployed number of 

More than months

None 1 to 3 3 to 6 6 months unemployed

 Total 79.3 7.0 4.0 9.7 6.5 

Never dropped out284.8 6.0 3.5 5.8 5.7 

 No postsecondary education383.7 6.4 3.6 6.3 5.8 

Dropped out 69.9 8.8 5.0 16.3 7.2 

 Completed high school 68.6 8.7 6.0 16.7 7.2 

 High school diploma 67.0 11.0 4.5 17.5 6.4 

 GED or certificate469.5 7.5 6.7 16.3 7.6 

 Did not complete high school 70.8 8.9 4.4 15.9 7.2 

 Working toward diploma or GED 67.7 8.5 4.5 19.3 7.5 

 Stayout 72.9 9.3 4.3 13.6 7.1 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2

Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary

education.

4GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

32

Among dropouts, there were no measurable differences with respect to having been unemployed in 1993, nor in the average number of months unemployed in 1993, regardless of whether

or how high school was completed (table 10). Considering that dropouts with a diploma were less

likely than others to be looking for work (table 9b), this finding might indicate a better-thanexpected situation for GED completers and stayouts. About 67 to 73 percent of dropouts, regardless of whether or how high school was completed, were employed for all of 1993, and those

dropouts that had been unemployed were so for an average of 6 to 8 months.

Hours on the Job

Dropouts tended to want to work more hours than 1988 eighth graders who had never

dropped out (who were more likely to be enrolled in school; see table 9a). Among those 1988

eighth graders who worked fewer than 40 hours per week at their primary job in 1993, dropouts

were more likely than those who had not dropped out to report that they would like to work more

hours (64 versus 54 percent; figure 6).

In order to compare those 1988 eighth graders who were workers instead of postsecondary

students in 1993, enrollment in a postsecondary degree program was controlled for. As shown in

table 11, among those not working toward a postsecondary degree, dropouts worked more hours,

averaging 39 hours per week at their primary job in 1993, while those who had not dropped out

worked 38 hours per week, on average (table 11). A higher proportion of 1988 eighth graders

who had not dropped out were working part time, compared with dropouts. About 11 percent of

those who had never dropped out worked 11 to 20 hours per week in 1993, compared with 7

percent of dropouts (table 11).

Occupation

Table 12 illustrates the types of industries in which 1988 eighth graders reported working in

1993. The most common occupations for dropouts in 1993 included service worker (22 percent),

craftsman/operative (22 percent), laborer (20 percent), and clerical (17 percent). Dropouts were

more likely than those who had not dropped out to be laborers (20 versus 11 percent), whereas

those who had not dropped out were more likely than dropouts to be in the military or protective

service (6 versus 3 percent), or working as professionals or teachers (3 versus 1 percent; table

12).
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

33

Figure 6—Among 1988 eighth graders who worked fewer than 40 hours per week in 1993, percentage 

Figure 5—distribution according to desire to work more hours, by 1994 completion status

Ever dropped out

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

54

64

58

65

58

46

36

42

26

35

42

74

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Never

dropped

out

Ever

dropped

out

High

school

diploma

Alternative

credential

Working

toward

alternative

credential

Stayout

Student would not like to work more hours

Percent Student would like to work more hours

Among dropouts, completion of high school was associated with those youth reporting to

be in the military or protective service. About 3 percent of dropout completers reported being in

the military or protective service, compared with 1 percent of noncompleters (table 12).
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

34

Table 11—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, percentage 

Table 11—distribution according to number of hours worked per week at primary job in 1993, and average 

Table 11—hours worked per week, by 1994 completion status1

Number of hours worked per week Average

at primary job in 1993 number

of hours

1 to 11 to 21 to 31 to More worked

10 20 30 40 than 40 per week

 Total 1.8 9.5 16.4 47.8 24.5 38.1 

Never dropped out22.2 10.7 17.3 46.9 22.9 37.6 

 No postsecondary education31.2 5.6 11.8 51.5 30.0 40.9 

Dropped out 1.2 7.1 14.5 49.6 27.7 39.1 

 Completed high school 1.4 7.0 13.9 50.0 27.6 39.3 

 High school diploma 0.0 12.5 12.9 53.8 20.8 38.3 

 GED or certificate42.2 4.1 14.5 48.0 31.2 39.8 

 Did not complete high school 1.0 7.1 14.9 49.2 27.9 39.0 

 Working toward diploma or GED 1.6 8.4 18.8 51.0 20.2 37.0 

 Stayout 0.5 6.2 12.1 47.9 33.2 40.4 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary

education.

4GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Wages

Although it might be expected that dropouts were earning more in 1993, in accordance with

their likelihood of working more hours (see table 11), neither dropout nor high school completion

status among dropouts was associated with average annual income (table 13). When full-time

work was controlled for (working 35 or more hours per week), wage return continued to favor no

broad group in particular, regardless of dropout or completion status (table 14).

Dropouts’ wages were not positively associated with secondary school attainment. Among

dropouts working full time, there were no measurable differences in earnings between diploma

and GED completers ($10,600 among dropouts with a diploma and $9,900 among dropouts with

a GED). However, among all dropouts, those still working toward a high school diploma or GED
Table 12—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, percentage distribution according to occupational type of

Table 12—primary job in 1993, by 1994 completion status1

Craftsman/ Professkilled Manager/ Military/ sional/

operative/ admin- protective school Business

Clerical technical Farmer Laborer istrator service teacher owner Sales Service

 Total 20.4 19.9 2.3 14.7 7.6 4.0 2.0 0.4 8.4 20.3 

Never dropped out222.4 18.9 2.5 11.4 8.0 5.5 2.8 0.4 8.8 19.3 

 No postsecondary education321.6 19.7 2.7 13.0 7.8 6.5 2.7 0.5 8.4 17.0 

Dropped out 17.2 21.7 1.9 20.0 6.8 1.6 0.8 0.4 7.8 21.8 

 Completed high school 18.2 21.2 2.3 17.3 7.9 3.0 1.2 0.2 10.4 18.5 

 High school diploma 21.3 19.4 1.8 16.6 10.0 3.7 1.2 0.5 10.9 14.8 

 GED or certificate416.6 22.1 2.5 17.6 6.8 2.6 1.2 0.1 10.1 20.4 

 Did not complete high school 16.6 22.1 1.7 21.9 6.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 6.1 23.9 

 Working toward diploma or GED 17.6 20.5 1.6 20.2 7.4 0.9 0.5 0.8 4.7 25.9 

 Stayout 15.9 23.1 1.8 23.1 5.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 7.1 22.5 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or

bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2

Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained

or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary education.

4GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis

System.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

36

Table 13—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, percentage 

Table 13—distribution according to total earnings and average total earnings in 1993, by 1994 completion

Table 13—status1

1993 total earnings Average

1993

$2,000 $2,001 to $4,001 to $6,001 to More than total

or less $4,000 $6,000 $10,000 $10,000 earnings

 Total 17.6 14.7 12.9 25.3 29.6 $8,189

Never dropped out217.3 15.0 13.4 25.2 29.2 8,103 

 No postsecondary education313.1 10.2 10.6 28.8 37.3 9,425 

Dropped out 18.3 14.1 11.9 25.4 30.4 8,369 

 Completed high school 15.7 14.4 10.0 25.4 34.6 8,868 

 High school diploma 13.6 13.5 12.5 25.5 34.9 9,219 

 GED or certificate416.6 14.7 8.9 25.3 34.5 8,706 

 Did not complete high school 20.2 13.9 12.9 25.5 27.5 8,031 

 Working toward diploma or GED 27.7 18.0 12.8 19.1 22.4 6,900 

 Stayout 14.7 10.9 13.0 30.2 31.3 8,861 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary

education.

4GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

earned less in 1993, on average, than all other dropouts ($6,900 versus $8,700–$9,200; table 13).

This may be attributable to part-time employment. For example, after controlling for those working 35 or more hours per week, dropouts who completed a diploma had higher 1993 average

earnings than dropouts who were working on their high school credential ($10,600 versus $8,300;

table 14), but other dropouts did not.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

37

Table 14—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree and who worked 

Table 14—35 or more hours per week at their primary job in 1993, percentage distribution according to

Table 14—total earnings and average total earnings in 1993, by 1994 completion status1

1993 total earnings Average

1993

$2,000 $2,001 to $4,001 to $6,001 to More than total

or less $4,000 $6,000 $10,000 $10,000 earnings

 Total 11.4 11.2 10.6 28.8 38.1 $9,589

Never dropped out211.1 10.9 10.7 28.6 38.7 9,605 

 No postsecondary education38.0 7.6 8.8 31.7 43.9 10,542 

Dropped out 11.8 11.8 10.4 29.1 36.9 9,558 

 Completed high school 9.4 10.9 8.5 28.3 43.0 10,118 

 High school diploma 9.6 8.0 9.3 29.5 43.6 10,574 

 GED or certificate49.3 12.2 8.1 27.7 42.7 9,916 

 Did not complete high school 13.5 12.5 11.4 29.8 32.8 9,176 

 Working toward diploma or GED 16.6 17.7 12.8 23.5 29.3 8,347 

 Stayout 11.6 9.2 10.6 33.8 34.9 9,702 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary

education.

4GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

POSTSECONDARY EXPERIENCE

About one in four dropouts (26 percent) had attained some form of postsecondary education by 1994. About 11 percent of all dropouts were working toward either a 2- or 4-year degree,

and 11 percent more were working toward or had obtained a vocational certificate. The remaining

4 percent were enrolled in other postsecondary programs (figure 7a).

Among dropouts, completion of high school was associated with postsecondary attainment.

Dropout completers were more likely than noncompleters to have attained a couple of types of

postsecondary education, including courses leading to the completion of a degree (21 versus 2

percent) or other type of postsecondary enrollment (7 versus 3 percent; table 15).
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

38

Figure 7a—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to highest postFigure 6a—secondary level attained: 1994

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

No postsecondary 

education

74%

Enrolled in or 

completed 

certificate 

program

11%

Other enrollment

4%

Postsecondary 

education

26%

Enrolled in or 

completed degree 

program

11%

Overall, dropout completers were less likely to attend postsecondary education than traditional completers (58 percent of dropout completers had no postsecondary education versus 22

percent of traditional completers). Dropout completers were less likely than traditional completers

to enroll in a 2- or 4-year program. Dropouts who had completed high school were just over onethird as likely as students who had never dropped out to be enrolled in a 2- or 4-year degree program (21 versus 60 percent; table 15).33

Among dropout completers, no differences were found in the proportions of students with

diplomas or GEDs enrolling in the various types of postsecondary education (table 15). Furthermore, both these groups were much more likely to have enrolled in a 2- or 4-year degree program

than dropouts with no credential. About 46 percent of dropouts with a diploma, and 41 percent of

 

33On the other hand, there was some evidence that dropout completers were more likely to have enrolled in or completed a

vocational certificate (15 versus 9 percent).
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

39

Table 15—Percentage distribution of 1988 eighth graders according to their highest postsecondary

Table 15—attainment as of 1994, by 1994 completion status1

Some postsecondary education

Enrolled in Enrolled in or

No or completed completed 

postsecondary degree certificate Other

education Total program program enrollment2

 Total 32.6 67.4 49.7 9.8 7.9 

Never dropped out 21.8 78.3 60.1 9.3 8.9 

Dropped out 73.6 26.4 10.5 11.4 4.4 

 Completed high school 57.7 42.4 20.9 15.0 6.5 

 High school diploma 54.3 45.7 21.8 14.5 9.4 

 GED or certificate359.5 40.5 20.4 15.3 4.9 

 Did not complete high school 86.3 13.7 2.3 8.6 2.8 

 Working toward diploma 82.5 17.5 4.0 10.8 2.7 

 or GED

 Stayout 89.1 11.0 1.1 7.1 2.8 

1The estimates in this table differ slightly from those given in McMillen and Kaufman (1996, table 19) because different 

samples and weights were used.

2Refers to postsecondary enrollment in which a student was not working toward a certificate, license, associate’s degree, or 

bachelor’s degree.

3GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal 

Study of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

dropouts with a GED, enrolled in postsecondary education, compared with 14 percent of dropouts with no high school credential (figure 7b).

