Dropout Prevention Dropout Prevention

IES PRACTICE GUIDE

NCEE 2008-4025

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education 

to bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic 

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs. 

Authors of practice guides seldom conduct the types of systematic literature searches 

that are the backbone of a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work 

when it is already published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the 

most important research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a 

search of recent publications to ensure that research citations are up-to-date. 

Unique to IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to rigorous external peer review through the same office that is responsible for independent review 

of other IES publications. A critical task for peer reviewers of a practice guide is to 

determine whether the evidence cited in support of particular recommendations 

is up-to-date and that studies of similar or better quality that point in a different 

direction have not been ignored. Because practice guides depend on the expertise 

of their authors and their group decision-making, the content of a practice guide is 

not and should not be viewed as a set of recommendations that in every case depends on and flows inevitably from scientific research.

The goal of this practice guide is to formulate specific and coherent evidence-based 

recommendations for use by educators addressing the challenge of reducing dropping out, a challenge that lacks developed or evaluated packaged approaches. The 

guide provides practical, clear information on critical topics related to dropout prevention and is based on the best available evidence as judged by the review panel. 

Recommendations presented in this guide should not be construed to imply that 

no further research is warranted on the effectiveness of particular strategies for 

dropout prevention.
IES PRACTICE GUIDE

Dropout

Prevention

September 2008

Panel

Mark Dynarski (Chair)

MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH

Linda Clarke

CITY OF HOUSTON

Brian Cobb

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Jeremy Finn

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK—BUFFALO

Russell Rumberger 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA—SANTA BARBARA

Jay Smink

NATIONAL DROPOUT PREVENTION CENTER/NETWORK

Sta

Kristin Hallgren

MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH

Brian Gill

MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH

NCEE 2008-4025

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences under Contract ED-02-CO-0022. 

Disclaimer

The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are the authors’ and do not 

necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences 

or the U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed and applied according to the specific needs of the educators and education agency using it, 

and with full realization that it represents the judgments of the review panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that was available at the 

time of publication. This practice guide should be used as a tool to assist in decisionmaking rather than as a “cookbook.” Any references within the document to specific 

education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these products to 

the exclusion of other products that are not referenced. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 

Phoebe Cottingham 

Commissioner 

September 2008

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not 

necessary, the citation should be: 

Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout 

Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

This report is available on the IES Web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

Alternative Formats 

On request, this publication can be made available in alternative formats, such as Braille, 

large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, call the Alternative 

Format Center at 202–205–8113.
( iii )

Dropout Prevention

Contents

Introduction 1

The What Works Clearinghouse standards and their relevance to this guide 3

Dropout Prevention 4

Overview 4

Scope of the Practice Guide 8

Checklist for carrying out the recommendations 10 

Recommendation 1. Utilize data systems that support a realistic diagnosis of the 

number of students who drop out and that help identify individual students at high 

risk of dropping out (diagnostic). 12

Recommendation 2. Assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out 

(targeted intervention). 17

Recommendation 3. Provide academic support and enrichment to improve 

academic performance (targeted intervention). 22

Recommendation 4. Implement programs to improve students’ classroom behavior 

and social skills (targeted intervention). 26

Recommendation 5. Personalize the learning environment and instructional process 

(schoolwide intervention). 30

Recommendation 6. Provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage 

students in learning and provide the skills needed to graduate and to serve them 

after they leave school (schoolwide intervention). 34

Conclusion 39

Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences 40

Appendix B. About the authors 43

Appendix C. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest 45

Appendix D. Technical information on the studies 46

References 59
( iv )

dropout prevention

List of tables

1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides 2

2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence to support each 6

D1. Intensity of components of interventions related to recommendations 47

D2. Summary: Recommendation 2 53

D3. Summary: Recommendation 3 54

D4. Summary: Recommendation 4 55

D5. Summary: Recommendation 5 56

D6. Summary: Recommendation 6 57
( 1 )

Introduction

This guide is intended to be useful to educators in high schools and middle schools, 

to superintendents and school boards, and 

to state policymakers in planning and executing dropout prevention strategies. The 

target audience includes school administrators as well as district-level administrators. This guide seeks to help them develop practice and policy alternatives for 

implementation. The guide includes specific recommendations and indicates the 

quality of the evidence that supports these 

recommendations. In addition, we have 

provided a description of some ways each 

recommendation could be carried out. Our 

examples should not be construed as the 

best or most effective ways to carry out 

each recommendation. Rather, the examples illustrate practices that were noted by 

previously implemented dropout prevention programs as having had an impact on 

staying in school, progressing in school, 

or completing school. Readers need to 

note that the specific ways in which the 

practices were implemented varied widely 

based on each school’s context.

We, the authors, are a small group with 

expertise in various dimensions of this 

topic. Several of us are also experts in 

research methodology. The evidence we 

considered in developing this document 

ranges from experimental evaluations of 

dropout prevention programs to expert 

analyses of dropout prevention practices. 

For questions about what works best, highquality experimental and quasi-experimental studies—such as those meeting the 

criteria of the What Works Clearinghouse 

(http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc)—have a 

privileged position. In all cases, we pay 

particular attention to patterns of findings 

that are replicated across studies.

The process for deriving the recommendations began by collecting and examining 

research studies that have evaluated the impacts of dropout prevention programs. This 

review relied heavily, but not exclusively, on 

the existing reviews of dropout prevention 

programs that meet the evidence standards 

of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC).

Dropout prevention interventions almost 

always include multiple components. This 

bundling of components presents challenges when reviewing levels of evidence 

for each recommendation because evidence of the impact of specific intervention components on dropping out cannot 

formally be attributed to one component 

of an intervention. Identification of key 

components of each intervention therefore 

necessarily relied, to a significant degree, 

on the panel’s expert judgment.

Following the identification of key components of individual interventions, the 

interventions and key components were 

placed in a working matrix that facilitated 

the identification of features that were 

common to multiple interventions and 

therefore logical candidates as generally 

successful practices.

The panel determined the level of evidence 

for each recommendation by considering 

the effects of the intervention as determined by the WWC (table 1), the intensity 

of each component toward the impacts 

found in the evaluation, and the number 

of evaluations conducted for interventions 

that included the component.

Strong refers to consistent and generalizable evidence that a dropout prevention 

programs causes better outcomes.1

Moderate refers either to evidence from 

studies that allow strong causal conclusions but cannot be generalized with assurance to the population on which a recommendation is focused (perhaps because the 

1. Following WWC guidelines, we consider a 

positive, statistically significant effect or large 

(greater than 0.25) effect size as an indicator 

of positive effects.
Introduction

( 2 )

Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides

Strong

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as strong requires both studies with 

high internal validity (i.e., studies whose designs can support causal conclusions) and studies with high 

external validity (i.e., studies that in total include enough of the range of participants and settings on 

which the recommendation is focused to support the conclusion that the results can be generalized to 

those participants and settings). Strong evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:

•	 A systematic review of research that generally meets the standards of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 Several well-designed, randomized controlled trials or well-designed quasi-experiments that generally meet the standards of the WWC and support the effectiveness of a program, practice, or 

approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 One large, well-designed, randomized controlled, multisite trial that meets the WWC standards 

and supports the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach, with no contradictory evidence of similar quality; OR

•	 For assessments, evidence of reliability and validity that meets the Standards for Educational and 

Psychological Testing.a

Moderate

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as moderate requires studies with 

high internal validity but moderate external validity, or studies with high external validity but moderate internal validity. In other words, moderate evidence is derived from studies that support strong 

causal conclusions but where generalization is uncertain, or studies that support the generality of a 

relationship but where the causality is uncertain. Moderate evidence for this practice guide is operationalized as:

•	 Experiments or quasi-experiments generally meeting the WWC standards and supporting the effectiveness of a program, practice, or approach with small sample sizes and/or other conditions 

of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability and no contrary evidence; OR

•	 Comparison group studies that do not demonstrate equivalence of groups at pretest and therefore do not meet the WWC standards but that (a) consistently show enhanced outcomes for participants experiencing a particular program, practice, or approach and (b) have no major flaws 

related to internal validity other than lack of demonstrated equivalence at pretest (e.g., only one 

teacher or one class per condition, unequal amounts of instructional time, highly biased outcome 

measures); OR

•	 Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning influence of endogenous factors and no contrary evidence; OR

•	 For assessments, evidence of reliability that meets the Standards for Educational and Psychological 

Testingb but with evidence of validity from samples not adequately representative of the population on which the recommendation is focused.

Low

In general, characterization of the evidence for a recommendation as low means that the recommendation is based on expert opinion derived from strong findings or theories in related areas 

and/or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence that does not rise to the moderate or strong 

levels. Low evidence is operationalized as evidence not meeting the standards for the moderate 

or high level.

a. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1999).

b. Ibid.
Introduction

( 3 )

findings have not been widely replicated) or 

to evidence from studies that are generalizable but have more causal ambiguity than 

offered by experimental designs (e.g., statistical models of correlational data or group 

comparison designs for which equivalence 

of the groups at pretest is uncertain).

Low refers to expert opinion based on reasonable extrapolations from research and 

theory on other topics and evidence from 

studies that do not meet the standards for 

moderate or strong evidence.

The What Works Clearinghouse 

standards and their relevance to 

this guide

The panel relied on WWC evidence standards to assess the quality of evidence 

supporting educational programs and 

practices. The WWC addresses evidence 

for the causal validity of instructional 

programs and practices according to WWC 

standards. Information about these standards is available at http://ies.ed.gov/

ncee/wwc. The technical quality of each 

study is rated and placed into one of three 

categories:

•	 Meets Evidence Standards for randomized controlled trials and regression 

discontinuity studies that provide the 

strongest evidence of causal validity.

•	 Meets Evidence Standards with Reservations for all quasi-experimental 

studies with no design flaws and randomized controlled trials that have 

problems with randomization, attrition, or disruption.

•	 Does Not Meet Evidence Screens for 

studies that do not provide strong evidence of causal validity.

Following the recommendations and suggestions for carrying out the recommendations, appendix D presents more information on the research evidence from 

the WWC-rated evaluations to support the 

recommendation.

We appreciate the efforts of Kristin Hallgren and Brian Gill, MPR staff members 

who participated in the panel meetings, 

characterized the research findings, and 

drafted the guide. Kristin Hallgren had primary responsibility for drafting the guide 

and revising it. We also thank Duncan 

Chaplin for helpful feedback and reviews 

of earlier versions of this guide.

Mark Dynarski

Brian Cobb

Linda Clarke

Jeremy Finn

Russell Rumberger

Jay Smink
( 4 )

Dropout Prevention

Overview

Each year more than half a million young 

people drop out of high school, and the 

rate at which they drop out has remained 

about the same for the last 30 years, even 

as spending on education has increased 

significantly.1

For society as a whole, helping young people stay in and complete high school is a 

worthwhile objective. Dropouts typically 

earn less than graduates: the average earnings difference is estimated to be $9,000 

a year and $260,000 over the course of a 

lifetime.2 The economic consequences of 

dropping out may continue to worsen as 

jobs for low-skilled workers dry up.3 Dropouts contribute only about half as much in 

taxes as do high school graduates.4 They 

draw larger government subsidies in the 

form of food stamps, housing assistance, 

and welfare payments.5 They have a dramatically increased chance of landing in 

prison, and they have worse health outcomes and lower life expectancies.6

This guide presents a series of six recommendations for reducing dropout rates 

(table 2). The recommendations are divided into three categories: (i) diagnostic 

processes for identifying student-level and 

schoolwide dropout problems; (ii) targeted 

interventions for a subset of middle and 

high school students who are identified as 

at risk of dropping out; and (iii) schoolwide 

reforms designed to enhance engagement 

1. Heckman and LaFontaine (2007); Warren 

and Halpern-Manners (2007).

2. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2006); Rouse 

(2007).

3. Carnevale and Desrochers (2003).

4. Rouse (2005).

5. Waldfogel, Garfinkel, and Kelly (2007).

6. Moretti (2007); Muennig (2007).

for all students and prevent dropout more 

generally (see table 2).

The first recommendation advises schools 

and districts to utilize data systems that 

support a realistic diagnosis of the number of students who drop out and that help 

identify individual students at high risk of 

dropping out. This recommendation is essential for diagnosing the extent to which 

schools will need to implement strategies 

to address dropping out. In addition, the 

implementation of any of the subsequent 

recommendations will involve continually 

returning to the individual student data to 

monitor the success of the strategy and to 

adjust approaches as needed.

The panel viewed increasing student engagement as critical to preventing dropping out. Engagement involves active participation in learning and schoolwork as 

well as in the social life of school. While 

dropping out typically occurs during high 

school, the disengagement process may 

begin much earlier and include academic, 

social, and behavioral components.7 The 

trajectory of a young person progressing 

in school begins in elementary grades, 

where students establish an interest in 

school and the academic and behavioral 

skills necessary to successfully proceed. 

During the middle school years, students’ 

interest in school and academic skills may 

begin to lag, so that by the time students 

transition to high school, students who are 

at risk of dropping out may need intensive 

individual support or other supports to 

re-engage them in the purpose of education. Educators and policymakers need 

to consider how to implement intermediate strategies aimed at increasing student 

engagement.

Engagement includes both behavioral 

and psychological components. Attendance, class participation, effort in doing 

7. National Research Council (2004); Finn 

(1989).
Overview

( 5 )

schoolwork, and avoidance of disciplinary actions (notably suspensions) are behavioral indicators of engagement, while 

interest and enthusiasm, a sense of belonging, and identification with the school 

constitutes psychological engagement.8

Both aspects of engagement have been 

associated with dropping out of school.9

Attendance in school activities and feeling 

a sense of belonging in the school community are both critical components of school 

engagement and should be addressed as 

part of dropout prevention or intervention 

strategies.

Recommendations two, three, and four 

suggest targeting students who are the 

most at risk of dropping out by intensively 

intervening in their academic, social, and 

personal lives. Many students do not require special attention to prevent them 

from dropping out. Successful identification of the students who are in fact at risk 

can permit the implementation of intensive targeted interventions. The three targeted recommendations are complementary to each other, and the panel suggests 

employing them together.

Recommendations five and six suggest 

comprehensive, schoolwide reform strategies aimed at increasing engagement of 

all students in school. These might be 

adopted in schools with unusually high 

dropout rates, where a large proportion 

of the student population is at risk. These 

recommendations recognize the fact that 

dropping out is not always or entirely a 

function of the attitudes, behaviors, and 

external environment of the students—

that dysfunctional schools can encourage 

dropping out. When the school is part of 

the problem, recommendations five and 

six propose ambitious efforts to change 

8. Christenson (2002); Fredericks, Blumenfeld, 

and Paris (2004).

9. Jessor, Turbin, and Costa (1998); Newmann, 

Wehlage, and Lamborn (1992); Rumberger and 

Larson (1998).

the environment, curriculum, and culture of the school. Recommendation five 

provides strategies for personalizing the 

school environment in an effort to address 

the problem of anonymity and provide all 

students with a sense of belonging. Recommendation six builds on this suggestion 

by encouraging schools to provide students with meaningful learning through 

a consistent emphasis on postsecondary 

opportunities.

The panel believes that the greatest success in reducing dropout rates will be 

achieved where multiple approaches are 

adopted as part of a comprehensive strategy to increase student engagement. Although some of these strategies may have 

the capacity to improve graduation rates 

at the margin when implemented individually, the panel strongly recommends a 

strategic approach that integrates multiple 

recommendations and has the potential to 

make a bigger difference.

It is important for the reader to remember 

that the levels of evidence ratings delineated in table 2 above are not a judgment 

by the authors of this practice guide of 

how effective each of these six recommended practices will prove to be when 

implemented in a school, nor are they even 

a judgment by the authors of what prior 

research has to say about their effectiveness. As noted in appendix A, these levels 

of evidence ratings reflect judgments by 

the authors of the quality of the existing 

research literature to support a causal 

claim that when these recommended practices have been implemented in the past, 

positive effects on dropout reduction have 

been observed. They do not reflect judgments by the authors about the relative 

strength of these positive effects or the 

relative importance of these individual 

recommendations.

An example may help illustrate this distinction. Recommendation 1 has a “low” level 

of evidence rating. This means that there 
Overview

( 6 )

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence to 

support each

Recommendation Level of evidence

Diagnostic

1. Utilize data systems that support a realistic diagnosis of the number of 

students who drop out and that help identify individual students at high 

risk of dropping out. States, districts and schools should develop comprehensive, longitudinal, student level databases with unique IDs that, at a 

minimum, include data on student absences, grade retention, and low academic achievement. Data should be reviewed regularly, with a particular 

emphasis before the transitions to middle school and high school.

Low

Targeted interventions

2. Assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out. Adult advocates should have an appropriate background and low caseloads, and 

be purposefully matched with students. Adequate training and support 

should be provided for advocates.

Moderate

3. Provide academic support and enrichment to improve academic performance. Help students to improve academic performance and reengage in school. This should be implemented in conjunction with 

other recommendations.

Moderate

4. Implement programs to improve students’ classroom behavior and social 

skills. Students should establish attainable academic and behavioral goals 

and be recognized when they accomplish them. Schools can teach strategies to strengthen problem-solving and decision-making skills, and partner with community-based agencies to provide students with supports to 

address external factors affecting social and behavioral interactions.

Low

Schoolwide interventions

5. Personalize the learning environment and instructional process. A personalized learning environment creates a sense of belonging and fosters 

a school climate where students and teachers get to know one another 

and can provide academic, social, and behavioral encouragement.

Moderate

6. Provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage students in 

learning and provide the skills needed to graduate and to serve them 

after they leave school. Engagement can be increased by providing 

students with the necessary skills to complete high school and by introducing students to postsecondary options.

Moderate

Source: Authors’ compilation based on analysis described in text.
Overview

( 7 )

are few existing studies designed to test, 

in a discrete and valid way, the connection 

between utilizing diagnostic data systems 

and dropout reduction. Nonetheless, the 

authors of this practice guide, based on expert judgment and knowledge of practice, 

consider utilizing diagnostic data systems 

to be an important component of a wellimplemented dropout prevention intervention. Hence, although its level of evidence 

rating is considered low, it is included here 

as one of our six recommended practices.
( 8 )

Scope of the 

Practice Guide

The purpose of this practice guide is to 

provide evidence-based recommendations 

on preventing dropping out. These recommendations are intended to promote student engagement with school, suggesting 

practical ways in which administrators 

can structure efforts aimed at individual 

students, schoolwide communities, or ideally both.