Expectations

As shown in table 16, some dropouts reported high expectations for their educational attainment. In 1994, about one in four dropouts with a high school diploma (26 percent) or GED

(28 percent) expected to earn a bachelor’s degree, and 27 and 20 percent more of each group,

respectively, expected to earn an advanced degree. Although the proportions of stayouts sharing

in these expectations were smaller, 10 percent still expected to earn a bachelor’s degree, and 3

percent more expected to earn an advanced degree. About 12 percent of stayouts, dropouts who

at the time of the survey were not continuing their education, did not expect to complete a diploma or enroll in postsecondary education (table 16).
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

40

Figure 7b—Of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage distribution according to enrollment in a

Figure 6a—postsecondary institution, by 1994 completion status

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

54

86

46 41

14

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 High school diploma Alternative credential Did not complete high

school

Enrolled in at least one postsecondary institution

Never attended a postsecondary institution Percent

Friends in Postsecondary Education

Both completion and dropout status were strongly associated with the number of friends

1988 eighth graders had in 1992 with plans to attend a 4-year college, the year their cohort was

graduating from high school. About 41 percent of traditional completers who were not working

toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree reported in 1992 that most or all of their friends were

planning to go to college, compared with 19 percent of dropout completers who reported that

most or all of their friends were planning to go to college (table 17).34

 

34There was some evidence that dropout completers, however, were more likely than noncompleters to report that most or all

of their friends were going to college (19 percent versus 13 percent). This was significant at the 0.10 level.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

41

Table 16—Percentage distribution of 1988 eighth graders according to the highest level of education they

Table 16—ever expected to complete, by 1994 completion status1

Some High

high school Trade Some Bachelor’s Advanced

school diploma school college degree degree

 Total 0.9 9.3 9.2 12.8 31.9 36.0 

Never dropped out2(†) 5.0 7.2 11.3 34.4 42.2 

Dropped out 4.1 26.0 17.1 18.7 22.4 11.8 

 Completed high school (†) 13.9 15.1 21.0 27.3 22.8 

 High school diploma (†) 13.3 16.9 16.5 25.9 27.4 

 GED or certificate3(†) 14.1 14.2 23.4 28.1 20.2 

 Did not complete high school 7.3 35.4 18.7 16.9 18.5 3.2 

 Working toward diploma or GED 0.9 24.1 19.0 21.8 30.3 3.9 

 Stayout 12.1 43.8 18.5 13.4 9.8 2.6 

†Not applicable. 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.

Among dropouts, however, those who eventually attained a high school diploma were more

likely than those who had not completed a credential to report that most of their friends planned

on attending a 4-year college. About 24 percent of dropouts who had attained a diploma reported

in 1992 that most or all of their friends were planning on going to college, compared with 12 percent of stayouts and 14 percent of dropouts working toward a diploma or GED (table 17).35

 

35The distinction between dropouts with a diploma and those with working toward a diploma was significant at the 0.10 level,

not at the conventional 0.05 level.
1994 EMPLOYMENT AND ENROLLMENT

42

Table 17—Of 1988 eighth graders not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, percentage 

Table 17—distribution of number of friends planning to go to college in 1992, by 1994 completion status1

None Few to some Most or all

 Total 17.0 52.1 30.9 

Never dropped out210.5 48.9 40.6 

 No postsecondary education314.3 55.0 30.7 

Dropped out 27.6 57.2 15.3 

 Completed high school 24.5 56.7 18.8 

 High school diploma 22.9 53.5 23.6 

 GED or certificate425.3 58.4 16.3 

 Did not complete high school 29.6 57.5 12.9 

 Working toward diploma or GED 25.2 61.0 13.8 

 Stayout 32.7 55.1 12.2 

1

Postsecondary attainment for 1988 eighth graders was based on 1994 self-reported data of highest postsecondary education

attained. Those not working toward an associate’s or bachelor’s were considered so because their highest postsecondary

attainment was not completion of, or working toward, a 2- or 4-year degree.

2Those who had never dropped out had either 1) some postsecondary education (but not coursework leading to the completion

of an associate’s or bachelor’s degree); 2) obtained or were working toward a certificate; or 3) no postsecondary education.

3

“No postsecondary education” is a subset of the previous category. This category includes only those who had no postsecondary

education.

4GED refers to General Education Development exam.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.
43

SUMMARY

Dropouts may have chosen to leave school for a number of reasons. Most were having

problems at or with school, such as getting poor grades or simply not liking school: more than

three-quarters of dropouts (77 percent) cited a school-related reason for dropping out. However,

some dropouts also had other underlying family or economic obligations associated with leaving

high school (table 4).

Once a student dropped out, however, the decision to return to complete his or her high

school education was associated with several factors. First, dropouts whose families were in the

middle or high SES quartiles were more likely to complete high school than those whose families

were in the lowest quartile. Furthermore, completers were less likely than noncompleters to report

job-related reasons for dropping out. Academics were also associated with completion. Dropouts

achieving test scores in the highest quartile were more likely to complete high school than dropouts scoring in either the middle quartiles or low quartile, and dropouts who scored in the middle

quartiles were more likely to complete than those with scores in the lowest test quartile. Finally,

dropouts who had never had children or were expecting at the time of their first dropout event

were more likely to complete high school than those who had children more than nine months after dropping out.

Although dropouts who had completed high school diplomas and GEDs exhibited several

similar tendencies, they were not entirely alike. Dropouts who had completed diplomas were more

likely to have dropped out later in high school (i.e., in 11th or 12th grade) than other dropouts,

whereas dropouts with GEDs were more likely to have dropped out in 9th grade. Also, although

high test scores were more prevalent among both diploma and GED earners, grade averages of

C’s or better were more common only among dropouts who had completed diplomas. Closer examination revealed that even though dropouts who had earned GEDs may have scored in the high

or middle test quartile, their grades were less likely to reflect the level of their test scores than

those who had completed a diploma.

In 1994, with secondary education over for all but the 24 percent of dropouts who were still

trying to finish their diploma or GED and a fraction of stayouts who may decide to return to high

school, most dropouts were working, looking for work, or keeping house. Approximately 26
SUMMARY

44

percent of dropouts, however, most of whom had completed high school, had obtained some

postsecondary education.

Although 1988 eighth graders who dropped out tended to have different employment characteristics than those who had not, those who did not drop out and were not enrolled in a postsecondary degree program were different in only some respects from their dropout counterparts.

Most notably, those who did not drop out were less likely than dropouts to have been unemployed in 1993. With regards to hours worked, income, and most types of occupation, the groups

were indistinguishable.

Based on the data reported here, there is not enough evidence to conclude that method of

high school completion is associated with economic returns in the labor market after approximately two years out of school. This analysis would tend to support the assertions of King and

other labor economists that the long-term impact of their educationl investment cannot be determined at such an early date. Perhaps the economic returns of a diploma versus a GED is for dropouts who complete high school is an issue that should be revisited if further follow-ups to the

NELS survey are conducted.

Regardless of how one completes high school, years of education obtained has an impact on

the long-term earnings potential of youth in the labor market. And for dropouts who do not continue their high school education, postsecondary opportunities are limited. Though high school

completion enables dropouts to continue their education, a possibility many have thought about, a

minority had done so as of 1994. Although table 16 reveals that 26 percent of dropouts expected

their formal education to stop at high school, figure 7a demonstrates that among dropouts, about

one in four attended postsecondary education by 1994. Furthermore, 11 percent of dropouts enrolled in a degree program, even though 34 percent expected to complete a bachelor’s or advanced degree (figure 7a and table 16).
45

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Council on Education. 1996. Who Took the GED? GED 1995 Statistical Report. Ed. J.

Baldwin. Washington, D.C.

Beder, H. April 1992. What Has Happened to Iowa’s GED Graduates? (Research report). Des

Moines, IA: Department of Education.

Becker, G. 1964. Human Capital. National Bureau of Economic Research: New York, NY.

Cameron, S. and Heckman, J. January 1993. “The Nonequivalence of High School Equivalents.”

Journal of Labor Economics 11 (1): 1−41.

Cao, J., Stromsdorfer, E.W., and Weeks, G. Winter 1996. “The Human Capital Effect of General

Education Development Certificates on Low Income Women.” The Journal of Human Resources 31 (1): 206−228.

Johnson, M., and Valentine, T. December 1992. “Outcomes of GED Graduation: An Annotated

Bibliography of Research Reports” (unpublished report prepared by the College of Education, Athens, GA).

King, R.H. 1978. “The Labor Market Consequences of Dropping Out of High School.” (Research

report). Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University.

Kolstad, A., and Kaufman, P. March 27, 1989. “Dropouts Who Complete High School With a

Diploma or GED” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco).

McMillen, M., and Kaufman, P. 1997. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995. Washington, D.C.

McMillen, M., and Kaufman, P. 1996. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1994. Washington, D.C.

Murnane, R.J., Willett, J.B., and Boudett, K.P. Summer 1995. “Do High School Dropouts Benefit From Obtaining a GED?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (2):

133−147.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

46

Schillo, P.A. June 1990. “A Comparison of The Academic Success of GED Certificate Students

and High School Graduates at Lorain County Community College” (research report).

Bowling Green, OH. Bowling Green State University.
47

APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The items were taken directly from the National

Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88/94) Data Analysis System (DAS) (see appendix B for a description of the

DAS). The year following each variable label in the glossary is the follow-up survey year when the item was collected or year updated. (Some demographic items such as race–ethnicity were verified in each follow-up.) The

variables used in this analysis were either items taken directly from the NELS surveys or derived by combining one

or more items in these surveys.

The variables listed in the index below are in the order they appear in the report; the glossary is in alphabetical order by DAS variable name (displayed along the right-hand column).

GLOSSARY INDEX

DEMOGRAPHICS

Gender...........................................................F3SEX

Race–ethnicity ............................................F3RACE

Socioeconomic status 1988............................BYSES

ACADEMICS

Completion status 1994.......................... F3DIPLOM

Composite test quartile 1988.................BY2XQURT

Grade point average .......................................... GPA

Student’s educational expectations

 1988 ...................................................BYPSEPLN

Parents’ educational expectations

 1988 ...........................................................BYP76

Ever dropped out.......................................F3EVDST

Date of first dropout event............................FIRSTD

Number of credits when first

 dropped out........................................DROPCRED

Timing of childbearing in relation

 to dropping out ........................................DO_KID

REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT

Any family reason...................................REASFAM

Any job reason..........................................REASJOB

Any school reason..................................REASSCHL

Did not like school .....................................FIRSTR2

Changed schools and did not like

 new one.................................................FIRSTR19

Could not get along with teachers...............FIRSTR3

Could not get along with students...............FIRSTR4

Felt did not belong at school.....................FIRSTR15

Did not feel safe at school.........................FIRSTR10

Could not keep up

 with schoolwork ....................................FIRSTR16

Failing school...........................................FIRSTR17

Was suspended from school........................FIRSTR9

Expelled from school................................FIRSTR14

Wanted to have family................................FIRSTR5

Got married or planned

 to get married........................................FIRSTR18

Pregnant.....................................................FIRSTR6

Became the parent of a baby .......................FIRSTR7

Had to support my family ...........................FIRSTR8

Had to care for a family member...............FIRSTR13

Wanted to travel .......................................FIRSTR11

Friends had dropped out of school ............FIRSTR12

Got a job.....................................................FIRSTR1

Could not work and go to school

 at same time ..........................................FIRSTR20

Had a drug or alcohol problem..................FIRSTR21
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

48

HAD CONVERSATION ABOUT CONTINUING SCHOOL

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Parents........................................F2D39A

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Sibling ........................................F2D39B

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Teacher.......................................F2D39C

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Principal .....................................F2D39D

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Counselor....................................F2D39E

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Peer............................................. F2D39F

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Other relative ..............................F2D39G

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Clergy .........................................F2D39H

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Social worker ...............................F2D39I

Talked with respondent about continuing

 school—Adult friend..................................F2D39J

INTERVENTIONS

Alternative school/GED...............................INTER1

Counselor/social worker...............................INTER2

Youth center/outreach program....................INTER3

Family counseling........................................INTER4

Drug rehabilitation.......................................INTER5

Alcohol rehabilitation ..................................INTER6

CURRENT ACTIVITIES

Working full- or part-time 1994 ................. ACTST1

Vocational/technical courses at any

 school 1994 ............................................. ACTST2

Academic courses at 2- or 4-year

 college 1994 ............................................ ACTST3

Apprenticeship/government

 training 1994........................................... ACTST4

Active duty in armed forces 1994................ ACTST5

Keeping house (full-time

 homemaker) 1994.................................... ACTST6

Temporary layoff/waiting to

 report 1994.............................................. ACTST7

Looking for work 1994 ............................... ACTST8

EMPLOYMENT

Months unemployed 1993......................UNEMPL93

Average hours worked per week

 1993..................................................HRSWORK2

Like to work more hours 1993 ...............LIKEWRK2

Occupation of longest held job

 1993.................................................. OCCCODE2

Total earnings 1993............................... TOTLEAR2

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Highest PSE level attained

 1994....................................................F3PSEATN

Highest level of education

 expected 1994.....................................EDEXPECT

Number of friends who plan to

 attend a 4-year college 1992 ................F2FRCOLL
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

49

Current activities

Current activities of dropouts in February 1994. Both students and dropouts were asked to respond yes or no as

many times was applicable to the following question: “Now, please think back to the middle of February 1994. At

that time were you...”