This practice guide recommends steps for 

educators, administrators, and policymakers to reduce dropping out. The guide aims 

to identify effective practices contributing 

to staying in school and completing high 

school with a regular diploma. It does not 

address “recovery” practices designed to 

bring dropouts back to school or to help 

them earn a General Educational Development (GED) certificate. Nor does it discuss rule-based efforts to keep students 

in school longer, such as raising the age at 

which students are permitted to drop out 

or increasing the enforcement of truancy 

laws. Although such efforts may in some 

instances reduce dropout rates, this guide 

is focused on strategies that increase students’ motivation to stay in school rather 

than penalizing them for not staying in 

school.

The suggestions in this guide are intended to be school-based practices that 

address students’ academic, behavioral, 

and personal needs. While the panel 

feels strongly that early interventions 

in preschool and elementary grades can 

establish a critical foundation for school 

engagement, this guide addresses more 

immediate precursors to dropping out 

that can be implemented at the middle 

or high school level. In the same vein, 

while the panel acknowledges the importance of efforts to address the multiple contexts in which students live, 

the guide does not address practices 

that involve community- or family-based 

interventions.

The promising results of some dropout 

prevention programs and school reform 

initiatives suggest the possibility that 

graduation rates across the country might 

be measurably improved by implementing 

their strategies on a larger scale. The challenge for the panel, in creating this guide, 

was to distill the evidence from specific 

programs into a set of more general strategies. The aim of the guide is not to endorse specific branded interventions, but 

to identify a set of strategies and practices 

that are key components of interventions 

that have demonstrated promise in reducing dropout rates.

Dropout prevention interventions almost 

always include multiple components, and 

the effects of specific intervention components on dropping out cannot be causally 

attributed to one component of an intervention. To assess the importance of specific components and strategies, the panel 

reviewed the implementation reports of 

interventions that have been rigorously 

evaluated to document the components of 

each intervention. It then grouped interventions that included similar components 

to derive the six recommendations, and 

referred to implementation reports to provide accurate suggestions for how schools 

might successfully carry out each recommendation. The panel considered the extent to which various components were 

described—in implementation reports or 

by developers—as significant aspects of 

the intervention (see appendix D).

Schools and districts may have challenges 

in implementing the panel’s recommendations in a way that is as effective as the 

model programs that were reviewed for 

this guide. Initiation of targeted, schoolwide, and long-term strategies should 

include a plan to ensure high-quality 

implementation of the strategies. Highquality implementation of the strategies, 
Scope of the Practice Guide

( 9 )

individually and as part of a larger, comprehensive plan, will require investments 

in professional development for staff, not 

only to promote staff skills but also, where 

necessary, to change staff behaviors and 

attitudes.

Administrators, staff, and policymakers 

may not see immediate benefits of the 

fruits of their dropout prevention efforts; 

schoolwide reforms and efforts with middle school students, for example, may take 

years to produce measurable improvements, even if implemented effectively. 

Nevertheless, the recommendations in 

this guide derive from the characteristics 

of dropout prevention programs, school 

reforms, and policy interventions that 

have shown promise to reduce dropping 

out. While these programs vary in their 

specific components, they have features 

in common that suggest general strategies 

for educators and policymakers trying to 

reduce dropout rates.
( 10 )

Checklist for carrying out the 

recommendations

Recommendation 1. 

Utilize data systems that support a 

realistic diagnosis of the number of 

students who drop out and that help 

identify individual students at high 

risk of dropping out

Use longitudinal, student-level data to 

get an accurate read of graduation and dropout rates.

Use data to identify incoming students 

with histories of academic problems, truancy, behavioral problems, and retentions.

 Monitor the academic and social performance of all students continually.

 Review student-level data to identify 

students at risk of dropping out before key 

academic transitions.

 Monitor students’ sense of engagement 

and belonging in school.

 Collect and document accurate information on student withdrawals.

Recommendation 2. 

Assign adult advocates to students at 

risk of dropping out

 Choose adults who are committed to 

investing in the student’s personal and academic success, keep caseloads low, and 

purposefully match students with adult 

advocates.

 Establish a regular time in the school day 

or week for students to meet with the adult.

 Communicate with adult advocates 

about the various obstacles students may 

encounter—and provide adult advocates 

with guidance and training about how to 

work with students, parents, or school staff 

to address the problems.

Recommendation 3. 

Provide academic support and 

enrichment to improve academic 

performance

 Provide individual or small group support in test-taking skills, study skills, or targeted subject areas such as reading, writing, 

or math.

 Provide extra study time and opportunities for credit recovery and accumulation 

through after school, Saturday school, or 

summer enrichment programs.

Recommendation 4. 

Implement programs to improve 

students’ classroom behavior and 

social skills

 Use adult advocates or other engaged 

adults to help students establish attainable 

academic and behavioral goals with specific 

benchmarks.

 Recognize student accomplishments.

 Teach strategies to strengthen problemsolving and decision-making skills.

 Establish partnerships with communitybased program providers and other agencies such as social services, welfare, mental 

health, and law enforcement.

Recommendation 5. 

Personalize the learning environment 

and instructional process

 Establish small learning communities.

 Establish team teaching.

 Create smaller classes.

 Create extended time in classroom 

through changes to the school schedule.

 Encourage student participation in 

extracurricular activities.
Checklist for carrying out the recommendations

( 11 )

Recommendation 6. 

Provide rigorous and relevant 

instruction to better engage students 

in learning and provide the skills 

needed to graduate and to serve them 

after they leave school

 Provide teachers with ongoing ways to 

expand their knowledge and improve their 

skills.

 Integrate academic content with career 

and skill-based themes through career academies or multiple pathways models.

Host career days and offer opportunities for work-related experiences and visits 

to postsecondary campuses.

 Provide students with extra assistance 

and information about the demands of 

college.

 Partner with local businesses to provide 

opportunities for work-related experience 

such as internships, simulated job interviews, or long-term employment.
( 12 )

Recommendation 1. 

Utilize data systems 

that support a realistic 

diagnosis of the 

number of students 

who drop out and 

that help identify 

individual students at 

high risk of dropping 

out (diagnostic).

Regularly analyzing student data is the 

critical first step both for determining 

the scope of the dropout problem and 

for identifying the specific students 

who are at risk of dropping out and 

should be considered for extra services 

or supports. The effectiveness of 

programs to reduce dropping out 

depends on whether they are provided 

to the students who are most in need, 

and whether they are designed to meet 

student needs. Programs designed to 

target students at risk of dropping out 

need a way to identify the population 

they wish to serve.

In addition, in some high schools, 

large proportions of students fail 

to graduate. Schools where data 

indicate that very large proportions of 

students are at risk of dropping out 

should consider adopting systemic, 

schoolwide changes alongside targeted 

programs for individual students who 

are at the highest risk of dropping 

out. An initial diagnostic assessment 

can help determine whether the scope 

of the problem merits schoolwide 

interventions alongside interventions 

targeted to students at particular risk of 

dropping out. Even then, comprehensive 

school reform models will still need to 

identify students who need extra help 

through targeted programs.

Level of evidence: Low

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as low because there 

have been no studies that directly evaluate the effect of using data on staying in 

school, progressing in school, or completing school. The panel believes, nonetheless, that this recommendation is a critical component in identifying students for 

whom the subsequent recommendations 

of this practice guide are targeted. The 

effectiveness of the targeted and schoolwide interventions in the recommendations that follow will depend on the extent 

to which they are based on an accurate 

assessment of the dropout problem. In 

addition, it is critical that updated, realtime data be used to evaluate the quality 

of implementation of any of the recommended practices.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support this recommendation

The critical first step for preventing dropping out is understanding who is at risk 

of dropping out.1 Implementing a generic 

program without assessing the extent of 

the problem and accurately identifying 

the students who need it is ill advised. 

Dropout interventions should be matched 

to the characteristics, climate, and practices of the school and its students who 

are at risk of dropping out.2 Schools need 

to identify accurately the specific students who need intervention, and choose 

interventions that align with an accurate 

assessment of the problem. Responding to symptoms may be ineffective if 

the source of the problem is not understood. For example, schools with chronic 

1. Kronick and Hargis (1998); Morton (1998); 

Skromme, Van Allen, and Bensen (1998).

2. Duttweiler (1995); Wehlage et al. (1989).
1. Utilize data systems

( 13 )

attendance problems may be tempted to 

implement stronger attendance monitoring, Attendance monitoring may be necessary, but the schools also need to collect 

information on why students are not attending if they are to effectively address 

the problem.3

The development of comprehensive, longitudinal, student-level databases that include unique student IDs has permitted 

researchers to identify factors associated 

with dropping out. Such databases now 

permit school personnel to better identify 

the individual students at risk of dropping 

out, and to identify them earlier.4 Researchers agree that student absences, grade retention, and low academic achievement are 

indicators for dropping out,5 and research 

shows that critical transition points such 

as the move from middle school to high 

school are difficult for already struggling 

students.6 Low socio-economic status and 

behavioral problems are also known risk 

factors for dropping out.7

How to carry out this 

recommendation

Districts and schools should use student 

data to answer four questions: (1) What 

3. Dynarski and Gleason (1998).

4. Farmer and Payne (1992); Kronick and Hargis (1998); Roderick (1993); Suh, Suh, and Houston (in press); Vallerand, Fortier, and Guay 

(1997); Wehlage (1989).

5. Battin-Pearson et al. (2000); Barrington and 

Hendricks (1989); Garnier, Stein, and Jacobs 

(1997); Ensminger and Slusarick (1992); Jimerson, Anderson, and Whipple (2002); Alexander, 

Entwisle, and Horsey (1997); Finn and Rock 

(1997); Morris, Ehren, and Lenz (1991); Rumberger (1995); Allensworth and Easton (2005).

6. Allensworth and Easton (2007); Roderick 

and Camburn (1999).

7. Goldschmidt and Wang (1999); Rumberger 

and Larson (1998); Ekstrom et al. (1986); Phelan 

(1992); Rumberger (1987); Suh, Suh, and Houston (in press).

is the scope of the dropout problem? (2) 

Which students are at high risk of dropping out? (3) Why do individual students 

drop out? (4) When are students are at risk 

of dropping out? Schools should designate a staff member or team to regularly 

monitor data on incoming students, existing students, and students who recently 

left school. This task should not just be 

a review of data. It should include regular monitoring and following up with students when needed, which could be done 

through student advisories or adult advocates (see recommendation 2).

1. Use longitudinal, student-level data to get 

an accurate read of graduation and dropout rates. Historically, states have often 

overestimated graduation rates and underestimated dropout rates by establishing 

generous definitions that do not provide a 

complete picture of the number of students 

who drop out.8 Definitions of dropout rates 

are sometimes not clearly connected to definitions of graduation rates, which can lead 

to contradictory impressions depending on 

whether graduation rates or dropout rates 

are examined. To respond to the dropout 

problem, states, districts, and schools first 

need an accurate understanding of its scope. 

This requires, ideally, the use of longitudinal 

student databases with unique statewide 

identifiers for individual students, that follow them from high school entry to graduation or dropout and that include all public, 

charter, and private schools to account for 

school or district transfers. Such longitudinal 

databases allow policymakers to measure 

8. See Engberg and Gill (2006) for an example 

of how this works in one state. Dropout rates 

in Pennsylvania have been calculated by dividing the total number of students who officially 

dropped out in a 12-month period by the total 

enrollment in grades 7–12 during that period. 

This produces very low dropout estimates for 

two reasons. First, many dropouts are not officially reported as dropouts. Second, the denominator includes large numbers of students 

who are not old enough to drop out (such as 

those in 7th and 8th grade).
1. Utilize data systems

( 14 )

graduation and dropout rates using sensible 

definitions: Graduation rates can be defined 

as the percentage of students who graduate 

within four, five, or six years of entering high 

school, and dropout rates can similarly be 

defined as the percentage of students who 

leave school without graduating after four, 

five, or six years since entering high school. 

The National Governors Association (NGA; 

2005) recently endorsed the development 

of consistent and accurate measures that 

use student-level data longitudinally to accurately measure graduation and dropout 

rates. The U.S. Department of Education 

(2008) also recently endorsed the NGA approach to be used nationwide.9

2. Use data to identify incoming students 

with histories of academic problems, truancy, behavioral problems, and retentions. 

Student absences, grade retention, low academic achievement, and behavior problems 

are strong indicators of dropout risk.10 At a 

minimum, schools should review incoming 

students’ attendance records, grade retention, disciplinary records, and academic assessments. Schools should review additional 

information about students from previous 

teachers about level of motivation, academic 

potential, social skills, or difficulty to teach. 

Because elementary teachers interact regularly with the same group of students, this 

approach may be especially useful in middle 

schools to assist students with the transition 

between elementary and middle school.

3. Monitor the academic and social performance of all students continually. Schools 

should monitor student progress by regularly reviewing student transcripts, test 

9. U.S. Department of Education (2008).

10. Battin-Pearson et al. (2000); Barrington 

and Hendricks (1989); Garnier, Stein, and Jacobs (1997); Ensminger and Slusarick (1992); 

Jimerson, Anderson, and Whipple (2002); Alexander, Entwisle, and Horsey (1997); Finn and 

Rock (1997); Morris, Ehren, and Lenz (1991); 

Rumberger (1995); Allensworth and Easton 

(2005).

scores, and discipline referrals. Schools can 

use this type of data to identify students who 

recently experienced a life event, academic 

challenges, or other social or behavioral 

problems that may indicate a higher risk of 

dropping out. The burden of data monitoring 

can be reduced by using automated alerts in 

the electronic data systems to call attention 

to students whose behavior or progress suggests increased risk of dropping out.11

4. Review student-level data to identify students at risk of dropping out before key 

academic transitions. Research suggests 

that students are more likely to drop out of 

school following a transition to high school, 

but they can be flagged early for risk of 

dropping out.12 Schools should pay particular attention to students who have failed 

courses, encountered frequent disciplinary 

problems, or been chronically absent in 

early high school, middle school, and even 

elementary school.

5. Monitor students’ sense of engagement 

and belonging in school. Data collection 

and monitoring about school climate or the 

nature of teacher-student interactions can 

help schools identify areas for improvement. Schools can survey students periodically or conduct purposefully selected small 

group interviews to learn about student perceptions of school climate and their sense 

of belonging and engagement. Surveys or 

focus groups can cover topics such as the 

supportiveness of the school environment, 

perceptions of safety, academic rigor, and 

interactions with adults and other students.13

Data collected can be used to monitor school 

climate and help identify where to focus re11. Neild, Balfanz, and Herzog (2007); Allensworth and Easton (2005).

12. Allensworth and Easton (2007); Roderick 

and Camburn (1999).

13. For examples of school climate surveys in 

practice, see Austin and Benard (2007), Chicago Public Schools (2007), and Willms and 

Flanagan (2008).
1. Utilize data systems

( 15 )

form efforts and whether current efforts are 

effective in improving school climate and 

engagement.

6. Collect and document accurate information on student withdrawals. Departure 

codes often disguise the real reasons why 

students become disengaged or drop out 

of school.14 If data on school leavers is not 

specific or accurate, administrators will not 

be able to assess the real problems and 

possibly not pursue appropriate dropout 

prevention practices. Administrative codes 

such as “left school” offer little help to administrators working to understand how many 

students drop out and why. At the same 

time, student mobility also contributes to 

the problem, but is not always documented 

accurately. Codes indicating a transfer to 

another school should be used only when 

enrollment in the other school has been verified. Districts need unique IDs for students 

and policies for assigning them at the state 

level so that dropout rates are neither over 

nor undercounted.

Potential roadblocks and 

suggested approaches

The sheer volume of data generated in 

school systems is one roadblock. Increased 

resources, such as staff for data entry or 

systemwide technology updates, can help 

surmount it, but finding these resources 

may be difficult given other budgeting priorities. Nonetheless, the panel highlights 

these roadblocks in an effort to underscore 

the importance of data in preventing dropping out.

1. Systems and procedures to update data 

are slow and outdated. Districts and schools 

with outdated data systems will encounter problems consolidating and analyzing 

student-level data.

Suggested Approach: Integrated, real-time, 

longitudinal data systems now exist that 

14. See, for example, Engberg and Gill (2006).

can provide educators and administrators 

with timely and comprehensive information on each student.

2. Bureaucratic or organizational obstacles 

may hinder information sharing between 

the district and schools, school to school, 

or within schools.

Suggested Approach: Districts can centralize data collection and dissemination to 

schools on a monthly or quarterly basis so 

that schools can regularly monitor student 

progress. Districts can also set up systems 

to promote the sharing of information 

across grade levels within feeder patterns 

of schools, such as using unique student 

IDs, to increase staff accountability for students moving from elementary to middle 

school and from middle to high school. 

Schools can adopt policies that promote 

regular communication about student 

data. For example, attendance office staff 

can update teachers about students who 

have had many absences, or early warning systems can use attendance data combined with and information about course 

failures, which do not require waiting for 

district or state data, to identify students 

at risk of dropping out.

3. Data codes do not accurately reflect student mobility, in part because of stigmas 

about schools with high numbers of dropouts. District and school administrators 

cannot adequately design and implement 

dropout prevention practices if the data underestimate the extent of the problem.

Suggested Approach: Districts and schools 

need to adjust data codes to include reasons 

for leaving. Students should not be counted 

as transferring to another school unless the 

receiving school has formally verified the 

student’s enrollment. Central office staff can 

occasionally conduct audits of withdrawal 

data to verify the accuracy of the data.

4. Staff may become burdened with extra 

data monitoring responsibilities.
1. Utilize data systems

( 16 )

Suggested Approach: Early warning systems should be automated to the extent 

possible, to avoid additional burden on 

staff. Electronic systems should include 

programs that automatically flag students 

showing a high risk of dropping out, as 

indicated by substantial attendance problems, course failures, grade retention, and 

behavioral problems. Schools can create a 

team of individuals including attendance 

staff, counselors, adult advocates (see recommendation 2), and other relevant staff 

to monitor data from different sources, 

such as attendance and course failure 

data, in an effort to spread responsibility 

and use the data thoughtfully.
( 17 )

Recommendation 2. 