“Working for pay at a full-time or part-time job” ACTST1

“Taking vocational or technical courses at any kind of school or college” ACTST2

“Taking academic courses at a two- or four-year college” ACTST3

“Serving in an apprenticeship program or government training program” ACTST4

“Serving on active duty in the armed forces” ACTST5

“Keeping house (that is, a full-time homemaker)” ACTST6

“Holding a job but on temporary layoff from work or waiting to report to work” ACTST7

“Looking for work” ACTST8

Parents’ educational expectations 1988 BYP76

This variable, drawn from the parent questionnaire, asked of the parents in 1988 how far in school they expected

their eighth grader to go.

High school or less Parents expected their eighth grader to complete or drop out

of high school.

Some postsecondary education Parents expected their eighth grader to attain some postsecondary education (trade school, some college, or a 2-year

degree).

Bachelor’s or higher Parents expected their eighth grader to attain a bachelor’s or

advanced degree.

Student’s educational expectations 1988 BYPSEPLN

This variable characterizes the postsecondary school plans of the student. The variable asked of the students in

1988: “as things stand now, how far in school do you think you will get?”

High school or less Expected not to complete high school or to obtain a high

school diploma.

Some postsecondary education Expected to attain some postsecondary education (attend vocational or business school, take some college courses).

Bachelor’s or higher Expected to complete a bachelor’s or advanced degree.
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

50

Socioeconomic status 1988 BYSES

This variable represents a composite measure of socioeconomic status, constructed using the following parent

questionnaire data:

Father’s education level

Mother’s education level

Father’s occupation

Mother’s occupation

Family income

For cases where all parent data components were missing (8.1 percent of the participants), student data were used

to compute the socioeconomic status centile. The first four components from the student data are the same as the

components used from parent data (i.e., father’s education level, mother’s education level, father’s occupation, and

mother’s occupation). The fifth component for BYSES from the student data consisted of summing the nonmissing household items (after recoding “Not Have Item” from “2” to “0”), calculating a simple mean of these

items, and then standardizing this mean. The variable was aggregated to quartiles for this analysis.

Low quartile Socioeconomic status fell below the 25th percentile.

Middle quartiles Socioeconomic status fell between the 25th percentile and the

75th percentile.

High quartile Socioeconomic status fell at or above the 75th percentile.

Composite test quartile 1988 BY2XQURT

Student’s eighth grade reading and math test score composite, standardized, then broken into quartiles.

Low quartile Scores were in the bottom 25 percent.

Middle quartiles Scores were in the middle 50 percent.

High quartile Scores were in the top 25 percent.

Timing of childbearing in relation to dropping out DO_KID

Compares the timing of the 1988 eighth grader’s first dropout event (FIRSTD) with the birthdate of the dropout’s

first child.

Never had kids Dropout never had a child.

Had first child at any time up to Dropout’s first child was born less than 10 months

 9 months after dropping out after dropping out (i.e., dropout was expecting a child at time

of first dropout event).

Had first child at any time after Dropout’s first child was born more than 9 months

 9 months after dropping out after first dropping out.
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

51

Number of credits when first dropped out DROPCRED

Number of credits earned in each semester was derived from the transcript course file. Then date of first dropout

event (FIRSTD) was matched to a corresponding semester, and the total number of high school credits earned before dropping out was assessed.

5 or less Completed 5 credits or less before dropping out.

5.01 to 10 Completed more than 5 but no more than 10 credits before

dropping out.

10.01 to 15 Completed more than 10 but no more than 15 credits before

dropping out.

More than 15 Completed more than 15 credits before dropping out.

Highest level of education expected 1994 EDEXPECT

This variable asked in 1994: “what is the highest level of education you ever expect to complete?”

Some high school Respondent did not expect to complete high school.

High school diploma Respondent expected to finish high school or earn an alternative credential.

Trade school Respondent expected to attend vocational, trade, or business

school after completing high school.

Some college Respondent expected to attend some college or complete an

associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree Respondent expected to complete a 4-year college program

and earn a bachelor’s degree.

Advanced degree Respondent expected to earn a master’s degree, Ph.D., M.D.,

L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S., or equivalent.

Date of first dropout event FIRSTD

Date of first dropout event was determined using both transcript and self-report data. If transcript data were not

available, the date was taken from the first follow-up survey. If no date was available in the first follow-up, it was

taken from the second.

9th grade or earlier First dropped out between time of base survey data collection

in 1988 and before June 1989.

10th grade First dropped out between June 1989 and before June 1990.

11th grade First dropped out between June 1990 and before June 1991.
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

52

12th grade First dropped out during or after June 1991.

Reasons for dropping out—individual

This variable is based on dropouts’ responses to the question “Here are some reasons other people have given for

leaving school. Which of these would you say applied to you?” Unless otherwise noted, the variable was asked in

both the first follow-up and the second follow-up surveys. Anyone responding positively to each reason in the first

follow-up was coded “yes.” If the dropout recorded a non-yes response in the first follow-up survey, the second

follow-up survey was looked at, and additional “yes” answers were appended accordingly.

“I had to get a job,” “I found a job,” or “I got a job” FIRSTR1

“I didn’t like school” FIRSTR2

“I couldn’t get along with teachers” FIRSTR3

“I couldn’t get along with other students” FIRSTR4

“I wanted to have a family” FIRSTR5

“I was pregnant” FIRSTR6

“I became the father/mother of a baby” FIRSTR7

“I had to support my family” FIRSTR8

“I was suspended too often” or “I was suspended from school” FIRSTR9

“I didn’t feel safe at school” FIRSTR10

“I wanted to travel” FIRSTR11

“My friends had dropped out of school” FIRSTR12

“I had to care for a family member” FIRSTR13

“I was expelled from school” FIRSTR14

“I felt I didn’t belong at school” FIRSTR15

“I couldn’t keep up with my schoolwork” FIRSTR16

“I was failing school” FIRSTR17

“I got married or planned to get married” FIRSTR18

“I changed schools and didn’t like my new school” FIRSTR19

“I couldn’t work and go to school at the same time” FIRSTR20

“I had a drug or alcohol problem” FIRSTR21

Talked with respondent about continuing school 1992

Asked in the dropout supplement questionnaire of the NELS second follow-up survey (1992), this variable asked of

dropouts: “Have any of the following people talked to you about continuing your education?” Those who responded

that each type of person had spoken to them were coded as a “yes” response.