Assign adult advocates 

to students at risk of 

dropping out (targeted 

intervention).

Personal and academic needs can be 

addressed through a meaningful and 

sustained personal relationship with 

a trained adult. The adult should be 

responsible for addressing academic 

and social needs, communicating with 

the families, and advocating for the 

student. The adult and student should 

have time to meet regularly. Training 

for adult advocates is essential.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as moderate. The 

panel examined five experimental studies of four dropout interventions that included an adult advocacy component.15

While the design quality of several of these 

studies was of sufficient quality to allow a 

high level of evidence rating, two important features of this set of five studies, in 

the aggregate, suggested a moderate rating instead. First, and most important, 

while three interventions included adult 

advocates as a key component, none of 

these five studies assessed the discrete 

effect of using adult advocates on dropout prevention outcomes. In all five cases 

the use of adult advocates was bundled 

with other intervention components with 

no independent assessment of individual 

component effects.

Second, across all five studies, there was 

a fairly wide variation in observed effects 

15. Larson and Rumberger (1995); Sinclair et 

al. (1998); Sinclair, Christensen, and Thurlow 

(2005); Shirm, Stuart, and McKie (2006); Quint 

et al. (2005).

on dropout prevention and staying in 

school. For example, of the three studies that included adult advocates as a key 

component, only two interventions demonstrated positive or potentially positive 

effects on staying in school or progressing in school.16 The third intervention 

showed no discernible effect on staying 

in school.17 The generalizability of these 

findings is somewhat limited because the 

extent of evidence for each effectiveness 

rating was small for all three interventions. However, these three interventions 

demonstrated effectiveness in a variety 

of settings, including middle schools and 

high schools across several states. The 

panel also considered a fourth intervention that included a case worker for participating students, but the role of this 

adult was less substantial than the intensive role played by the adult advocate 

in the other three interventions.18 This 

fourth intervention showed no discernible effects on progressing in school and 

completing school.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Students at risk of dropping out often 

have significant personal, family, and social barriers that interfere with the ability 

to go to school and do well.19 Research 

suggests that students who have ongoing 

relationships with adults feel a greater 

sense of school membership, attachment, 

and involvement.20 Additional benefits 

of adult-student relationships include reduced risky behaviors, reduced absentee 

rates, improved grades, and improved 

16. Larson and Rumberger (1995); Sinclair et 

al. (1998).

17. Quint et al. (2005).

18. Shirm et al. (2006).

19. Dynarski and Gleason (1998); Rumberger 

(2004).

20. Wehlage (1989); Wehlage et al. (1989).
2. Assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out

( 18 )

communication and social skills.21 The 

adult advocate helps students overcome 

these barriers by assisting the student in 

addressing academic, personal, and emotional needs. The advocate can model 

positive and respectful behavior and offer 

guidance, stability, and assistance in making intelligent choices.

In at least three interventions that have 

been rigorously evaluated, adult advocates played a key role in fostering school 

engagement by providing students with 

opportunities to develop a sense of belonging at school and by providing accountability for academic or behavioral 

progress.22 In each intervention, students 

participating in treatment groups that included intensive meetings with an adult 

advocate assigned to the student showed 

promising improvement in outcomes related to dropout prevention.

In one intervention adult advocates 

worked intensively with high-risk and 

disabled Latino students in one junior 

high school.23 The adult-student relationship rested on four key principles: 

accountability for student progress, accepting students “as they are,” attending 

to the complex needs of students at risk of 

dropping out, and offering flexibility and 

individualization to the student. The aim 

of the intervention was to build a trusting relationship in which students felt 

a sense of belonging and identification 

with another adult and ultimately with 

the school. The study found that students 

who participated in the treatment group 

earned more credits toward graduation, 

demonstrated reduced absenteeism, and 

21. Pringle et al. (1993); Cragar (1994); Sipe 

(1996); McPartland and Nettles (1991); Grossman and Garry (1997).

22. Larson and Rumberger (1995); Sinclair et 

al. (1998); Quint et al. (2005).

23. Larson and Rumberger (1995).

improved their grades relative to those in 

the control group.

A second intervention also demonstrated 

the promising effects that adult advocates 

can have on outcomes related to dropout 

prevention.24 Implemented in middle and 

high schools, the intervention includes 

an adult monitor who works intensively 

with students to provide academic support, conflict resolution skills, and recreational and community service exploration. Students in the treatment group 

earned more credits toward high school 

completion than students in the control 

group and were less likely to have dropped 

out of school at the end of the first followup year.

Other interventions also incorporate 

adult mentors, but with differing levels 

of intensity of the relationship between 

the adult and the student.25 The evaluations of these other interventions did 

not examine the primary outcomes related to dropping out: staying in school, 

progressing in school, or completing 

school.

How to carry out this 

recommendation

Assign an adult advocate to work individually with students who are at a high risk 

of dropping out. The adult advocate acts 

as a case manager who interacts with the 

student daily, and could be a resource 

teacher, community member, or a social 

worker. The adult advocate should offer 

guidance on matters inside and outside 

of school, model positive behavior and 

decision-making skills, and be an encouraging and trusted person in the student’s 

life. The adult helps address obstacles 

that prevent students from progressing 

24. Sinclair et al. (1998).

25. See LoSciuto et al. (1996); Harrell, Cavanaugh, and Sridharan (1998).
2. Assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out

( 19 )

in school. Here the panel provides specific suggestions regarding who adult advocates should be, how schools might use 

adult advocates, and the types of daily 

responsibilities adult advocates might expect to undertake.

1. Choose adults who are committed to investing in the student’s personal and academic success, keep caseloads low, and 

purposefully match students with adult advocates. The adult advocate needs to be able 

to devote time and energy to multiple facets of the student’s life. Although teachers 

can act as advocates, teachers are unlikely 

to have the time needed for the advocacy 

relationship. School counselors might serve 

as advocates, but the large caseloads of 

most school counselors typically preclude 

an intensive advocacy relationship. The adult 

advocate could be a resource teacher, community member, or social worker. The adult 

advocate should be based primarily at the 

school, and should embody key personal 

characteristics, including persistence, belief 

in the ability of all students to succeed, a willingness to work cooperatively with families 

and school staff, and advocacy and communication skills.26

Building trust is critical for the development of the relationship between the student and the adult. With this in mind, advocates should not have caseloads larger 

than 15 students, and matches should take 

individual student needs into account so 

that the adult can effectively advocate on 

the student’s behalf and adapt activities 

according to the student’s interests and 

goals.27 Purposefully matching students 

and adults increases the likelihood that 

the relationship will thrive. Increasing 

school engagement depends on the commitment and practices of adults in the 

26. Larson and Rumberger (1995); Sinclair et 

al. (1998).

27. Sinclair et al. (1998); McPartland and Nettles (1991); Smink (1990).

school.28 It is important to provide advocates whom the students feel they can 

identify with, including advocates who 

reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity of 

the students they are mentoring.29

2. Establish a regular time in the school day 

or week for students to meet with the adult. 

It takes time for meaningful relationships 

between adults and students to have an 

impact.30 Consistent meetings between the 

advocate and the student provide accountability and the opportunity for the advocate 

to suggest guidance or praise successes. 

Students also need time to communicate 

frustrations or details about personal encounters. Such conversations merit regular 

meeting times in order to establish a trusting relationship. The amount of time needed 

for meetings depends on the severity of the 

student’s problems: some need daily meetings, while weekly meetings may be sufficient for others.

3. Communicate with adult advocates 

about the various obstacles students may 

encounter—and provide adult advocates with 

guidance and training about how to work 

with students, parents, or school staff to address the problems. Adult advocates should 

be prepared to help students overcome obstacles that may range from transportation 

to school to poor relationships with teachers. The adult may spend time working with 

the student on attendance by conducting 

intensive attendance monitoring, possibly 

including contacting the student directly or 

contacting parents if the student is not in 

class. The adult can help the student develop 

career goals and postsecondary plans (see 

recommendation 6). Adults can work with 

students on academic progress by monitoring the completion of homework assignments, or with teachers to learn about the 

28. Weinberger (1992); Wehlage et al. (1989).

29. Larson and Rumberger (1995).

30. Gunn and King (2003); Letgers et al. 

(2002).
2. Assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out

( 20 )

student’s academic difficulties. Advocates 

may even help the student’s family by referring the parent to potential jobs or school 

training programs, or by making appointments or providing transportation to social 

service agencies.

Orientation and training for adults are critical to the success of a student-advocate relationship.31 Training for advocates should 

include information about resources available to assist the student and family. 

Proper training of adult advocates may 

be particularly important during times 

when the student is struggling with academic or behavior problems and may not 

be interested in meeting with the advocate. 

In addition, training and support can help 

alleviate burnout caused by the time and 

emotional demands, on even those staff 

who are interested in this role.

Potential roadblocks and 

suggested approaches

1. Many schools lack ongoing systems and 

processes for meeting with students. School 

schedules leave little room for discussions 

about life events, struggles, frustrations, and 

possible solutions.

Suggested Approach: Administrators 

should consider reallocating daily schedules to provide a specific period for adult 

advocate-student meetings to occur, or requiring meetings to occur during breaks 

within the school day, such as lunch or advisory periods. Allocating enough time for 

the student and adult advocate to meet is 

the key to building the relationship; superficial meetings rarely result in trusting (and 

useful) relationships. Administrators can 

also be supportive of the flexibility advocates may need in meeting with students.

2. Schools may find that staff or other adults 

are not available or not interested in working 

with students as adult advocates.

31. Grossman and Garry (1997); Sipe (1996).

Suggested Approach: Schools should not 

force staff to be advocates if they are not 

interested in or committed to developing a 

trusting relationship with the student. Ideally the adult should be available before, 

during, or after school hours to work full 

time as an advocate. Resource constraints 

may limit administrator ability to implement this type of intensive relationship 

(see roadblock 4). Schools can consider 

partnering with local social service agencies or faith-based organizations to provide adult advocates.

3. Resistance from staff who think that students already receive adult advocacy from 

school counselors. School counselors (as 

their jobs are typically defined) and teachers may not have adequate time to address 

individual student needs to the extent recommended, and may assume that this type 

of intensive mentoring and engagement is 

someone else’s problem.

Suggested Approach: Administrators first 

need to clearly define and explain the role 

of the advocates for the staff so that the 

advocates can effectively work with teachers and counselors on behalf of the student. Administrators also must encourage 

a cultural shift that shares responsibilities 

for fostering student success among all 

school staff.

4. Insufficient resources are available to hire 

staff as advocates.

Suggested Approach: Not all students in 

a school are in need of an advocate. One 

way to keep costs manageable is to ensure that other recommendations in this 

guide are effectively implemented so that 

the students who are most at risk of dropping out are the ones who are assigned 

advocates. For instance, better identification of those who are in need (recommendation 1) can allow more efficient 

targeting of limited staff time, and personalizing the learning environment within 

the school (recommendation 5) can reduce 
2. Assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out

( 21 )

the number of students who need an adult 

advocate.

5. Staff perceptions that students at risk of 

dropping out are receiving special treatment 

despite poor academic performance, absenteeism, or other negative behavior.

Suggested Approach: Administrators need 

to be the most enthusiastic supporters of 

the adult advocates. This includes clearly 

explaining the role of the advocate to staff 

and encouraging advocates and teachers, 

counselors, or other staff members to work 

together for the benefit of the student. Administrators should seek input and feedback from both teachers and advocates 

about student progress so that improvements within the school can be implemented. Schools can also adopt more flexible policies for the advocates in helping 

students. For example, changing student 

schedules mid-year typically is not accommodated, but may be required for a struggling student.

6. Students might not want to meet with an 

adult advocate.

Suggested Approach: The job of the adult 

advocate is to establish and maintain a 

trusting relationship with the student. 

This will likely require persistence on 

the part of the adult, and highlights the 

importance of the adult advocate’s taking responsibility for the success of the 

student. If the student is not interested 

in meeting, it is the adult’s responsibility to find the student and establish a relationship or to determine an alternative 

approach for helping the student that the 

student agrees to.
( 22 )

Recommendation 3. 

Provide academic 

support and 

enrichment to improve 

academic performance 

(targeted intervention).

Providing academic supports helps 

improve academic performance and reengage students in school. The panel 

suggests that this recommendation 

be implemented in conjunction with 

other recommendations in this practice 

guide.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as moderate because 

of the varying effect of different interventions on dropping out and the varying 

level of intensity of academic supports 

among the evaluated interventions. The 

panel considered 12 rigorous studies of 

8 dropout interventions that included an 

academic support component. Four interventions included academic support as a 

substantial component of the intervention. 

Among the studies of these interventions, 

two found positive or potentially positive 

effects on progressing in school.32 However, the relationship between the components in these interventions and outcomes associated with dropping out, a key 

consideration in making a “moderate” or 

“high” level of evidence rating, is uncertain 

because at least two studies of two interventions that included academic support 

as a key component found no discernible 

effects on outcomes related to dropout 

prevention. The panel also considered five 

rigorous studies of four interventions that 

included academic supports as smaller 

32. Dynarski and Wood (1997); Kemple, Herlihy, and Smith (2005).

component of the intervention.33 Of these 

studies, effects ranged from not discernible to positive.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Research shows that low academic performance, absenteeism, and grade retention are related to dropping out.34 Providing academic supports, such as tutoring 

or enrichment programs, helps address 

skill gaps and offset a cycle of frustration, 

and can enrich the academic experience 

for students who may be bored or disengaged.35 Academic struggles may also 

play a role in students feeling alienated 

from school, so incentives such as leadership opportunities in academic areas 

or rewards for improved performance 

may help increase academic and student 

engagement.36

Interventions aimed at preventing dropping out primarily incorporate academic 

support components in one of two ways: 

1) by offering more intensive in or out of 

school programs, or 2) through homework 

assistance or tutoring programs. Both 

types of academic support are intended 

to help students reach proficiency levels 

in key academic areas, but because these 

strategies differ and are often offered in 

conjunction with other services, the evidence from interventions employing these 

strategies varies.

33. Constantine et al. (2006); Dynarski et al. 

(1998); Sinclair et al. (1998); Sinclair, Christensen, and Thurlow (2005); Larson and Rumberger (1995).

34. Lee and Burkam (2003); Rumberger (1995); 

Rumberger and Thomas (2000); Rumberger 

and Palardy (2005); Rumberger and Larson 

(1998).

35. Balfanz, McPartland, and Shaw (2002).

36. Wehlage (1989); National Research Council 

(2004); Quint et al. (2005); Larson and Rumberger (1995).
3. Provide academic support and enrichment to improve academic performance

( 23 )

Two interventions that have been rigorously evaluated provide evidence that students at risk of dropping out who receive 

academic support through specific courses 

may be effective. One intervention, a whole 

school reform model for high schools, offers additional reading or math courses for 

students who need additional support.37

The reading course works in conjunction 

with other core reading courses offered at 

the school, and incorporates educational 

software as an important component of 

the curriculum. This intervention also includes summer school and Saturday school 

components for students to both accumulate credits and receive academic help. Students from the intervention schools made 

larger improvements on academic credits 

and promotion than students from the 

comparison group. However, because the 

intervention contains several large-scale 

whole school reform efforts, it is important 

to note that the effects of the intervention 

on dropping out may not be attributable 

to academic support components.

A second intervention offers remedial 

reading programs for students as part of 

the daily schedule. However, the intervention itself differs from other interventions 

in that it is an alternative high school 

model where students are also provided 

opportunities for credit accumulation 

and independent study.38 Thus, while the 

academic support through a specific remedial reading program may be effective 

for preventing dropping out, the type of 

school in which the evaluation occurred 

was somewhat different than that of other 

schools.

The effectiveness of academic support in 

the form of tutoring or homework assistance can vary and may depend on the 

other services offered by the programs. 

Three different interventions that have 

37. Kemple et al. (2005).

38. Dynarski and Wood (1997).

been rigorously evaluated provide tutoring for students, either during or after 

school. One experimental study that included more than 1,100 students examined an intervention that includes tutoring 

among a variety of other strategies, such 

as financial assistance or postsecondary 

planning, but demonstrated no discernible 

effects.39 Another intervention included 

tutoring four days a week for 1–2 hours 

daily, as part of a combination of services 

designed to help low-income and potential 

first-generation college students complete 

high school, and a rigorous evaluation of 

the program found that students participating in the program completed school 

at a significantly higher rate.40 Mentors 

provide homework assistance, in varying 

amounts and intensity, for groups of 12 

students—as part of another intervention 

that showed positive effects on staying in 

school.41 Finally, two interventions that 

had positive or potentially positive effects 

on dropping out have the adult advocate 

(see recommendation 2) provide academic 

support or assistance for students when 

needed (recommendation 2).42

Evaluations of other interventions that 

include tutoring and after school homework assistance have also been conducted, 

but have not measured staying in school, 

progressing in school, or completing 

school.43

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Provide individual or small group support 

in test-taking skills, study skills, or targeted 

39. Shirm et al. (2006).

40. Constantine et al. (2006).

41. Dynarski et al. (1998).

42. Larson and Rumberger (1995); Sinclair et 

al. (1998); Sinclair, Christenson, and Thurlow 

(2005).

43. See Cardenas et al. (1992); Harrell et al. 

(1998); Mehan et al. (1996).
3. Provide academic support and enrichment to improve academic performance

( 24 )

subject areas such as reading, writing, or 

math. Individual or small group support 

provides a comfortable place for struggling 

students to learn and helps students persist 

in challenging courses. Academic support 

can happen through one-on-one interactions 

or small group interactions, and can include 

test-taking and study skills or enrichment 

courses. Enrichment courses, in particular, 

offer opportunities for students to receive 

additional support. These types of courses, 

about 10–12 weeks in length, target a particular subject area such as reading, writing, 

or math and include teaching strategies designed to engage students such as whole 

class discovery lessons or differentiated individual and small group instruction.44 Academic support can be conducted by adults 

or by peers, and can occur during advisory 

periods, lunch, or during study skills periods 

built into the schedule.