Parents F2D39A

Sibling F2D39B

Teacher F2D39C

Principal F2D39D

Counselor F2D39E

Peer F2D39F

Other relative F2D39G

Clergy F2D39H

Social worker F2D39I

Adult friend F2D39J
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

53

Number of friends who plan to attend a 4-year college 1992 F2FRCOLL

Based on an item from the 1992 survey, which asked of all students: “How many of your friends plan to attend a 4-

year college?”

None None of student’s friends planned to attend 4-year college.

Few to some Few to some friends planned to attend 4-year college.

Most to all Most or all of student’s friends planned to attend 4-year college.

Completion status 1994 F3DIPLOM

This variable assesses the completion status of all students, distinguishing between various groups of dropouts. If

completion status information was collected for a sample member in 1994, the 1994 data were used, otherwise the

variable uses 1992 transcript data. If the 1992 transcript variable indicated that the sample member had received a

diploma, GED, or certificate, this question was not asked of CATI respondents directly. If 1992 transcript data

were not available for a sample member, and the 1992 data indicated the sample member was an early graduate,

then the case was treated as a diploma-earning graduate. In order to discuss the effects associated with both

whether a student completing high school and how they completed high school, the variable was aggregated in two

ways in each table:

Completed Student completed a high school diploma, GED, or alternative high school credential.

Did not complete Student had not completed a high school diploma, GED, or

alternative high school credential. Includes those who were

working on a diploma or GED.

Once it was established whether a dropout had completed high school, the variable was disaggregated to reflect

current high school status, determining if status of completion was further associated with dropout characteristics:

High school diploma Student completed a high school diploma.

GED or certificate Student completed a GED or other equivalency certificate.

Working on diploma/GED Student was working on a diploma or GED.

Stayout Student had not completed high school and was not pursuing

a diploma or alternative credential.

Ever dropped out F3EVDST

This variable indicates whether the sample members ever dropped out of high school, regardless of whether they

ever returned. If information concerning this status was collected in 1994 for a sample member, it was used. Else,

the two relevant 1992 variables (from the transcript data and non-transcript sources) were checked. If either indicated that the sample member ever dropped out, then the variable indicated the student had dropped out of high

school. This report uses F3EVDST to subset 1988 eighth graders who dropped out at least once.
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

54

Highest PSE level attained 1994 F3PSEATN

This variable is based on highest postsecondary education attained, as reported by the respondent in the 1994

NELS Third Follow-up Survey.

No postsecondary education Student had not attended any postsecondary education.

Enrolled in or completed a degree Student was working toward or had earned a 2- or

 program 4-year degree.

Enrolled in or completed a certificate Student was working toward or had earned a

 program certificate or license.

Other enrollment Student had attained some other form of postsecondary education.

Race–ethnicity F3RACE

Based on the 1992 value unless it was missing or incorrect. In addition, if it became apparent from responses to

other questions that the preloaded value was incorrect, the value was corrected in 1994. Sample members with the

value of “Other” were assigned the value -1 (missing).

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East,

Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific Islands.

This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of

race.

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of

Hispanic origin).

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

North America and who maintains cultural identification

through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Gender F3SEX

Male

Female
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

55

Grade point average (high school transcripts) GPA

This variable is the overall grade point average for all courses taken for a grade.

A and B average Student’s GPA was 2.76 or more.

C average Student’s GPA was between 1.76 and 2.75.

D and F average Student’s GPA was 1.75 or less.

Average hours worked per week 1993 HRSWORK2

This variable asked of all students, on average, how many hours per week did(do) you work at the job you held

(longest, in 1993) during the period January 1993 through December 1993?

1 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 to 40

More than 40

Intervention

This variable is based on dropouts’ yes or no responses to the question “In the past 2 years, did any of the following

things happen to you?” This question was asked in the dropout supplement questionnaires in the first follow-up

survey in 1990 and again in the second follow-up survey in 1992. Dropouts who answered the question in 1992

were included if there was no response to the question in 1990.

“I looked into an alternative school or getting a GED” INTER1

“I saw a counselor or social worker” INTER2

“I went to a youth center or outreach program” INTER3

“I went to family counseling” INTER4

“I was in a drug rehabilitation program” INTER5

“I was in an alcohol rehabilitation program” INTER6

Like to work more hours 1993 LIKEWRK2

This yes or no variable refers to the job held the longest in 1993, and asks only of those who were not working fulltime: “Would you (have) like(d) to work more hours per week at (job) during this reference period?”

Occupation of longest held job 1993 OCCCODE2

This variable asked respondents to describe their job or occupation at the job they held longest in 1993.

Clerical Includes such occupations as: secretary, typist, file clerk,

word processor, receptionist, bookkeeper, bank teller, ticket

agent, mail carrier, meter reader, dispatcher, shipping & receiving, telephone operator, messenger, library clerk, office
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

56

machine operator.

Craftsman/skilled operative/technical Includes such occupations as: baker, auto mechanic, machinist, plumber, roofer, brick mason, electrician, carpet installer,

tile setter, telephone installer, house painter, other specified

mechanics, truck driver, assembler, machine operator,

welder, inspectors, bus driver, chauffeur, forklift operator,

sewing machine operator, train engineer, printing press operator, computer programmer, computer tech, systems analyst, draftsman, medical/dental tech, lab tech, air traffic

controller, pilot, and broadcast equipment operator.

Farmer Includes such occupations as: farmer, farm manager, or

sharecropper.

Laborer Includes such occupations as: construction worker unspecified, handyman, loader, farm laborer, sanitary worker, stevedore, machine cleaner, gas station attendant, bagger,

tradesmen’s helper, stock handler.

Manager/administrator Includes such occupations as: sales manager, buyer, purchasing agent, government administrator (local, state, federal

levels), store manager, restaurant or hotel manager, manufacturing line supervisor.