2. Provide extra study time and opportunities for credit recovery and accumulation 

through after school, Saturday school, or 

summer enrichment programs. Summer 

programs, after school, or Saturday school 

sessions may offer students personalized 

opportunities to improve academic skills.45

After hours and summer school programs 

address several primary academic needs for 

students at risk of dropping out, including 

support for students during the transition 

from middle school to high school, credit accumulation, and academic enrichment aimed 

at increasing engagement. Students who 

fail to pass required courses require support to catch up on both academic skills and 

credit accumulation. After school or summer 

school programs can fulfill both needs. In 

this type of program, students should work 

closely with teachers either individually or 

in small groups to complete coursework or 

credits required to graduate.46 Schools can 

44. Kemple et al. (2005); Kemple and Herlihy 

(2004).

45. Roderick and Engel (2001).

46. Kemple et al. (2005).

also provide students at risk of dropping out 

with summer school enrichment programs 

that increase engagement. These programs 

can take place on school campuses, at district offices, or at partner sites such as local 

postsecondary institutions or community 

colleges. During the program, which can 

last 4–6 hours per day for four to six weeks, 

students should be exposed to a variety of 

experiences that target key academic areas 

such as math, science, or reading.47

Potential roadblocks and 

suggested approaches

1. There is no time in the school day to add 

another academic program.

Suggested Approach: Schools may want to 

consider offering enrichment activities or 

academic support at times different from 

core classes so that students do not miss 

key curriculum while they are receiving support. Schools can offer enrichment courses 

as electives, or offer additional support during advisory periods at the beginning or end 

of the day. Another alternative to providing 

academic support during the school day 

is to select students to participate in after 

school or summer school programs aimed 

at providing support to develop academic 

skills or earn credits toward graduation.

2. Students do not want to participate in tutoring outside of scheduled classes.

Suggested Approach: Given the difficulties 

at-risk students may already have with attendance, it is more realistic to schedule a 

support class rather than expect students 

to attend tutoring sessions during typical 

social times at school such as lunch.

3. It may be hard to find tutors.

Suggested Approach: Administrators can 

be creative in implementing solutions 

for individual or small-group tutoring by 

47. Snipes et al. (2006).
3. Provide academic support and enrichment to improve academic performance

( 25 )

establishing partnerships with local community organizations and postsecondary 

institutions, recruiting parent or business 

volunteers, or using staff in the school 

who express interest. In some schools atrisk students may be eligible for supplemental services prescribed under NCLB: 

Supplemental Educational Services are 

available to low-income students who 

attend schools that have missed adequate yearly progress for three years. 

In most school districts those services 

have not been fully subscribed, with particularly low participation rates in high 

schools.48

48. Stullich et al. (2006); U.S. Government Accountability Office (2006).
( 26 )

Recommendation 4. 

Implement programs 

to improve students’ 

classroom behavior 

and social skills 

(targeted intervention).

Schools can help students identify, 

understand, and self-regulate their 

emotions and interactions with peers 

and adults. Doing so can help to 

mitigate problematic and disruptive 

behavior both in and out of the 

classroom by teaching students how to 

interact and communicate positively. 

An additional benefit of this type of 

skill development is to help students 

consider long-term consequences. 

Several of the dropout prevention 

programs that have shown promise 

in increasing students’ persistence in 

school specifically seek to develop 

these kinds of skills. And activities 

that require students to take on new 

responsibilities and interact with 

engaged classmates can promote 

school membership and develop a 

sense of self-efficacy.

Level of evidence: Low

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as low because of the 

varying effectiveness of different interventions and the varying level of intensity of 

efforts to improve students’ classroom behavior and social skills among the evaluated interventions. The panel considered 

six rigorous studies of five dropout interventions that included efforts to equip students with such skills.49 One intervention 

included a problem-solving curriculum 

49. Larson and Rumberger (1995); Sinclair et 

al. (1998); Sinclair, Christensen, and Thurlow 

as a substantial feature of the program, 

and the evaluation of the intervention 

demonstrated potentially positive effects 

on staying in school and progressing in 

school.50 However, the external validity of 

the study is low because it included fewer 

than 100 students from one school. Two 

other interventions also had potentially 

positive effects on staying in school, but 

the effort to improve students’ classroom 

behavior and social skills was a somewhat 

less critical component of these interventions.51 Finally, two rigorously evaluated 

interventions showed no discernible effects on progressing in school.52 The varying effects of the interventions and the 

varying intensity of the efforts to improve 

classroom behavior or social skills among 

the interventions’ components preclude a 

strong rating.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

School engagement includes a component 

of behavior and a component of identification with school.53 Disruptive behavior is 

correlated with dropping out.54 Dropout 

prevention interventions have sought to 

develop students’ problem-solving and 

life skills based on the need to enhance 

student abilities to behave positively during school, thereby increasing a sense 

of school affiliation and engagement.55

(2005); Shirm et al. (2006); Dynarski et al. 

(1998); Snipes et al. (2006).

50. Larson and Rumberger (1995).

51. Sinclair et al. (1998); Sinclair, Christensen, 

and Thurlow (2005); Dynarski et al. (1998).

52. Shirm et al. (2006); Snipes et al. (2006).

53. See Voelkl (1997); Finn (1989); National Research Council (2004).

54. Rumberger (1995); Rumberger and Palardy 

(2005); Rumberger and Larson (1998); Swanson and Schneider (1999); Goldschmidt and 

Wang (1999).

55. Rumberger and Larson (1998).
4. Implement programs to improve students’ classroom behavior and social skills

( 27 )

Developing these skills goes beyond ensuring students are not disruptive in 

class, however. It teaches students about 

how to build positive relationships with 

peers or staff. This allows students to engage meaningfully in school, such as by 

taking initiative to seek help from school 

staff56 or becoming involved with social 

or extracurricular aspects of school.57 It 

also helps students learn how to avoid 

potentially harmful behaviors outside 

school.

In two rigorously evaluated interventions, 

students met with small groups during 

after school seminars to discuss problemsolving strategies, personal challenges, or 

how to avoid participating in risky behaviors. This feature was offered in conjunction with a variety of other services. For 

one of the interventions, an experimental 

evaluation was conducted that included 

more than 1,100 students in seven school 

districts, and examined the effects of lifeskills training in combination with postsecondary planning, recreational activities, and educational services. However, 

students participating in the program did 

not progress in school any faster than 

students in the comparison group. On the 

other hand, in another rigorously evaluated intervention where students worked 

with a group of 12 students to discuss personal, family, or social issues, fewer students from the treatment group dropped 

out of school compared with students 

from the comparison group.58

Adult advocates can also help equip students with behavioral or social skills

56. See Nelson-LeGall and Jones (1991).

57. For a discussion of the positive relationship between social extracurricular involvement and academic achievement, see Cooper 

et al. (1999), Gerber (1996), Marsh and Kleitman (2002), and Melnick, Sabo, and Vanfossen (1992).

58. Dynarski et al. (1998).

through one-on-one or small group interactions (recommendation 2). In one intervention students participated in a 10-week 

problem-solving course facilitated by adult 

advocates that included topics such as 

problem recognition, brainstorming solutions, and controlling anger. Students who 

participated in the intervention were more 

likely to remain enrolled in school than 

students in the comparison group.59 As 

part of their work with students in another 

intervention, adult monitors worked with 

students monthly to reflect on solutions 

to hypothetical or real problems. Students 

who participated in this intervention were 

less likely to drop out of school after one 

year in the program, and earned more 

credits toward graduation than students 

in the comparison group.60

Other interventions that include curricula 

designed to improve students’ classroom 

behavior or social skills have shown promise in addressing high-risk behaviors associated with dropping out, but have not 

been evaluated specifically in terms of 

staying in school, progressing in school, 

or completing school.61 This program component typically is an in-class weekly 

curriculum facilitated by teachers, and is 

designed to teach students conflict resolution, anger management, or problemsolving skills through discussion, activities, or role play.

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Use adult advocates or other engaged 

adults to help students establish attainable 

academic and behavioral goals with specific benchmarks. Part of the school’s role in 

59. Larson and Rumberger (1995).

60. Sinclair et al. (1998); Sinclair, Christensen, 

and Thurlow (2005).

61. See LoSciuto et al. (1996); Harrell et al. 

(1998); Bacon (2002); Farrell et al. (2003); Allen 

et al. (1997); Hecht et al. (2003).
4. Implement programs to improve students’ classroom behavior and social skills

( 28 )

helping at-risk students develop interpersonal 

skills is guiding students as they determine 

short- and long-term goals. Adult advocates 

(recommendation 2), mentors, teachers, or 

counselors can help students at risk of dropping out determine realistic goals for interacting with peers and teachers at school, 

academic progress, or related areas for improvement (see below).62 Students, particularly those in middle school, can take responsibility for their behavior by setting personal 

benchmarks such as “turn in daily homework” 

or “attend all classes in one week.”

2. Recognize student accomplishments. 

School administrators and staff can provide 

frequent positive rewards and recognition 

for accomplishments based on the student’s 

progress toward goals. In this way, students 

are rewarded for small successes, since daily 

attendance or a “C” grade may be a significant accomplishment for at-risk students. 

Staff can hold recognition ceremonies or 

make positive calls home to acknowledge 

meeting goals, improving attendance, or 

exceptional school work.63

3. Teach strategies to strengthen problemsolving and decision-making skills. Schools 

can integrate problem-solving or decisionmaking curricula with existing curricula 

or have students participate in a life-skills 

course. The panel agreed that the development of emotional and social competence 

can be encouraged by requiring all entering 9th grade students to participate in a 

skills-development course as a part of highschool reform effort. Schools can also target students for participation in small-group 

seminars to help them develop these skills, 

an effort that can be facilitated by adult 

advocates or by other staff teams during 

advisory periods.64 Schools can select an 

62. Larson and Rumberger (1998).

63. Larson and Rumberger (1998); Cardenas 

et al. (1992).

64. See Dynarski et al. (1998); Larson and Rumberger (1998); LoScuito et al. (1996); Allen et 

existing curriculum or develop their own. 

The panel recommends that students be 

exposed to topics such as problem recognition and evaluation, goal setting, planning 

and organization, anticipating roadblocks, 

and controlling anger and expressing emotion. The emphasis should be on developing cooperative learning skills and positive relationships with staff, teachers, and 

students.65

4. Establish partnerships with communitybased program providers and other agencies such as social services, welfare, mental 

health, and law enforcement. The root cause 

of problematic classroom behavior or social 

skills for students who are at risk of dropping out may be external social factors. Coordination with social service, child welfare, 

and law enforcement agencies to help meet 

students’ needs outside of school alleviates 

problems that present themselves during 

school hours.66 For example, a student at 

risk of dropping out may need assistance 

finding a drug rehabilitation program. Working with this type of program could provide 

critical support for a student’s needs outside 

of school and result in improved interactions 

at school.

Potential roadblocks and 

suggested approaches

1. Limited resources for new courses.

Suggested Approach: Incorporating lessons aimed at improving classroom behaviors or social skills does not have to 

be an all-or-nothing endeavor. Teachers 

can model positive communications with 

al. (1997); Bacon (2002); Sinclair et al. (1998); 

Sinclair, Christensen, and Thurlow (2005); 

Hecht et al. (2003); Farrell et al. (2003); Shirm 

et al. (2006).

65. Snipes et al. (2006).

66. Larson and Rumberger (1998); Snipes et 

al. (2006); Shirm et al. (2006); Harrell et al. 

(1998).
4. Implement programs to improve students’ classroom behavior and social skills

( 29 )

students every day and incorporate positive examples of such skills into any curricular area. The panel recommends that 

staff receive professional development 

on how to work with students in this capacity (see roadblock 2). Schools that are 

considering schoolwide reforms as part 

of addressing dropout prevention can 

incorporate these strategies into the restructuring plan.

2. Teachers and staff may stereotype at-risk 

students and assume that “those kids can’t 

be helped.” Behavior-related disruptions 

create problems for schools and for at-risk 

students. Fights with teachers or peers can 

result in suspension or expulsion, and staff 

spending more time dealing with behavior 

and less time on instruction and learning. 

Keeping students with behavior problems in 

school can create a disincentive for teachers 

and administrators who must deal with these 

problems. This often results in encouraging 

at-risk students to leave school67 rather than 

address the root of the behavior problem.

Suggested Approach: The panel strongly 

encourages schools or districts to provide 

staff with professional development on 

how to build at-risk students’ classroom 

behavior and social skills. Evidence connecting professional development to reduced dropout rates is limited, but it is 

difficult for students to develop such competencies without staff who model these 

skills when interacting with students.

67. Rumberger (2004).
( 30 )

Recommendation 5. 

Personalize the 

learning environment 

and instructional 

process (schoolwide 

intervention).

A personalized learning environment 

creates a sense of belonging and 

promotes a sense of community. 

The panel agreed that students at 

risk of dropping out need academic, 

social, and behavioral encouragement 

from teachers and from the school 

community. A personalized learning 

environment fosters a school climate 

where students and teachers get to 

know one another.68

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as moderate because 

of the inconsistency in the effects of the 

interventions on staying in school, progressing in school, and completing school. 

The panel considered seven studies of five 

dropout interventions that included a component designed to personalize the learning environment.69 Interventions varied 

in how the student learning environment 

was personalized, and two interventions 

that demonstrated positive or potentially 

positive effects on outcomes related to 

dropping out included a school reform 

measure of creating a 9th grade academy.70 Evaluations of these interventions 

68. See Quint et al. (2006) and Kemple et al. 

(2005).

69. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Dynarski and Wood (1997); Kemple et al. (2005); 

Quint et al. (2005); Dynarski et al. (1998).

70. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).

suggest a moderate level of external validity as one intervention was conducted 

in 10 sites over six states and another intervention was conducted in three states. 

Despite the promising effects of efforts to 

personalize the learning environment by 

including features such as team teaching 

or school-within-a-school, the panel was 

unable to disentangle the effects of these 

specific components to determine the impact of the specific practice on dropping 

out, which resulted in the “moderate” evidence rating.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

Students attending large schools can become alienated and uninterested to the 

point where they feel little attachment 

to school and drop out.71 Reforms aimed 

at creating smaller school environments 

have been found to be associated with 

more positive student achievement, school 

climate, school attendance, and graduation rates.72 More specifically, a review of 

research by the National Research Council 

on effective schools and programs shown 

to reduce dropout rates concluded that 

the “evidence suggests that student engagement and learning are fostered by a 

school climate characterized by an ethic 

of caring and supportive relationships, 

respect, fairness, and trusts; and teachers’ sense of shared responsibility and efficacy related to student learning.”73 The 

research review also found that student 

outcomes were most improved when a caring and supportive environment was combined with “academic press,” or a focus on 

learning and high expectations for student 

achievement.74 A personalized learning 

71. Wehlage et al. (1989); National Research 

Council (2004).

72. Lee and Smith (1995); Wasley et al. (2000); 

McMullan, Sipe, and Wolf (1994); Quint (2006).

73. National Research Council (2004), p. 103.

74. Ibid.
5. Personalize the learning environment and instructional process

( 31 )

environment also serves as a platform for 

implementing other strategies (and recommendations in this practice guide) for atrisk students.

Students who receive personalized attention from teachers may be more engaged 

in learning because the teachers know 

what motivates individual students.75 A 

high degree of personalization allows 

schools to focus intensely on why students 

are having difficulty, and actively work to 

address sources of difficulty. For example, 

teachers can more closely monitor student 

performance and behavior.

Other benefits of personalized learning 

communities include opportunities for 

innovative teaching and more engaging 

curriculum. Researchers suggest that interdisciplinary teaching teams for 9th 

graders can reduce dropout rates,76 and 

interventions that include interdisciplinary teaching teams have shown positive 

effects on outcomes related to dropping 

out.77 Personalized learning communities 

provide opportunities for more curriculum choice aimed at student engagement 

(recommendation 6).

Small learning communities are characteristic of several interventions that have 

shown promise at addressing outcomes 

related to preventing dropping out. One intervention that was evaluated using a randomized controlled trial with almost 1,800 

students included a 9th grade academy 

in which 9th and 10th grade students are 

divided into grade level clusters that are 

taught by a core group of interdisciplinary teachers. Students who participated 

in the intervention dropped out less frequently than students in the comparison 

group, and earned more credits toward 

75. Lee and Burkam (2003).

76. Kerr and Letgers (2004); Quint (2006).

77. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).

graduation.78 Further, another intervention that was evaluated using a matched 

comparison group assigned students to 

a 9th grade academy, in which students 

were taught by interdisciplinary teams of 

teachers over four 80–90 minute periods 

over the course of the day. Students who 

received this intervention earned more 

credits over two years than students in the 

comparison group and were more likely to 

be promoted to 10th grade.79

One strategy that has shown promise is 

enrolling smaller numbers of students in 

schools. One intervention, an alternative 

high school model, suggests schools enroll 

no more than 500 students to help create 

a sense of community. The intervention 

was evaluated in a randomized controlled 

trial with more than 1,600 students, and 

showed effectiveness in keeping students 

in school and in helping students to progress in school, compared with students 

who did not participate in the intervention.80 In addition, recent research on 

small schools in Chicago found that 9th 

graders attending small schools had better attendance rates and were more on 

track to graduate than students in other 

schools.81

The panel also noted one other intervention that was not evaluated specifically in 

terms of staying in school, progressing in 

school, or completing school. The program 

created small cohorts of transitioning students who remain together for core classes 

and homeroom, and created smaller learning communities.82

78. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple 

(2004).

79. Kemple et al. (2005).

80. Dynarski et al. (1998).

81. Kahne, Sporte, and de la Torre (2006).

82. Reyes and Jason (1991).
5. Personalize the learning environment and instructional process

( 32 )

How to carry out this 

recommendation

Strategies designed to create a more personalized learning environment range 

from schoolwide reform of the traditional large, comprehensive high school 

to school-within-a-school model to team 

teaching. Schools that establish small 

learning communities may implement the 

other recommendations, but schools that 

do not wish to undertake whole-school reform efforts can undertake less ambitious 

strategies for personalizing the school 

environment.

1. Establish small learning communities. 

Small learning communities can be implemented for one grade level or as a whole 

school reform model. Schools might establish an academy for 9th grade students to 

ease the transition into the high school. In 

this type of small learning community, the 

students may be housed in a separate wing 

or floor of the school building, with coreacademic teacher teams that share the same 

students.83 An alternative model, which can 

be implemented in conjunction with a 9th 

grade academy, is for schools to establish a 

school-within-a-school, which is a thematically based small learning community of 

about 350 students who self-select which 

school they want to remain in for the duration of high school.84 A similar type of reform 

can also be established in middle schools.85

Each small learning community consists of an 

interdisciplinary team of teachers whom students work with throughout high school. District administrators can establish a third type 

of small learning community by authorizing 

the creation of a school that has lower student enrollment. These small schools operate as autonomous schools, but may include 

features such as a selective enrollment or 

83. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple 

(2004).

84. Quint et al. (2006).

85. Reyes and Jason (1991).

professional or curricular development.86 The 

other suggestions for creating a personalized 

learning environment may be part of reforms 

to establish small learning communities.

2. Establish team teaching. Pairing teachers 

as partners in the classroom has benefits 

for personalizing the learning environment. 

Not only can teachers conduct common lesson planning and decision-making about the 

classroom,87 but students have access to 

more than one teacher who can offer individualized attention or new perspectives for 

the student. Other benefits for team teaching identified by the panel include teachers 

working one-on-one with students more 

often, since one teacher can teach and the 

other can provide direct student support 

during the lesson, a collegial support system for working with difficult students, and 

teachers establishing connections with the 

students that facilitate ongoing discussions 

of academic and behavioral progress with 

students and parents.

3. Create smaller classes. The panel agreed 

that lowering the number of students in the 

class allows for teachers to interact with students on an individual level more frequently. 

Having fewer students in the classroom also 

allows students to feel a greater sense of 

belonging in the classroom. The number of 

students per class can range from 18 to 30, 

depending on school size and staffing.88

4. Create extended time in the classroom 

through changes to the school schedule. 

Implementing innovative schedule features—

such as block scheduling, extended class 

periods, or advisory and study periods—

provides more time for student-teacher and 

student-student interactions during the day.89

Students also have the opportunity to explore 

86. Kahne et al. (2006).

87. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004).

88. Ibid.

89. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).
5. Personalize the learning environment and instructional process

( 33 )

topics in greater depth in both groups as individuals working with the teacher.

5. Encourage students’ participation in extracurricular activities. Teachers and staff 

should not assume that students will participate in activities on their own accord, and 

should personally invite students at risk of 

dropping out to school-related activities. The 

panel suggests that schools can accommodate the varying interests of students at risk 

of dropping out by providing extracurricular 

activities such as sports, clubs, after school 

field trips, guest speakers, postsecondary 

partnerships, or service groups. Schools 

could incorporate a question about interests 

in extracurricular activities in an exit interview or in surveys of students at risk of dropping out (recommendation 1) to inform them 

about what types of extracurricular clubs or 

groups could be formed.

Potential roadblocks and 

suggested approaches

1. Staff may resist restructuring the school 

to personalize the school environment. 

Teachers and staff who are asked to implement the changes may be less enthusiastic 

than administrators or district officials.

Suggested Approach: Strong and steady 

leadership may push restructuring ahead 

against staff inertia or resistance, but district administrators must provide professional development and collaborative 

planning time to establish support for 

school reforms and allow staff who wish 

to transfer the opportunity to do so.

2. Turnover of staff in key leadership positions can hamper progress. New leaders will 

have their own agendas and ideas about 

promising future directions. Districts that impose school restructuring efforts on schools 

(see roadblock 1) may encounter more resistance from principals and teachers and possibly staff turnover.

Suggested Approach: Soliciting principal 

and staff input first will reduce resistance. 

Developing realistic timelines for implementation also will improve support for 

change.
( 34 )

Recommendation 6. 

Provide rigorous and 

relevant instruction to 

better engage students 

in learning and provide 

the skills needed to 

graduate and to serve 

them after they leave 

school (schoolwide 

intervention).

As more states adopt high school exit 

exams, students must increasingly 

master academic content in order 

to graduate from high school. In 

addition, students must be prepared 

for postsecondary opportunities and 

careers beyond high school. Schools 

can implement reforms aimed at 

improving instruction to ensure 

students have the necessary skills to 

complete high school as well as the 

skills to succeed in college and the 

workplace. Reforms to provide relevant 

instruction emphasize professional 

development for teachers so that 

classroom instruction meets the needs 

of all students.90

Career and technical education (CTE) 

implemented to allow all students 

“multiple pathways” toward careers and 

higher education is a way to engage 

the student. Multiple pathways models 

consist of three components: college 

preparatory academic core classes, a 

choice of professional or technical core 

classes that offer academic and real 

world applications, and field-based 

90. Quint et al. (2005).

learning.91 This type of curriculum 

allows students to learn and apply 

essential academic concepts and skills 

for a functional purpose. Students 

are guided in discovering the value 

of academic concepts in future workrelated endeavors. At the same time, 

all students also are exposed to careerbased opportunities as part of their 

daily school experience.

Level of evidence: Moderate

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as moderate because 

of the varying effects of interventions on 

measured outcomes, the limited number of 

evaluations that met WWC evidence standards, and the intensity of the career or 

pathway component of the interventions. 

The panel considered eight studies of seven 

dropout interventions that encouraged students to discover the purpose for completing school by incorporating career-related 

curricula, rigorous academic curriculum, or 

career-advising components into the school 

model.92 Two studies of these interventions 

suggest that the effectiveness of career or 

pathway components is moderately generalizable: one intervention was evaluated in 

10 sites across six states, and another intervention was evaluated in two large states. 

Discerning the extent to which these components accounted for effects on staying in 

school, progressing in school, or completing school was a notable challenge because 

at least four interventions also included 

schoolwide reform efforts (recommendation 5). Additionally, the effectiveness of 

the interventions was mixed: two of the 

interventions that included career-related 

curricula or pathways as a key component 

91. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).

92. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Constantine et al. (2006); Dynarski et al. (1998); 

Kemple et al. (2005); Quint et al. (2005); Snipes 

et al. (2006).
6. Provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage students in learning

( 35 )

demonstrated positive effects on staying 

in school or progressing in school,93 while 

other interventions that included components designed to encourage students to 

discover the purpose for completing school 

demonstrated relatively few effects.94 While 

the panel considered the rigor of these evaluations, the challenge in attributing any effects directly to the career-related components resulted in a moderate rating.

Brief summary of evidence to 

support the recommendation

To improve the rigor and relevance of classroom instruction, teachers need ongoing 

ways to expand their knowledge and improve their skills. Researchers posit that developing professional learning communities 

where teachers collaborate on instructional 

design and provide collective feedback on 

their teaching, perhaps with the assistance 

of instructional coaches or mentors, may be 

a way to improve instructional practices.95

School reforms that include multiple pathways can allow for such practices to be easily implemented.96 Two interventions that 

were rigorously evaluated implemented 

strategies that provided professional development training for teachers.97 One intervention, which was found to have positive 

impacts on staying in school, progressing 

in school, and completing school, provided 

on-site coaching for teachers related to the 

9th grade curriculum.98 A second intervention also provided workshops for teachers 

93. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).

94. Constantine et al. (2006); Dynarski et al. 

(1998); Quint et al. (2005); Snipes et al. (2006).

95. See Little (2003); Louis and Marks (1998); 

McLaughlin and Talbert (2001).

96. See Connell et al. (2006).

97. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005); Quint et al. (2005).

98. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).

on innovative instructional practices for 

the classroom. However, the evaluation of 

this intervention demonstrated little to no 

impact on staying in school, progressing in 

school, or completing school.99

Traditionally, supporters of CTE argued 

that students who were not going on to college should focus on developing appropriate skills for the workplace. Opponents of 

CTE believed that all students should have 

the opportunity to be prepared for college 

through an academic core curriculum, and 

that CTE implicitly denied such opportunities to many students.100 In either case, the 

curriculum must engage students in learning and teach them relevant skills.

Recently, however, some high school reform efforts have included both meaningful academic curriculum and a variety of 

job-related practical applications.101 Career 

academies, focus schools, and curricula 

that permit students to choose majors seek 

to ensure that students gain relevant career 

and technical skills in high school without 

sacrificing the academic preparation that is 

necessary for college. Other benefits of career and technical education implemented 

via multiple pathways include preparation 

for civic involvement,102 student achievement, including the development of problem-solving and analytical reasoning,103

and personalization.104 The multiple pathways approach to career and technical 

education involves more than just tacking on career and technical courses to an 

existing academic curriculum. It typically 

includes an effort to improve instruction 

in core academic courses as well as career 

99. Quint et al. (2005).

100. Lucas (1999); Oakes (1986).

101. Sterns and Stearns (2007) ; Grubb (2007); 

Plank (2001); Stiles and Brady (2007).

102. Rogers, Kahne, and Middaugh (2007).

103. Rose (2007).

104. Quartz and Washor (2007).
6. Provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage students in learning

( 36 )

and technical courses, aligning material 

and academic strands, and demonstrating the relevance of the academic courses 

to students—so that students are not only 

prepared for careers, but also better prepared for college than they might be under 

traditional high school programs.

A multiple pathways approach to career 

and technical education is a key component of three interventions that have been 

rigorously evaluated. As a key feature of 

one intervention, students in grades 10–12 

self-select a career-themed academy. In 

addition to core academic coursework, 

students in each academy are exposed to 

career-oriented courses and work-related 

awareness and developmental activities. 

The evaluation of this intervention, a 

quasi-experimental design using matched 

comparison groups, found that students 

who participated in the intervention were 

less likely to drop out of school and earned 

more credits toward graduation by the end 

of their 12th grade year.105

Another intervention incorporates careerfocused themes in a similar fashion. Students self-select a theme-based academy 

and are exposed to both core academic 

courses and career-related opportunities. 

Students are taught employability skills 

in vocational and core courses and are 

provided with work-based learning opportunities through internships at local employer partners. Students also have access 

to enhanced career and college counseling. The evaluation of this intervention, a 

randomized controlled trial that included 

11 schools, found that students who participated in the intervention earned more 

course credits in two years than students 

in the comparison group.106

A third intervention that includes a career-pathways component and has been 

105. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004).

106. Kemple et al. (2005).

rigorously evaluated demonstrated no discernible effects on staying in school.107

Despite the fact that career-based learning is a key component of two interventions found to have potentially positive 

or positive effects on outcomes related to 

dropping out, a key limitation is that this 

particular component is typically implemented in conjunction with the efforts 

to personalize the learning community. 

Thus, it becomes difficult to attribute positive effects on staying in school, progressing in school, or completing school to the 

career pathways model or to the larger 

school reform efforts.

Finally, evidence suggests that efforts 

to provide students with access to advisors who can provide individual assistance for students considering postsecondary options may help keep students in 

school. Rigorous evaluations of interventions that provided students with career 

development advising, college campus 

visits, and financial aid assistance demonstrated positive effects on completing 

school and staying in school.108 The panel 

also noted one intervention, which was not 

evaluated for outcomes related to staying in school, progressing in school, or 

completing school, that selects academically promising students to participate in 

advanced-level college preparatory classes 

as a way to introduce students to postsecondary options.109

How to carry out this 

recommendation

1. Provide teachers with ongoing ways to expand their knowledge and improve their skills. 

Professional development workshops can be 

facilitated by grade-level team leaders, school107. Quint et al. (2005).

108. Constantine et al. (2006); Dynarski et al. 

(1998).

109. Mehan et al. (1996).
6. Provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage students in learning

( 37 )

based coaches, or outside professional consultants.110 Workshops can occur monthly or 

during the summer, and should cover instructional practices related to teaching curricular 

material content or classroom-based instructional practices such as cooperative learning 

strategies.111 In addition, the panel suggests 

that professional learning communities, where 

teachers have allocated time to collaborate 

on curriculum development and classroom 

teaching, can provide an ongoing means for 

teachers to improve their practice.

2. Integrate academic content with career 

and skills-based themes through career academies or multiple pathways models. Students 

should have the opportunity to see the relevance of their academic work by applying 

academic skills to work-world problems. 

Large comprehensive high schools can create “schools within a school” around careerrelated themes such as health, business, or 

the arts. Students select the specific academy 

or pathway they would like to join. The curriculum within that academy includes core academic courses (such as math, science, English, and social studies) that use, whenever 

possible, examples and illustrations from the 

career theme.112 The curriculum also includes 

occupation-related classes that focus on the 

academy’s career theme.113

In contrast to comprehensive high schools 

that may need to incorporate academies 

representing multiple career options, 

schools of choice, such as charter and 

magnet schools, may adopt a focus on a 

single, specific career theme. The panel 

suggests that administrators in mediumsize and large school districts could consider adopting choice-based high school 

assignments that allow every high school 

110. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Quint et al. (2005).

111. Quint et al. (2005).

112. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Kemple et al. (2005).

113. See Kemple and Rock (1996).

to specialize and every student to choose 

an appropriate school.

3. Host career days and offer opportunities 

to visit postsecondary campuses. The panel 

suggests that schools can invite community 

members who work in different fields to 

share their experiences in the workplace. 

Introducing students to these types of experiences encourages students to consider 

career and postsecondary options early. 

Schools can also expose students to college 

campuses by facilitating visits to college 

campuses that include discussions with admissions or financial aid officials.114

4. Provide students with extra assistance and 

information about the demands of college. 

First-generation college students and their 

families often find the process for navigating applications for college and financial aid 

difficult.115 Students lack knowledge about 

college admissions processes and about the 

course requirements for major fields that 

can lead to a chosen career (pre-med majors typically must take four years of high 

school math).116 Often they are unaware of 

sources of financial aid and do not apply to 

schools because they believe they cannot 

afford them.

Knowledgeable and supportive advisors 

can assist students in navigating the college and financial aid process and help 

overcome barriers associated with firstgeneration college attendance. Counseling 

regarding the college and financial aid application process is an important component to assist students at risk of dropping 

out.117 Specific types of support might include providing postsecondary counselors to assist with the college application 

114. Constantine et al. (2006).

115. St. John et al. (2002); Avery and Kane 

(2004).

116. Bridges et al. (2008).

117. Woloszyk (1996); Hayward and Tallmadge 

(1995); Bragg (1997); Bauer and Michael (1993).
6. Provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage students in learning

( 38 )

process and financial aid applications, offering seminars about college admission 

requirements and financial aid opportunities, and offering SAT/ACT preparation 

programs.118

5. Partner with local businesses to provide 

opportunities for work-related experience 

such as internships, simulated job interviews, or long-term employment. Schools 

can provide opportunities for students to 

explore the value of education by establishing agreements with local businesses to 

provide simulated (or real) job interviews, internships, or long-term employment. These 

opportunities would provide practical onthe-job experience and exposure to employability skills in a range of occupations. Examples could include paid positions, school 

credit for internships, or work experience 

with a classroom-based component.119

Potential roadblocks and 

suggested approaches

1. Staff resist integrating career and technical 

education into academic curricula.

Suggested Approach: Staff resistance might 

be attributed partly to lack of knowledge 

about how to smoothly integrate academic 

content with career-related information. 

118. Constantine et al. (2006).

119. Kemple and Snipes (2000); Kemple (2004); 

Dynarski et al. (1998); Dynarski and Wood 

(1997).

Professional development can help to overcome this obstacle.

2. State standards and college admission requirements discourage the integration of academic and career and technical education.

Suggested Approach: The range of options 

for high schools wanting to reform their 

academic courses is constrained by the 

expectations of college admissions officers 

and by state content standards. However, 

relevant career examples and academic 

courses that cover the expected content 

can be integrated into traditional course 

content, titles, and descriptions. Indeed, 

the aim of an integrated academic-career 

and technical program is to provide instruction that makes the academic and the 

career and technical work complementary 

rather than competing.

3. Students lack interest in attending 

college.

Suggested Approach: Curriculum reform 

that makes explicit the connection between academic skills and professional 

success should help to inspire greater interest in college, as should opportunities 

to have students visit colleges and interact 

with students and staff from colleges.
( 39 )

Conclusion

The purpose of this practice guide is to 

provide educators, administrators, and 

policymakers with recommendations for 

addressing dropping out based on evidence. Recommendations in this guide 

are based on practices that have demonstrated impacts on outcomes related to 

dropping out.

Users of this guide should begin with a 

thorough assessment of the nature of 

dropping out in their schools. They can 

analyze data to design a comprehensive 

approach to dropout prevention that incorporates multiple recommendations and 

incorporates both targeted and schoolwide 

interventions. They also should examine 

the data over time and make adjustments 

to the implementation of these recommendations. The panel believes the practices 

are mutually supportive and strongly encourages users of this practice guide to 

implement multiple practices.

This guide focuses on practices that 

schools and districts can implement to 

reduce dropping out. Ultimately, students 

drop out for many reasons that relate to 

them as individuals, their families, and 

their neighborhoods. Parents and communities also need to do their part to tackle 

the problem comprehensively. However, 

the panel believes the practices recommended in this guide are a sound starting 

point to help educators do what they can 

to reduce dropping out.
( 40 )

Appendix A. 

Postscript from 

the Institute of 

Education Sciences

What is a practice guide?

The health care professions have embraced a mechanism for assembling and 

communicating evidence-based advice to 

practitioners about care for specific clinical conditions. Variously called practice 

guidelines, treatment protocols, critical 

pathways, best practice guides, or simply 

practice guides, these documents are systematically developed recommendations 

about the course of care for frequently encountered problems, ranging from physical conditions, such as foot ulcers, to psychosocial conditions, such as adolescent 

development.1

Practice guides are similar to the products 

of typical expert consensus panels in reflecting the views of those serving on the 

panel and the social decisions that come 

into play as the positions of individual 

panel members are forged into statements 

that all panel members are willing to endorse. Practice guides, however, are generated under three constraints that do not 

typically apply to consensus panels. The 

first is that a practice guide consists of a 

list of discrete recommendations that are 

actionable. The second is that those recommendations taken together are intended to 

be a coherent approach to a multifaceted 

problem. The third, which is most important, is that each recommendation is explicitly connected to the level of evidence 

supporting it, with the level represented 

by a grade (high, moderate, low).