Military/protective service Includes such occupations as: career officer, enlisted personnel, detective, security guard, FBI agent, prison guard, policeman, fireman.

Professional/school teacher Includes such occupations as: actor, artist, musician, athelete,

writer, photographer, disc jockey, publicist, designer, editor,

RN, social worker, engineer, physician, lawyer, paralegal,

clergyman, scientist, college professor, other postsecondary

teacher, accountant, psychologist, elementary or secondary

school teacher.

Business owner Includes such occupations as: proprietor or owner of a store,

restaurant, or hotel, or a construction contractor.

Sales Includes such occupations as: salesperson, ad or insurance

agent, cashier, real estate broker, counter help.

Service Includes such occupations as: beautician, barber,

waiter/waitress, maid, cook, janitor, nurse’s aide, orderly,

exterminator, flight attendant, kitchen help.
APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY

57

Reasons for dropping out—categorical

This variable is based on dropouts’ responses to the question “Here are some reasons other people have given for

leaving school. Which of these would you say applied to you?” Unless otherwise noted, the variable was asked in

both the first follow-up and the second follow-up surveys. Anyone responding positively to each reason in the first

follow-up was coded “yes.” If the dropout recorded a non-yes response in the first follow-up survey, the second

follow-up survey was looked at, and additional “yes” answers were appended accordingly. Variables were then

combined into categories: family, job, and school reasons.

REASFAM Any family reason. Includes: I wanted to have a family; I was

pregnant; I had became the father/mother of a baby; I had to

support my family; I had to care for a family member; and I

got married or planned to get married.

REASJOB Any job reason. Includes: I got a job; and I couldn’t work and

go to school at the same time.

REASSCHL Any school reason. Includes: I didn’t like school; I couldn’t

get along with teachers; I couldn’t get along with other students; I was suspended from school; I didn’t feel safe at

school; I was expelled from school; I felt I didn’t belong at

school; I couldn’t keep up with my school work; I was failing

school; and I changed schools and didn’t like my new school.

Total earnings 1993 TOTLEAR2

This variable asked of the student the following question: “What were your total earnings from the [number of jobs

held] job(s) you had during the period from January 1993 through December 1993?”

$2,000 or less

$2,001 to $4,000

$4,001 to $6,000

$6,001 to $10,000

More than $10,000

Months unemployed in 1993 UNEMPL93

Total number of months the sample member reported being unemployed in 1993. For this variable, “unemployed”

includes “unemployed and receiving unemployment compensation” and “unemployed and not receiving compensation.” It does not include months where the sample member reported being out of the labor force.

None

1 to 3

3 to 6

More than 6 months

59

APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND

METHODOLOGY

THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF 1988

The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) is a survey that began with

a nationally representative sample of 1988 eighth graders and followed them every two years. The

most recent follow-up survey occurred in 1994. Respondents’ teachers and schools were also surveyed in 1988, 1990, and 1992, while parents were surveyed in 1988 and 1992. In contrast to

previous longitudinal studies, NELS:88 began with eighth graders in order to collect data regarding the transition from elementary to secondary education. The first follow-up in 1990 provided

the data necessary to understand the transition. Dropouts were administered a special survey to

understand the dropout process more thoroughly. For the purpose of providing a comparison

group to 1980 sophomores surveyed in High School and Beyond, the NELS:88 sample was also

“freshened” with new participants who were tenth graders in 1990.

In spring of 1992, when most of the NELS:88 sample were twelfth graders, the second follow-up took place. This survey focused on the transition from high school to the labor force and

postsecondary education. The sample was also “freshened” in order to create a representative

sample of 1992 seniors for the purpose of conducting trend analyses with the 1972 and 1982

senior classes (National Longitudinal Study of 1972 and High School and Beyond). Students

identified as dropouts in the first follow-up were also resurveyed in 1992. In spring of 1994, the

third follow-up was administered. Sample members were questioned about their labor force and

postsecondary experiences, and family formation. For more information about the NELS:88 survey, consult the NELS:88/94 Methodology Report.36

Accuracy of Estimates

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because

observations are made only on samples of students, not on entire populations. Nonsampling errors

 

36U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study

(NELS:88/94) Methodology Report, NCES 96-174 (Washington D.C.: 1996).
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

60

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations.

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing,

sampling, and imputing missing data.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NELS:88/94 Data Analysis

System (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own

tables from the NELS:88/94 data. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables

presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard

errors and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B1 presents the standard

errors that correspond to table 1 in the text. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a

reliable estimate (less than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate.37

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors must

be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the NELS:88 stratified sampling method.

(See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the adjustment procedure.)

For more information about the NELS:88/94 and other Data Analysis Systems, consult the

NCES DAS Website (WWW.PEDAR-DAS.org) or contact:

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address:Aurora_D’Amico@ed.gov

 

37The NELS:88/94 sample is not a simple random sample and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves

approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

61

Table B1—Standard errors for report table 1: of 1988 eighth graders who dropped out, percentage 

Table B1—distribution according to 1994 high school completion status, by selected student characteristics

Completed Did not complete

Working

High toward

school GED or diploma

Total diploma certificate* Total or GED Stayout

 Total 1.87 1.26 1.83 1.87 1.36 1.92 

Gender 

 Male 2.62 1.49 2.46 2.62 1.87 2.93 

 Female 2.66 1.95 2.61 2.66 1.97 2.19 

Race–ethnicity

 Asian/Pacific Islander 8.29 6.54 4.21 8.29 7.89 12.81 

 Hispanic 3.19 2.13 2.73 3.19 3.05 3.50 

 Black, non-Hispanic 5.39 3.71 5.52 5.39 3.90 5.05 

 White, non-Hispanic 2.24 1.46 2.09 2.24 1.63 2.27 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 8.97 3.50 10.22 8.97 5.46 11.28 

Socioeconomic status 1988 

 Low quartile 2.31 1.77 1.87 2.31 2.24 2.75 

 Middle quartiles 2.70 1.81 2.62 2.70 1.93 2.67 

 High quartile 5.19 5.02 7.69 5.19 4.37 2.97 

Composite test quartile 1988

 Low quartile 2.35 1.68 2.06 2.35 2.10 2.54 

 Middle quartiles 3.10 2.15 2.96 3.10 2.01 3.20 

 High quartile 3.40 3.93 5.13 3.40 2.62 2.00 

Grade point average (high school transcripts)