The levels of evidence, or grades, are 

usually constructed around the value of 

particular types of studies for drawing 

1. Field and Lohr (1990).

causal conclusions about what works. 

Thus, one typically finds that a high level 

of evidence is drawn from a body of randomized controlled trials, the moderate 

level from well-designed studies that do 

not involve randomization, and the low 

level from the opinions of respected authorities (see table 1). Levels of evidence 

also can be constructed around the value 

of particular types of studies for other 

goals, such as the reliability and validity 

of assessments.

Practice guides also can be distinguished 

from systematic reviews or meta-analyses 

such as What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

intervention reviews or statistical metaanalyses, which employ statistical methods to summarize the results of studies 

obtained from a rule-based search of the 

literature. Authors of practice guides seldom conduct the types of systematic literature searches that are the backbone of 

a meta-analysis, although they take advantage of such work when it is already 

published. Instead, authors use their expertise to identify the most important 

research with respect to their recommendations, augmented by a search of recent 

publications to ensure that the research 

citations are up-to-date. Furthermore, the 

characterization of the quality and direction of the evidence underlying a recommendation in a practice guide relies less 

on a tight set of rules and statistical algorithms and more on the judgment of the 

authors than would be the case in a highquality meta-analysis. Another distinction 

is that a practice guide, because it aims for 

a comprehensive and coherent approach, 

operates with more numerous and more 

contextualized statements of what works 

than does a typical meta-analysis.

Thus, practice guides sit somewhere between consensus reports and meta-analyses in the degree to which systematic 

processes are used for locating relevant 

research and characterizing its meaning. 

Practice guides are more like consensus 
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute for Education Sciences

( 41 )

panel reports than meta-analyses in the 

breadth and complexity of the topic that 

is addressed. Practice guides are different 

from both consensus reports and metaanalyses in providing advice at the level 

of specific action steps along a pathway 

that represents a more-or-less coherent 

and comprehensive approach to a multifaceted problem.

Practice guides in education at the 

Institute of Education Sciences

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

publishes practice guides in education to 

bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on the types of systemic 

challenges that cannot currently be addressed by single interventions or programs. Although IES has taken advantage 

of the history of practice guides in health 

care to provide models of how to proceed 

in education, education is different from 

health care in ways that may require that 

practice guides in education have somewhat different designs. Even within health 

care, where practice guides now number 

in the thousands, there is no single template in use. Rather, one finds descriptions 

of general design features that permit 

substantial variation in the realization of 

practice guides across subspecialties and 

panels of experts.2 Accordingly, the templates for IES practice guides may vary 

across practice guides and change over 

time and with experience.

The steps involved in producing an IESsponsored practice guide are first to select 

a topic, which is informed by formal surveys of practitioners and requests. Next, a 

panel chair is recruited who has a national 

reputation and up-to-date expertise in the 

topic. Third, the chair, working in collaboration with IES, selects a small number of 

panelists to co-author the practice guide. 

These are people the chair believes can 

2. American Psychological Association 

(2002).

work well together and have the requisite expertise to be a convincing source 

of recommendations. IES recommends 

that at one least one of the panelists be a 

practitioner with experience relevant to 

the topic being addressed. The chair and 

the panelists are provided a general template for a practice guide along the lines 

of the information provided in this postscript. They are also provided with examples of practice guides. The practice guide 

panel works under a short deadline of 6–9 

months to produce a draft document. The 

expert panel interacts with and receives 

feedback from staff at IES during the development of the practice guide, but they 

understand that they are the authors and, 

thus, responsible for the final product.

One unique feature of IES-sponsored practice guides is that they are subjected to 

rigorous external peer review through the 

same office that is responsible for independent review of other IES publications. 

A critical task of the peer reviewers of a 

practice guide is to determine whether 

the evidence cited in support of particular 

recommendations is up-to-date and that 

studies of similar or better quality that 

point in a different direction have not been 

ignored. Peer reviewers also are asked to 

evaluate whether the evidence grade assigned to particular recommendations by 

the practice guide authors is appropriate. 

A practice guide is revised as necessary to 

meet the concerns of external peer reviews 

and gain the approval of the standards and 

review staff at IES. The process of external 

peer review is carried out independent of 

the office and staff within IES that instigated the practice guide.

Because practice guides depend on the 

expertise of their authors and their group 

decision-making, the content of a practice 

guide is not and should not be viewed as a 

set of recommendations that in every case 

depends on and flows inevitably from scientific research. It is not only possible but 

also likely that two teams of recognized 
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute for Education Sciences

( 42 )

experts, working independently to produce a practice guide on the same topic, 

would generate products that differ in 

important respects. Thus, consumers of 

practice guides need to understand that 

they are, in effect, getting the advice of 

consultants. These consultants should, 

on average, provide substantially better 

advice than an individual school district 

might obtain on its own because the authors are national authorities who have 

to reach agreement among themselves, 

justify their recommendations in terms 

of supporting evidence, and undergo rigorous independent peer review of their 

product.

Institute of Education Sciences
( 43 )

Appendix B. 

About the authors

Panel

Mark Dynarski is a vice president at 

Mathematica Policy Research, director 

of its Center for Improving Research Evidence, and its education area leader. Dr. 

Dynarski is a veteran in conducting randomized controlled trials for education 

research. He has over 20 years of experience conducting and managing research 

studies. He currently is directing the What 

Works Clearinghouse for the Institute of 

Education Sciences, for which he previously served as principal investigator of 

the dropout prevention area. He directed 

and contributed to some of the largest and 

most rigorous educational evaluations to 

date, including studies of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance program, 

the Alternative Schools Program, Youth 

Fair Chance, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, and the 

national study of educational technology 

interventions.

Linda Clarke is the education and special 

projects director for the City of Houston 

and Mayor Bill White. She leads a citywide 

dropout program, Expectation Graduation, which has received national attention for its benefit to student lives and its 

community and business partnerships. 

Mrs. Clarke was the executive director of 

The Houston A+ Challenge, formerly the 

Houston Annenberg Challenge, and directed the largest sum of private money 

ever dedicated to school reform in the 

greater Houston area. She has worked as 

a teacher, principal, diagnostician, and 

districtwide instructional consultant for 

at-risk students. At a national level, Mrs. 

Clarke has worked in program design as a 

consultant for Phale Hale Educational Consulting of Washington D.C. to design and 

implement magnet programs at schools 

throughout the United States. Mrs. Clarke 

has served on numerous boards, and is a 

senior fellow of the American Leadership 

Forum and Changed Leadership Group at 

Harvard University.

Brian Cobb is a professor of education at 

Colorado State University. He received his 

Ph.D. in Vocational-Technical Education 

from the University of Illinois—Champaign–Urbana. His research focuses on secondary special education in transition and 

on quantitative research methodology.

Jeremy Finn, with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, is a professor of education at the State University of New York— 

Buffalo. He has long been concerned with 

issues of educational equity. His work on 

student engagement began with the publication of “Withdrawing from School” (Review of Educational Research, 1989). The 

publication explains how dropping out, 

and other forms of withdrawal, may have 

their roots in the earliest years of school 

and result from a history of interactions 

between the student and the institution. 

His studies of engagement-disengagement 

include “Academic Success Among Students At Risk for School Failure” (Journal 

of Applied Psychology, 1997) and the 2006 

IES report “The Adult Lives of At-Risk Students: The Roles of Attainment and Engagement in High School.” Dr. Finn has 

also conducted extensive research on the 

relationship between class size and student learning. He was part of the team that 

carried out the class-size experiment, Project STAR. The study demonstrated the immediate and long-term value of small class 

sizes in the elementary grades, including 

the impact on graduation rates.

Russell Rumberger is a professor of 

education in the Gevirtz Graduate School 

of Education at the University of California—Santa Barbara and director of the UC 

Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UC 

LMRI). He received a Ph.D. in Education 

and an M.A. in Economics from Stanford 

University in 1978 and a B.S. in Electrical 
Appendix B. About the authors

( 44 )

Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University in 1971. He has been conducting 

research on school dropouts for the past 

25 years and has written over 27 research 

papers and essays on the topic. He also 

served as a member of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Institute of 

Statistical Sciences/Education Statistics 

Services Institute Task Force on Graduation, Completion, and Dropout Indicators 

(2004) and as a member of the National 

Research Council’s Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and 

Motivation to Learn (2003). He is currently 

directing the California Dropout Research 

Project, which is producing a series of reports and policy briefs about the dropout 

problem in California and a state policy 

agenda to improve California’s high school 

graduation rate (http://lmri.ucsb.edu/

dropouts/).

Jay Smink has been the executive director 

of the National Dropout Prevention Center at Clemson University since 1988 and 

serves as the executive director of the National Dropout Prevention Network, a professional organization of individual and 

institutional members representing education, business, and community leaders 

who are concerned with school dropout 

issues. He earned his M.Ed. in Industrial 

Education and D.Ed. in Educational Administration from Penn State. Dr. Smink is recognized as a national leader and authority 

on best practices and effective strategies 

for dropout prevention programs, including mentoring, service-learning, alternative schools, and career technical education. In addition, he is valued for his 

expertise on numerous administrative and 

instructional topics such as student learning styles, attendance and truancy, early 

identification of students at risk of school 

failure, and how to develop, implement, 

and evaluate dropout prevention, intervention, and recovery programs for struggling students.

Staff

Kristin Hallgren, a research analyst at 

Mathematica Policy Research, received her 

M.A. from the University of Washington. 

She specializes in teacher quality, and has 

worked on an IES-sponsored evaluation of 

teacher preparation models and an evaluation of the impact of teacher induction 

models. As a former educator, she implemented a schoolwide curriculum designed 

to facilitate stronger relationships among 

students and a safer educational community for staff and students, and worked 

with at-risk students in a summer school 

enrichment literacy program. Ms. Hallgren also served on a team to examine 

and implement curriculum for all levels of 

students in a humanities setting, including 

training colleagues on their implementation of excellent academic curriculum in 

a secondary setting.

Brian Gill received his Ph.D. and J.D. from 

the University of California—Berkeley, and 

is a senior social scientist at Mathematica 

Policy Research. He served as the lead author of Rhetoric vs. Reality: What We Know 

and What We Need to Know About Vouchers 

and Charter Schools (2007) and was lead 

author of a comprehensive report on Edison Schools, the nation’s largest for-profit 

manager of public schools. He is now principal investigator for the National Evaluation of KIPP charter schools. He is leading an IES-sponsored study of the impact 

of supplemental educational services on 

student achievement. Dr. Gill has also contributed to the methodological literature 

on the accurate measurement of dropout 

and graduation rates.
( 45 )

Appendix C. 

Disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest

Practice guide panels comprise individuals 

who are nationally recognized experts on 

the topics about which they are rendering 

recommendations. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) expects that such experts 

will be involved professionally in a variety 

of matters that relate to their work as a 

panel. Panel members are asked to disclose 

their professional involvements and to institute deliberative processes that encourage 

critical examination of the views of panel 

members as they relate to the content of the 

practice guide. The potential influence of 

panel members’ professional engagements 

is further muted by the requirement that 

they ground their recommendations in evidence that is documented in the practice 

guide. In addition, the practice guide undergoes independent external peer review 

prior to publication, with particular focus 

on whether the evidence related to the recommendations in the practice guide has 

been appropriately presented.

The professional engagements reported 

by each panel member that appear most 

closely associated with the panel recommendations are noted below.

There were no professional engagements 

or commitments reported by the panel 

members that were identified as a potential conflict of interest.
( 46 )

Appendix D. 

Technical information 

on the studies

To date, the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) has reviewed 64 studies of 16 dropout prevention interventions. For the practice guide the panel examined the 21 studies that met WWC evidence standards or 

met standards with reservations. Because 

the practice guide aims to identify effective 

practices contributing to staying in school 

and completing high school with a regular 

diploma, the panel did not consider three 

studies of three interventions focusing on 

General Educational Development (GED) 

programs. In addition, the panel did not 

consider one study of a dropout intervention program designed specifically for teen 

mothers. Other dropout prevention interventions have been studied, but the panel 

focused on studies meeting WWC evidence 

standards in developing levels of evidence 

for the practice guide.

Dropout prevention interventions almost 

always include multiple components, and 

the effects of specific intervention components on outcomes related to dropping out cannot be causally attributed 

definitively to any particular component 

or components of an intervention. This 

creates a challenge for the practice guide, 

which aims to recommend general strategies not specific interventions. To assess 

the importance of different components 

and strategies, the panel began by reviewing the implementation reports of 

interventions that have studies that met 

WWC evidence standards to document the 

components of each intervention. We then 

grouped interventions that included similar components. The panel considered the 

extent to which various components were 

described in implementation reports or by 

developers as significant aspects of the intervention (table D1). The panel also took 

into account other interventions that have 

not been evaluated for outcomes related to 

dropping out but that contain components 

related to the recommendations, primarily 

as a demonstration of the broader use of 

particular strategies in different programs 

that serve students who are often at risk 

of dropping out.

While each recommendation was drawn 

from a broad set of evidence and programs, this appendix details the panel’s 

key technical considerations in assessing 

the level of evidence for each recommendation. As such, although table D1 lists 

supplementary programs to demonstrate 

the broader use of particular strategies 

recommended by the panel, only those 

studies that met WWC standards are described in detail. The level of evidence 

for each recommendation was determined 

by considering the effects of the intervention as determined by the standards set 

by the WWC, the intensity of each component toward the impacts found in the 

evaluation, and the number of studies conducted of the intervention. Finally, expert 

opinion was taken into account for each 

recommendation.

Interventions: descriptions and 

impact evidence

Interventions showing positive or 

potentially positive impacts

Achievement for Latinos with Academic Success (ALAS). Larson and Rumberger (1995) 

conducted an evaluation of the ALAS program, which is a middle school intervention designed to address student, school, 

family, and community factors that affect 

dropping out. Each student is assigned a 

counselor who monitors attendance, behavior, and academic achievement. The 

counselor provides feedback and coordinates students, families, and teachers. 

Counselors also serve as advocates for 

students and intervene when problems 

are identified. Students are trained in 

problem-solving skills, and parents are 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 47 )

Table D1. Intensity of components of interventions related to recommendations

1. Data 

analysis

2. Adult 

advocate

3. Academic 

support

4. Classroom 

behavior 

and social 

skills

5. 

Personalized 

learning 

environment

6. Help 

students 

discover 

purpose

WWC-rated interventions showing positive or potentially positive effects

Achievement for Latinos 

with Academic Success 

(ALAS)

Career Academies

Check and Connect

High School Redirection

Talent Development

Talent Search

Twelve Together

WWC-rated interventions showing no detectable impacts

First Things First

Middle College High 

School

Project GRAD 

(Graduation Really 

Achieves Dreams)

Quantum Opportunity 

Program

Other interventions that did not meet WWC standards or did not evaluate outcomes related to dropping out

Across Ages

Advancement 

Via Individual 

Determination (AVID)

CASA Striving Together 

to Achieve Rewarding 

Tomorrows (START)

Coca Cola Valued Youth 

Program

Keepin’ It Real

Responding in Peaceful 

and Positive (RIPP) Ways

School Transitional 

Environment Program 

(STEP)

Teen Outreach Program 

(TO)

Too Good For Violence 

(TGFV)

Note: Darker shades correspond to key characteristics while pale shades correspond to nonkey characteristics.

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 48 )

trained in parent-child problem-solving, 

how to participate in school activities, 

and how to contact teachers and school 

administrators.

The evaluation included 94 high-risk students who entered junior high school in 

Los Angeles as 7th graders in 1990, with 

46 students randomly assigned to ALAS

and 48 assigned to the control group. The 

study measured outcomes at the end of 

9th grade (the last year of the intervention) and the end of 11th grade. For staying in school, the study showed statistically significant positive effects on some 

outcomes and no statistically significant 

negative effects. At the end of 9th grade, 

ALAS students were more likely than control students to be enrolled in school (98 

percent compared with 83 percent). For 

progressing in school, the study showed 

statistically significant positive effects on 

some outcomes and no statistically significant negative effects. For students who remained in a district school, ALAS students 

were more likely than control students to 

be on track to graduate on time at the end 

of 9th grade (72 percent compared with 53 

percent). The difference was statistically 

significant.

Career Academies. Kemple and Snipes 

(2000) and Kemple (2004) evaluated the Career Academies intervention. Career Academies are school-within-school programs 

operating within larger high schools. They 

offer curricula based on a career theme, 

academic coursework, and work experience through partnerships with local employers. Students take their career-related 

courses within the academy, which are 

often taught by a core team of academy 

teachers.

The Kemple and Snipes (2000) and Kemple (2004) evaluation was a randomized 

controlled trial that included a total of 

1,764 students who applied to the entrance grade of nine Career Academies. 

The study measured outcomes at the 

end of a student’s projected 12th grade 

year and then four years after a student’s projected 12th grade year. The 

study found that Career Academies have 

a positive and statistically significant effect on dropping out. At the end of the 

student’s projected 12th grade year, 21 

percent of the Career Academies group 

and 32 percent of the comparison group 

had dropped out of school. Career Academies also had a positive and statistically 

significant effect on progressing through 

high school. At the end of the student’s 

projected 12th grade year, Career Academies youth had earned an average of 

19 credits and comparison youth had 

earned an average of 17 credits, and 40 

percent of Career Academy youth and 28 

percent of comparison youth had earned 

sufficient credits to graduate. There was 

no statistically significant difference between the percentage of high-risk Career 

Academies and comparison youth who 

earned a diploma.

Check and Connect. Sinclair et al. (1998) 

conducted an evaluation of the Check and 

Connect program. Check and Connect relies on close monitoring of school performance, as well as mentoring, case management, and other supports. The Check 

component of the program is designed to 

continually assess student engagement 

through close monitoring of student performance and progress indicators. The 

Connect component involves program staff 

giving individual attention to students, in 

partnership with school personnel, family 

members, and community service providers. Students enrolled in Check and Connect are assigned a monitor who regularly 

reviews their performance and intervenes 

when problems are identified. The monitor 

also advocates for students, coordinates 

services, provides ongoing feedback and 

encouragement, and emphasizes the importance of staying in school.

The evaluation included 94 Minneapolis high school students with learning, 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 49 )

emotional, or behavioral disabilities. Students were randomly assigned at the beginning of 9th grade, with 47 students 

assigned to the treatment group and 47 

students assigned to the control group. 

Both treatment and control group received 

Check and Connect services in 7th and 8th 

grade, but only the treatment group students continued to receive services in 9th 

grade (their first year of high school). The 

study measured the effect of the intervention on staying in school and progressing 

in school. Ninth grade students enrolled 

in Check and Connect were significantly 

less likely than similar control group students to have dropped out of school at the 

end of the first follow-up year (9 percent 

compared with 30 percent). Students in 

Check and Connect earned significantly 

more credits toward high school completion during 9th grade than did students in 

the control group.

Sinclair, Christenson, and Thurlow (2005) 

conducted a second evaluation of Check 

and Connect that met WWC evidence standards with reservations. The study was a 

randomized controlled trial with an attrition rate of slightly more than 30 percent 

of those originally assigned. The postattrition sample included 144 9th grade 

students from Minneapolis public schools 

with emotional or behavioral disabilities, 

including 71 students randomly assigned 

to the treatment group and 73 students 

randomly assigned to the control group. 

Treatment group students received Check 

and Connect services throughout high 

school, while control group received no 

Check and Connect services. The study 

measured the effect of the intervention 

on staying in school and on completing 

school. The study found that Check and 

Connect students were significantly less 

likely to have dropped out of school at 

the end of the fourth follow-up year (39 

percent compared with 58 percent). The 

study also indicated that there was no statistically significant effect on on-time high 

school completion.

High School Redirection. High School Redirection is an alternative high school program for youth who are at risk of dropping 

out. The program emphasizes basic skills 

development and offers an intensive remedial reading program (Strategies and Techniques for Advancement in Reading) for 

students with serious literacy problems. 

The schools operate in economically disadvantaged areas. To foster a sense of community, the schools are small and teachers 

are encouraged to act as mentors as well as 

instructors. Dynarski and Wood (1997) conducted two studies of High School Redirection that met WWC standards. Both studies 

were randomized controlled trials in which 

applicants to the alternative school were 

assigned either to the intervention group, 

who were offered admission to the school, 

or to the control group, who were not. One 

site (Witchita, KS) included 358 applicants 

for the 1991/92 and 1992/93 school years; 

another site (Cinncinati, OH) included 902 

applicants for the 1993/94 and 1994/95 

school years. These studies showed no statistically significant effects of High School 

Redirection on staying in school, progressing in school (one site did not examine 

outcomes associated with progressing in 

school), or completing school.

A study of a third site (Stockton, CA) met 

WWC standards with reservations because 

a substantial number of control group students enrolled in the intervention school. 

This study found that High School Redirection youth were enrolled 39 more days 

on average in the first follow-up year than 

the control group. In addition, at the end 

of the third follow-up year, fewer High 

School Redirection youth had dropped out 

(43 percent compared with 53 percent). At 

the end of the fourth follow-up year, High 

School Redirection youth had, on average, 

earned more credits toward graduation 

than the control group—a difference that 

was statistically significant.

Talent Development. Kemple, Herlihy, 

and Smith (2005) evaluated Talent 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 50 )

Development High Schools, which is a 

school reform model for restructuring 

large high schools with persistent attendance and discipline problems, poor 

student achievement, and high dropout 

rates. The model includes both structural and curriculum reforms. It calls for 

schools to reorganize into small “learning 

communities”—including 9th grade academies for first year students and career 

academies for students in upper grades. It 

also emphasizes high academic standards 

and provides all students with a collegepreparatory academic sequence. The evaluation was a quasi-experimental design 

that included multiple cohorts of entering 9th grade students from 11 schools 

in Philadelphia. Five schools implemented 

Talent Development and were matched to 

six similar Philadelphia schools that did 

not implement the program. Kemple, Herlihy, and Smith found that students using 

Talent Development High Schools earned 

an average of 9.5 course credits over 

the first two years of high school, while 

comparison group students earned 8.6 

course credits. Talent Development High 

Schools students were more likely to be 

promoted to 10th grade than comparison 

students (68 percent compared with 60 

percent). Both differences were statistically significant.

Talent Search. Talent Search aims to help 

low-income and first-generation college 

students complete high school and gain 

access to college through a combination 

of services designed to improve academic 

achievement and increase access to financial aid. Services include test-taking and 

study-skills assistance, academic advising, 

tutoring, career development, college campus visits, and financial aid application 

assistance. Constantine et al. (2006) conducted two studies of Talent Search that 

met WWC evidence standards with reservations. Both studies focused on participants who were 9th graders in the fall of 

the 1995/96 school year. One study of 10 

Talent Search programs in Texas involved 

10 Talent Search projects (each serving 

10–20 high schools) and 4,027 participants, who were matched to 30,842 nonparticipants from the same high schools 

based on propensity score methods that 

matched students on 18 demographic, 

socioeconomic, and academic characteristics. This study showed potentially positive effects on completing school, as Talent 

Search participants completed school at 

a significantly higher rate than comparison group students (86 percent compared 

with 77 percent). The other study involved 

five Talent Search projects (each serving 

10–20 high schools) and 900 participants, 

who were matched to 42,514 nonparticipants from the same high schools using 

propensity score methods. Talent Search

participants completed school at a significantly higher rate than comparison group 

students (84 percent compared with 70 

percent).

Twelve Together. Twelve Together is a oneyear peer support and mentoring program 

for middle and early high school students 

that offers weekly after school discussion 

groups led by trained adult facilitators. 

The program also offers homework assistance, which is typically provided by 

college students, and trips to local college campuses. One study of the Twelve 

Together intervention met WWC evidence 

standards with reservations because of 

differential attrition between the intervention and control groups. Dynarski et al. 

(1998) conducted a randomized controlled 

trial as part of a larger evaluation examining the effectiveness of 16 middle and 

high school dropout prevention programs. 

The study used a random assignment design and was conducted in nine middle 

schools in one California school district. 

It included 219 students. The study measured the outcomes of staying in school 

and progressing in school. It found that at 

the end of a three-year follow-up, 8 percent 

of Twelve Together students had dropped 

out of school compared with 13 percent 

of control group students. There was no 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 51 )

effect on progressing in school as measured by the highest grade completed.

Interventions showing no detectable 

impacts

First Things First. First Things First is a 

whole school reform that combines a number of components with a goal of improving school structure and instruction. First 

Things First reduces class sizes in language 

arts and mathematics classes and reorganizes schools into “small learning communities” of up to 350 students and their 

teachers. The small learning communities 

each have a guiding theme. Each student 

is assigned a faculty advisor who serves 

as a liaison between the school and the 

student’s family. First Things First helps 

schools to set clear academic standards 

that are reflected in assessments that are 

administered regularly to measure student progress. Quint et al. (2005) conducted a study of First Things First that 

met the WWC evidence standards with 

reservations. The quasi-experimental research design included students from 

Houston high schools—three First Things 

First schools each matched to between 5 

and 11 comparison schools. Quint et al. 

found no statistically significant differences between First Things First schools 

and comparison schools in the percent of 

9th grade students who attended school 

the following year.

Middle College High Schools. Middle College High Schools are alternative high 

schools located on college campuses that 

aim to help at-risk students complete high 

school and encourage them to attend college. The schools offer a project-centered, 

interdisciplinary curriculum, with an 

emphasis on team teaching, individual 

attention, and development of critical 

thinking skills. Students are also offered 

support services such as counseling, peer 

support, and career experience opportunities. Dynarski et al. (1998) conducted a 

study of Middle College High Schools that 

met WWC evidence standards. The evaluation was a randomized controlled trial 

that included 394 students who were assigned to an intervention group that was 

offered admission to the alternative high 

school or to a control group that was not. 

The study found that by the end of the 

second year after random assignment, 

there was no statistical difference between the treatment and control group 

on staying in school or on completing 

school.

Project “Graduation Really Achieves 

Dreams” (GRAD). Snipes et al. (2006) conducted an evaluation of Project “Graduation Really Achieves Dreams” (GRAD), 

which is an initiative for students in 

economically disadvantaged communities that aims to reduce dropping out 

and increase rates of college enrollment 

and graduation. Project GRAD offers high 

school students summer institutes and 

the prospect of four-year college scholarships to promote attending and completing high school. Each Project GRAD

school has a scholarship coordinator who 

provides counseling, tutoring, and college 

admission preparation. Project GRAD also 

works with the feeder elementary and 

middle schools to address early problems by implementing an instructional 

discipline management system into the 

curriculum.

The evaluation of Project GRAD focused 

on three Houston high schools that were 

matched to 10 high schools in the district 

that did not implement Project GRAD but 

had similar performance on achievement 

tests and similar percentages of students 

in key demographic groups. Snipes et al. 

(2006) found no statistically significant 

differences between Project GRAD students and comparison group students 

for progressing in school, as measured 

by the number of credits earned during 

9th grade or the rate they were promoted 

to 10th grade. The study also found no 
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 52 )

statistically significant differences between Project GRAD students and comparison group students in the proportion 

who graduated, looking ahead at least 

three years.

Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP).

QOP is an intensive and comprehensive 

program for high school–age youth that 

offers case management, mentoring, tutoring, and other education and support 

services. The program also offers financial 

incentives for participation in program activities. Participants enter QOP in the 9th 

grade and can receive services for four to 

five years, even if they drop out of school 

or move to another district.

A study conducted by Shirm, Stuart, and 

McKie (2006) of QOP met WWC evidence 

standards with reservations because of 

differential attrition between intervention 

and control groups. The evaluation was a 

randomized controlled trial that included 

1,069 youth in seven school districts, with 

580 QOP students and 489 control group 

students. The study measured the effect of 

the intervention on progressing in school 

and completing school. Shirm, Stuart, and 

McKie found no statistically significant difference between QOP and control group 

youth in their average credits earned toward graduation five years after they entered the program. The evaluation also 

found that QOP had no statistically significant effect on the likelihood that participants earned a high school diploma.

Summary of studies, by 

recommendation

Recommendation 1. 

Utilize data

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as low because there 

have been no studies that directly evaluate the effect of using diagnostic data on 

staying in school, progressing in school, or 

completing school. While the use of data to 

monitor student progress is a key component of several interventions reviewed by 

the WWC, the direct correlation between 

data analysis and dropping out is difficult 

to measure. The panel believes that this 

recommendation is an essential precondition to implementing effective dropout 

reduction strategies, however.

Recommendation 2. 

Assign adult advocates

The panel judged the level of evidence 

for this recommendation as moderate because two interventions showing positive 

or potentially positive impacts on reducing dropout rates include adult advocacy 

as a key component (table D2).

Achievement for Latinos with Academic 

Success (ALAS), a middle school intervention, assigns each participating student 

to a counselor who monitors attendance, 

behavior, and academic achievement. The 

counselor provides feedback and coordinates students, families, and teachers. 

Counselors also serve as advocates for 

students and intervene when problems 

are identified.

Similarly, high school students enrolled in 

Check and Connect are assigned a monitor 

who regularly reviews their performance 

and intervenes when problems are identified. The monitor also advocates for students, coordinates services, provides ongoing feedback and encouragement, and 

emphasizes the importance of staying in 

school.

First Things First includes a “family and 

student advocate system” as one of the 

three core components of the intervention. Each student in a First Things First

school is assigned an advocate who 

serves as a mentor and liaison between 

the school and the student’s family. Advocates work with about 15 students and 

meet with them weekly in groups and 

individually.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 53 )

The Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP)

includes case management and mentoring among its program components. While 

case management by an adult is considered 

to be a key feature of this intervention, 

the case manager is responsible for coordinating services and working intensively 

with students. However, the model differs 

slightly from other interventions featuring this component because case management services occur outside the school day. 

Thus, the case manager included in this 

intervention was not considered to be a 

school-based adult advocate like that of the 

other interventions and thus represented a 

minor component of the intervention. QOP

showed no evidence of impacts on progressing in school or completing school.

Recommendation 3. 

Provide academic support

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as moderate because 

of the varying effect of different interventions on staying in school, progressing in 

school, or completing school, and the level 

of intensity of academic supports among 

the evaluated interventions (table D3).

The alternative high school program, High 

School Redirection, emphasizes basic skills 

development and offers an intensive remedial reading program (Strategies and Techniques for Advancement in Reading) for 

students with serious literacy problems.

Talent Development High Schools emphasize high academic standards and provide 

all students with a college-preparatory academic sequence. As part of the 9th grade 

academy, all first-year students complete 

a one-semester seminar that teaches strategies for meeting the increased academic 

demands of high school.

As part of their participation in the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP), students 

receive tutoring and other education and 

support services such as after school tutoring and computer-assisted instruction, with 

a focus on basic reading and math skills.

Table D2. Summary: Recommendation 2

Intervention 

with 

evaluation 

reviewed by 

WWC

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards 

with 

reservations

Effect on 

staying in 

school

Effect on 

progressing 

in school

Effect on 

completing 

school

ALASa 1 0 + + na

Check and 

Connecta 1 1 ++ + —

First Things 

Firsta 0 1 — na na

QOP 1 0 na — —

na is not applicable.

Note: (++) means positive effects, (+) means potentially positive effects, (—) means no discernible 

effects.

a. Interventions correspond to “key characteristics” of intervention related to recommended 

practice.

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 54 )

Talent Search academic support services 

aim to improve academic achievement 

and increase access to financial aid. 

Services include test taking and studyskills assistance, academic advising, and 

tutoring.

During the one-year peer support program 

called Twelve Together, participants agreed 

to study regularly and work to improve 

their grades. Students receive homework 

assistance, which is typically provided by 

college students.

As part of the Connect component of the 

Check and Connect program, students receive tutoring from program staff, in partnership with school personnel.

At the high school level, each Project GRAD

school has a scholarship coordinator who 

provides counseling, tutoring, and college 

admission preparation.

Students participating in ALAS receive individual academic support and tutoring 

from their assigned adult advocate.

Recommendation 4. 

Improve students’ classroom behavior 

and social skills.

The panel judged the level of evidence for 

this recommendation as low. Despite the 

positive and potentially positive effects 

of the evaluated interventions, the social 

Table D3. Summary: Recommendation 3

Intervention 

with 

evaluation 

reviewed by 

WWC

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards 

with 

reservations

Effect on 

staying in 

school

Effect on 

progressing 

in school

Effect on 

completing 

school

ALAS 1 0 + + na

Check and 

Connect 1 1 ++ + —

HS 

Redirectiona 2 1 +– + —

Project 

GRADa 0 1 na — —

QOPa 1 0 na — —

Talent 

Developmenta 0 1 na + na

Talent Search 0 2 na na +

Twelve 

Together 0 1 + — na

na is not applicable.

Note: (++) means positive effects, (+) means potentially positive effects, (+–) means mixed effects, 

(—) means no discernible effects.

a. Interventions correspond to “key characteristics” of intervention related to recommended 

practice.

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 55 )

and behavioral skills training component 

occurs with less intensity than other components of the interventions (table D4).

One responsibility of the ALAS advocates 

is to work with students on training in 

problem-solving skills such as problem 

recognition and definition, controlling 

impulsive reactions and anger, setting 

goals, and anticipating roadblocks and 

developing potential solutions to problems. ALAS students received 10 weeks of 

problem-solving instruction and two years 

of follow-up problem-solving prompting 

and counseling.

As part of the Connect component of the 

Check and Connect program, students participate in problem-solving skills training.

Among other Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP) services, students receive 

training on problem solving during their 

participation in QOP.

Middle and early high school students 

participating in Twelve Together attend 

weekly after school discussion groups led 

by trained adult facilitators that focus on 

problem solving and communication.

Project GRAD provides social and behavioral skills training to students at the elementary and middle school as a way to 

address early problems that might affect 

high school graduation.

Recommendation 5. 

Personalized learning environment

The panel judged the level of evidence 

for this recommendation as moderate because of the varying effects of the intervention on measured outcomes and the 

Table D4. Summary: Recommendation 4

Intervention 

with 

evaluation 

reviewed by 

WWC

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards 

with 

reservations

Effect on 

staying in 

school

Effect on 

progressing 

in school

Effect on 

completing 

school

ALASa 1 0 + + na

Check and 

Connect 1 1 ++ + —

Project 

GRADb 0 1 na — —

QOP 1 0 na — —

Twelve 

Together 0 1 + — na

na is not applicable.

Note: (++) means positive effects, (+) means potentially positive effects, (—) means no discernible 

effects.

a. Interventions correspond to “key characteristics” of intervention related to recommended 

practice.

b. The social and behavior training component of this intervention occurs in elementary and middle 

schools as a way to address early problems that might affect high school graduation.

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 56 )

lower intensity of components designed 

to personalize the learning environment 

(table D5).

To foster a sense of community, schools 

that adopt High School Redirection enroll 

no more than 500 students.

Schools implementing the Talent Development model reorganize into small “learning 

communities”—including 9th grade academies for first-year students and career 

academies for students in upper grades. 

This includes establishing a Ninth Grade 

Success Academy, which consists of small 

learning communities of students often 

housed in a separate wing or area of the 

school building. In at least one school in 

the evaluation, some students in 10th–12th 

grades were also part of a career-themed 

academy.

Students in a Career Academy model 

share several classes during the day and 

the same teachers from year to year. 

Teachers make a commitment to meeting 

with each other on a regular basis, and 

share in decision-making process for administrative and instructional issues. In 

addition, Career Academies courses are 

often block-scheduled during consecutive periods.

As alternative schools that are located on 

community college campuses, Middle College High Schools emphasize team teaching, individual attention, and development 

of critical thinking skills.

First Things First reduces class sizes in language arts and mathematics classes and 

reorganizes schools into small learning 

communities, which each have a guiding 

Table D5. Summary: Recommendation 5

Intervention 

with 

evaluation 

reviewed by 

WWC

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards 

with 

reservations

Effect on 

staying in 

school

Effect on 

progressing 

in school

Effect on 

completing 

school

Career 

Academiesa 1 0 + + —

First Things 

Firsta 0 1 — na na

High School 

Redirection 2 1 +– + —

Middle 

College High 

School 1 0 — na —

Talent 

Developmenta 0 1 na + na

na is not applicable.