 A or B average 10.93 6.82 6.54 10.93 6.98 12.87 

 C average 2.45 2.42 1.93 2.45 2.01 2.23 

 D or F average 3.09 1.44 2.77 3.09 2.50 3.98 

Student’s educational expectations 1988

 High school or less 3.51 1.53 3.69 3.51 2.55 3.19 

 Some postsecondary education 3.05 2.15 2.82 3.05 2.59 2.67 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 3.31 2.32 3.03 3.31 2.15 3.61 

Parents’ educational expectations 1988

 High school or less 3.65 1.65 3.49 3.65 2.79 4.09 

 Some postsecondary education 3.21 1.86 3.28 3.21 2.75 2.76 

 Bachelor’s degree or higher 3.24 2.60 3.09 3.24 2.06 3.21 

*GED refers to General Education Development exam.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal Study 

of 1988, Third Follow-up Survey 1994, Data Analysis System.
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

62

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

Two types of statistical procedures were employed in this report: testing differences between means, and adjustment of means after controlling for covariation among a group of variables. Each procedure is described below.

Differences Between Means

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance level.

The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the differences

between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

t =

E - E

se +se

1 2

1

2

2

2

(1)

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not independent a covariance term must be added to the formula. If the comparison is between the mean

of a subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used:

E E

se se p se

sub tot

sub tot sub

−

+ −

2 2 2

2

(2)

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.38

When comparing two percentages from a distribution that adds to 100 percent, the following formula is used:

E E

se se rse se

1 2

1

2

2

2

2 1 2

−

+ −

(3)

 

38U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, No. 2, 1993.
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

63

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.39 The estimates, standard errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons based

on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading, since the magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages but

also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making paired

comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more than one

difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those comparisons

taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p< .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the individual comparison would have p< .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p< .05.40

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of students at risk to those not at risk who

enrolled in postsecondary education only one comparison is possible (at-risk versus not-at-risk

students). In this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When students are divided into five racial-ethnic groups and all possible comparisons

are made, then k=10 and the significance level of each test must be p< .05/10, or p< .005. The

formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows:

k =

j(j −1)

2

(4)

 

39Ibid.

40The standard that p<.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to p<.05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p<.05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical

Association 56 (1961): 52–64.
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

64

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race-ethnicity,

there are five racial-ethnic groups (American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, black non-Hispanic,

Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 4,

k =

5(5 −1)

2

=10

Adjustment of Means to Control for Background Variation

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional factors

that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when examining

the percentages of those who completed a degree, it is impossible to know to what extent the observed variation is due to socioeconomic status (SES) differences and to what extent it is due to

differences in other factors related to SES, such as type of institution attended, intensity of enrollment, and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing SES within type of institution attended, within enrollment intensity, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the

patterns. When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of variation, one must use other methods to take such variation into account.

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables.41 Adjusted means for subgroups were

obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as parents’

education, students’ academic preparation, students’ educational aspirations, etc. Substituting

ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of interest and the mean proportions for the other

variables results in an estimate of the adjusted proportion for the specified subgroup, holding all

other variables constant. For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, raceethnicity and income, are used to describe an outcome, Y (such as attending a four-year college).

The variables race-ethnicity and family income are recoded into a dummy variable representing

race-ethnicity and a dummy variable representing family income:

 

41For more information about weighted least squares regression, see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression: An Introduction, Vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980); William D. Berry and Stanley Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice, Vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987).
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

65

Race–ethnicity R

Black students 1

Non-black students 0

and

Family income F

Low income 1

Not low-income 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from

the DAS:

∧

Y = a+ b1R+ b2F (5)

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other variables,

one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and the mean

for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose we had a case

where Y was being described by race-ethnicity (R) and family income (F), coded as shown above,

and the means for R and F are as follows:

Variable Mean

R 0.109

F 0.282

Suppose the regression equation results in:

∧

Y = 0.51 + (0.032)R + (-0.21)F

To estimate the adjusted value for black students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter

values into equation 5.
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

66

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.510 —

R 0.032 1.000

F -0.210 0.282

This results in:

∧

Y = 0.51 + (0.032)(1) + (-0.21)(0.282) = 0.48

In this case the probability of attending a 4-year college for black students is 0.48 and represents the expected outcome for black students who look like the average student across the other

variables (in this example, family income). In other words, the adjusted percentage who enrolled

in a four-year college is 48 percent (0.48 x 100 for conversion to a percentage).

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one of

the DAS output options is a correlation matrix, computed using pair-wise missing values.42 This

matrix can be used by most statistical software packages as the input data for least-squares regression. That is the approach used for this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate

the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular presentation, parameter estimates and standard errors were multiplied

by 100 to match the scale used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for the

NELS:88/94 survey, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors

is to multiply each standard error by the average design effect of the independent variable

(DEFT), where the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed

under the assumption of simple random sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and produced with

the correlation matrix.43

 

42Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish

to use other than pairwise treatment of missing values or to estimate probit/logit models (which are the most appropriate for

models with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. See John H. Aldrich and

Forrest D. Nelson, 1984, Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol.

45) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University Press.

43The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds., Analysis of

Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).
APPENDIX B—TECHNICAL NOTES AND METHODOLOGY

67

ANOVA Testing

In this report, ANOVA testing was used to determine the relationship of grade point average and composite test scores by diploma status (table 2 and figure 2). Below is the output table

of the analysis of these variables:

Table B2—Results of an analysis of variance used in report table 2 and report figure 2: of 1988 eighth graders who 

Table B2—dropped out and later completed high school, 1994 cumulative grade point average, by 1988 composite 

Table B2—test scores

Degrees of Sum of Mean 

freedom squares squares F

Diploma status 1 38,308 38,308 732 

Composite test quartile 1988 2 149,287 74,644 1,426 

Test scores * Diploma status 2 4,967 2,483 47 

Error ~12,000 634,385 52 

critical value F(1,*)=3.84

critical value F(2,*)=3.00

The Analysis of Variance was computed in the following manner. Using the squares of the

Taylorized standard errors, the variance between the means themselves and the unweighted sample sizes, total variance was used to partition total sums of squares into within and between sums

of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within and between variance components and the corresponding F tests. The means and standard errors were calculated directly from

the DAS. The unweighted sample sizes were not available within the DAS and were provided to

MPR by NCES.