Note: (++) means positive effects, (+) means potentially positive effects, (+–) means mixed effects, 

(—) means no discernible effects.

a. Interventions correspond to “key characteristics” of intervention related to recommended 

practice.

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 57 )

theme. Each student is also assigned a 

faculty advisor that serves as a liaison 

between the school and the student’s 

family.

Recommendation 6. 

Future application of skills learned in 

school

The panel judged the level of evidence 

for this recommendation as moderate because of the varying effects of interventions on measured outcomes, the limited 

number of evaluations that met WWC 

evidence standards, and the intensity of 

the career or pathway component of the 

interventions (table D6).

Career Academies are school-within-school 

programs operating in high schools that 

offer career-related curricula based on a 

career theme, academic coursework, and 

work experience through partnerships 

with local employers.

Middle College High Schools are alternative 

high schools on college campuses that aim 

to help at-risk students complete high school 

and encourage them to attend college.

Talent Search aims to help low-income and 

first-generation college students complete 

high school and gain access to college 

through a combination of services designed to improve academic achievement 

and increase access to financial aid.

Table D6. Summary: Recommendation 6

Intervention 

with 

evaluation 

reviewed by 

WWC

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards

Number of 

studies that 

met WWC 

evidence 

standards 

with 

reservations

Effect on 

staying in 

school

Effect on 

progressing 

in school

Effect on 

completing 

school

Career 

Academiesa 1 0 + + —

First Things 

First 0 1 — na na

Middle 

College High 

Schoola 1 0 — na —

Project GRAD 0 1 na — —

Talent 

Development 0 1 na + na

Talent 

Searcha 0 2 na na +

Twelve 

Together 0 1 + — na

na is not applicable.

Note: (++) means positive effects, (+) means potentially positive effects, (—) means no discernible 

effects.

a. Interventions correspond to “key characteristics” of intervention related to recommended 

practice.

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Appendix D. Technical information on the studies

( 58 )

Talent Development High Schools include 

career academies for students in upper 

grades.

One component of the Twelve Together program is trips to local college campuses.

Project GRAD provides four-year college 

scholarships and summer institutes to 

promote attending and completing high 

school. Each Project GRAD school has a 

scholarship coordinator who provides college admission preparation.

Part of the First Things First program includes reorganizing schools into “small 

learning communities” of up to 350 students and their teachers. The small learning communities each have a guiding 

theme or “pathway.”
( 59 )

References

Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Horsey, C. 

(1997). From first grade forward: early 

foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87–107.

Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997). Preventing teen 

pregnancy and academic failure: experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64(4), 729–742.

Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2005). 

The on track indicator as a predictor 

of high school graduation. Chicago, IL: 

Consortium on Chicago school research. 

Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://

ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p78.pdf

Allensworth, E. M., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). 

What matters for staying on track and 

graduating in Chicago Public High 

Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on 

Chicago school research. Retrieved 

December 17, 2007, from http://ccsr.

uchicago.edu/content/publications.php

?pub_id=116

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for 

educational and psychological testing. 

Washington, DC: American Educational 

Research Association Publications.

American Psychological Association. 

(2002). Criteria for practice guideline 

development and evaluation. American 

Psychologist, 57, 1048–51.

Austin, G., & Bernard, B. (2007). The state 

data system to assess learning barriers, 

supports, and engagement: implications 

for school reform efforts. Paper delivered at the EdSource California Education Policy Convening, Sacramento, CA, 

October 19 (revised). Retrieved January 

6, 2008, from http://www.wested.org/

chks/pdf/edsourcepolicy.pdf

Avery, C., & Kane, T. (2004). Student perceptions of college opportunities: the 

Boston COACH Program. In C. Hoxby 

(Ed.), College choices: the economics of 

where to go, when to go, and how to pay 

for it. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press.

Bacon, T. P. (2002). Evaluation of the Too 

Good for Drugs and Violence High 

School Prevention Program. Tampa, FL: 

Hillsborough County Antidrug Alliance 

Criminal Justice/Substance Abuse Coordination Section.

Balfanz, R., McPartland, J., & Shaw, A. 

(2002). Re-conceptualizing extra help for 

high school students in a high standards 

era. Paper presented at the Preparing 

for America’s Future High School Symposium, Office of Adult and Vocational 

Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of 

early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future 

of Children, 5, 25–50.

Barrington, B. L., & Hendricks, B. (1989). 

Differentiating characteristics of high 

school graduates, dropouts, and nongraduates. The Journal of Educational 

Research, 82(6), 309–19.

Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & 

Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early 

high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

92(3), 568–82.

Bauer, R., & Michael, R. (1993). They’re still 

in school: results of an intervention program for at-risk high school students.

Paper presented at the annual meeting 

of the American Educational Research 

Association, Atlanta, GA.

Bragg, D. D. (1997). Educator, student, and 

employer priorities for tech prep student 

outcomes. Berkeley, CA: National Center 

for Research in Vocational Education.

Bridges, M., Brauckmann, S., Medina, O., 

Mireles, L., Spain, A., & Fuller, B. (2008). 

Giving a student voice to California’s dropout crisis. Santa Barbara, CA: California 

Dropout Research Project. Retrieved 

April 30, 2008, from http://www.lmri.

ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs_reports.htm
References

( 60 )

Cardenas, J. A., Montecel, M. R., Supik, J. 

D., & Harris, R. J. (1992). The Coca-Cola 

Valued Youth Program: dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. 

Texas Researcher, 3, 111–30.

Carnevale, A., & Desrochers, D. (2003). 

Preparing students for the knowledge 

economy: what school counselors need 

to know. Professional School Counseling, 

6(4), 228–36.

Chicago Public Schools. Chicago public schools toolkit. Retrieved May 27, 

2008, from http://www.cpstoolkit.com/

default.aspx

Christenson, S. L. (2002). Families, educators, and the family-school partnership: 

Issues or opportunities for promoting 

children’s learning competence? Paper 

prepared for The Future of School Psychology Continues Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Connell, J., Klem, A., Broom, J., & Kenny, 

M. (2006). Going small and getting 

smarter: small learning communities 

as platforms for effective professional 

development. In Diana Oxley (Ed.), Critical issues in development and implementation, high school small learning communities. Retrieved January 16, 2008, 

from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/pubs/

edweek/SLC%20IssPap%20Book.pdf

Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. 

S., Silva, T., & Myers, D. (2006). A study 

of the effect of the Talent Search program on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and 

Texas (Final report from phase II of the 

national evaluation). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office 

of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Services.

Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (1999). Relationships between 

five after-school activities and academic 

achievement. Journal of Education Psychology, 91(2), 369–78.

Cragar, M. A. (1994). Reducing the high 

school DCT cooperative education dropout rate through an employer/student 

mentor program and at-risk teams. (ED 

376 406)

Duttweiler, P. C. (1995). Effective strategies 

for educating students in at-risk situations. (ED 392005)

Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1998). How can 

we help? What we have learned from 

evaluations of federal dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Helping 

high-risk youth: results from the Alternative Demonstration Program. Princeton, 

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & 

Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report (School 

Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation research report). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., 

& Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of 

high school and why? Findings from a 

national study. Teachers College Record, 

87, 356–73.

Engberg, J., & Gill, B. (2006). Estimating 

graduation and dropout rates with longitudinal data: a case study in the Pittsburgh Public Schools (Report no. WR372-PPS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ensminger, M., & Slusarick, A. (1992). Paths 

to high school graduation or dropout: 

a longitudinal study of a first grade 

cohort. Sociology of Education, 65,

95–113.

Farmer, J. A., & Payne, Y. (1992). Dropping 

out: issues and answers. Springfield, IL: 

C. C. Thomas.

Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., Sullivan, T. N., & 

Kung, E. M. (2003). Evaluation of the Responding In Peaceful and Positive Ways 

(RIPP) Seventh Grade Violence Prevention Curriculum. Journal of Child and 

Family Studies, 12(1), 101–20.

Fasko, S. N., & Fasco, D. (1998). A systems 

approach to self-efficacy and achievement in rural schools. Education, 119, 

292–301.

Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (Eds.). (1990). Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a 
References

( 61 )

new program. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. 

Review of Educational Research, 59, 

117–24.

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic 

success among students at risk for 

school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(2), 221–34.

Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. 

(2005). Small classes in the early grades, 

academic achievement, and graduating 

from high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 214–23.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, 

A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 

74, 59–109.

Garnier, H. E., Stein, J. A., & Jacobs, J. 

(1997). The process of dropping out 

of high school: a 19-year perspective. 

American Educational Research Journal, 

34(2), 395–419.

Gerber, S. B. (1996). Extracurricular activities and academic achievement. Journal 

of Research and Development in Education, 30(1), 42–50.

Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When 

can schools affect dropout behavior? A 

longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 

715–38.

Grossman, J. B., & Garry, E. M. (1997). Mentoring: a proven delinquency prevention 

strategy. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice.

Grubb, W. N. (2007). Reforming the 19th 

century high school: “weak” and 

“strong” approaches to multiple pathways. Multiple perspectives on multiple 

pathways: preparing California’s youth 

for college, career, and civic responsibility. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from 

http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/projects/

multiplepathways/index.html

Gunn, J. H., & King, B. (2003). Trouble in 

paradise: power, conflict, and community in an interdisciplinary teaching 

team. Urban Education, 38, 173–95.

Harrell, A.V., Cavanaugh, S. E., & Sridharan, 

S. (1998). Impact of the Children at Risk 

Program: comprehensive final report II.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Hayward, B. J., & Tallmadge, G. K. (1995). 

Strategies for keeping kids in school: 

evaluation of dropout prevention and 

reentry projects in Vocational Education. 

Washington, DC: American Institutes 

for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, 

Research Triangle Institute, and RMC 

Corporation.

Hecht, M. L., Marsiglia, F. F., Elek–Fisk, E., 

Wagstaff, D. A., Kulis, S., & Dustman, 

P. A. (2003). Culturally grounded substance use prevention: an evaluation 

of the keepin’ it R.E.A.L. Prevention Science, 4(4), 233–48.

Heckman, J., & LaFontaine, P. (2007). The 

American high school graduation rate: 

trends and levels. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Jessor, R., Turbin, M. S., & Costa, F. M. 

(1998). Risk and protection in successful outcomes among disadvantaged 

adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 194–208.

Jimerson, S. R., Anderson, G. E., & Whipple, A. D. (2002). Winning the battle and 

losing the war: examining the relation 

between grade retention and dropping 

out of high school. Psychology in the 

Schools, 39, 441–57.

Kahne, J., Sporte, S., & de la Torre, M. (2006). 

Small schools on a larger scale: the first 

three years of the Chicago High School 

Redesign Initiative. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the 

University of Chicago.

Kemple, J. (2004). Career academies: impacts on labor market outcomes and 

educational attainment. New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation.

Kemple, J., & Herlihy, C. (2004). The Talent 

Development High School model: context, components, and initial impacts 

on ninth-grade students’ engagement 
References

( 62 )

and performance. New York: Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation.

Kemple, J., & Rock, J. (1996). Career Academies: early implementation lessons 

from a 10-site Evaluation. New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation.

Kemple, J., & Snipes, J. (2000). Career Academics: impacts on students’ engagement and performance in high school.

New York: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation.

Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., & Smith, T. (2005). 

Making progress toward graduation: 

evidence from the talent development 

high school model. New York: Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation.

Kerr, K., & Letgers, N. (2004). Preventing 

dropout: use and impact of organizational reforms designed to ease the 

transition to high school. In Gary Orfield 

(Ed.), Dropouts in America: confronting 

the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard Education Press.

Kronick, R. F., & Hargis, C. H. (1998). Dropouts: who drops out and why and the 

recommended action. Springfield, IL: 

Charles C. Thomas.

Larson, K. A, & Rumberger, R. W. (1995). 

ALAS: Achievement for Latinos through 

Academic Success. In H. Thornton (Ed.), 

Staying in school: A technical report of 

the dropout prevention projects for junior high school students with learning 

and emotional disabilities. Minneapolis, 

MN: University of Minnesota, Institute 

on Community Integration.

Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: 

representations of classroom practice. 

Teachers College Record, 105, 913–45.

Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping 

out of high school: The role of school 

organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40,

353–93.

Lee, V. & Smith, J. (1995). High school size: 

which works best, and for whom? Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

American Educational Research Association, New York.

Letgers, N. E., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W. J., & 

McPartland, J. M. (2002). Comprehensive 

reform for 9 urban high schools: a talent development approach. New York: 

Teachers College Press.

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. 

N., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). An outcome 

evaluation of Across Ages: an intergenerational mentoring approach to drug 

prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1): 116–29.

Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? 

Teachers’ work and student experiences 

in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532–75.

Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: 

stratification and mobility in American 

high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Marsh, H., & Kleitman, S. (2002). Extracurricular school activities: the good, the 

bad, and the nonlinear. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 464–513.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of 

high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McMullan, B. J., Sipe, C. L., & Wolfe, W. C. 

(1994). Charter and student achievement: early evidence from school restructuring in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Assessment and 

Policy Development.

McPartland, J. A., & Nettles, S. M. (1991). 

Using community adults as advocates 

or mentors for at-risk middle school 

students: a two-year evaluation of Project RAISE. American Journal of Education, 99(4), 568–86.

Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & 

Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school 

success: the consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: 

Cambridge University Press.

Melnick, M., Sabo, D., & Vanfossen, B. 

(1992). Educational effects of interscholastic athletic participation on AfricanAmerican and Hispanic youth. Adolescence, 27(106), 295–308.
References

( 63 )

Moretti, E. (2007). Crime and the costs of 

criminal justice. In C. Belfield and H. 

Levin (Eds.), The price we pay: economic 

and social consequences of inadequate 

education (pp. 142–59). Washington, DC: 

The Brookings Institution.

Morris, J. D., Ehren, B. J., & Lenz, B. K. 

(1991). Building a model to predict 

which fourth through eighth graders 

will drop out of high school. Journal of 

Experimental Education, 59(3), 286–93.

Morton, C. (1998). The drop-out. Studio 

City, CA: Players Press.

Muennig, P. (2007). Consequences in health 

status and costs. In C. Belfield and H. 

Levin (Eds.), The price we pay: economic 

and social consequences of inadequate 

education (pp. 125–41). Washington, DC: 

The Brookings Institution.

National Governors Association Task Force 

on State High School Graduation Data. 

(2005). Graduation counts. Washington, 

DC: National Governors Association.

National Research Council, Committee on 

Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn. (2004). Engaging schools: fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press.

Neild, R., Balfanz, R., & Herzog, L. (2007). 

An early warning system. Educational 

Leadership 65(2), 28–33.

Nelson-LeGall, S., & Jones, E. (1991). 

Classroom help-seeking behaviors of 

African-American children. Education 

and Urban Society, 24(1), 27–40.

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and 

sources of student engagement. In F. 

M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement 

and achievement in secondary schools 

(pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.

Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track: how schools 

structure inequality. New Haven, CT: 

Yale University Press.

Phelan, W. T. (1992). Building bonds to high 

school graduation: dropout intervention with seventh and eighth graders. 

Middle School Journal, 24(2), 33–35.

Plank, S. (2001). Career and technical education in the balance: an analysis of high 

school persistence, academic achievement, and postsecondary destinations. 

Saint Paul, MN: National Research Center 

for Career and Technical Education.

Pringle, B., Anderson, L. M., Rubenstein, 

M. C., & Russo, A. W. (1993). Peer tutoring and mentoring services for disadvantaged secondary school students: 

an evaluation of the secondary schools 

basic skills demonstration assistance 

program. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Association.

Quartz, K. H., & Washor, E. (2007). Small 

schools as multiple pathways to college, 

career, and civic participation: can they 

balance the individual and collective 

aims of schooling? Multiple perspectives on multiple pathways: preparing 

california’s youth for college, career, 

and civic responsibility. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://idea.gseis.

ucla.edu/projects/multiplepathways/

index.html

Quint, J. (2006). Meeting five critical challenges of high school reform: lessons 

from research on three reform models. 

New York: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation.

Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). Scaling up First Things 

First: the challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York: Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation.

Reyes, O., & Jason, L. (1991). An evaluation 

of a high school dropout prevention 

program. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 221–30.

Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early 

intervention: the Chicago child-parent 

centers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Roderick, M. (1993). The path to dropping 

out: evidence for intervention. Westport, 

CT: Auburn House.

Roderick, M., & Camburn, E. (1999). Risk and 

recovery from course failure in the early 

years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 303–43.
References

( 64 )

Roderick, M. & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: motivational responses of low-achieving students 

to high-stakes testing. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 

197–227.

Rogers, J., Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2007). 

Multiple pathways, vocational education, and the “Future of Democracy.” 

Multiple perspectives on multiple pathways: preparing California’s youth for 

college, career, and civic responsibility. 

Retrieved November 20, 2007, from 

http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/projects/

multiplepathways/index.html

Rose, M. (2007). A reflection on career and 

technical education, multiple pathways, 

and the academic-vocational divide.

Multiple perspectives on multiple pathways: preparing California’s youth for 

college, career, and civic responsibility. 

Retrieved November 20, 2007, from 

http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/projects/

multiplepathways/index.html

Rouse, C. E. (2005). The labor market consequences of an inadequate education. Paper presented at the Symposium on the social costs of inadequate 

education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, October 24–

25. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from 

http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/

EquitySymposium/symposium/

resource.asp.

Rouse, C. E. (2007). Consequences for the 

Labor Market. In C. Belfield and H. Levin 

(Eds.), The price we pay: economic and 

social consequences of inadequate education (pp. 99–124). Washington, DC: 

The Brookings Institution.

Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: a review of issues and evidence. 

Review of Educational Research, 57, 

101–21.

Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of 

middle school: a multilevel analysis of 

students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583–625.

Rumberger, R. W. (2004). Why students 

drop out of school. In G. Orfied (Ed.), 

Dropouts in America: confronting the 

graduation rate crisis (pp. 131–55). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). 

Student mobility and the increased risk 

of high school drop out. American Journal of Education, 107, 1–35.

Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). 

Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer 

rates as alternative indicators of high 

school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 3–42.

Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). 

The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban 

high schools. Sociology of Education, 

73, 39–67.

Shirm, A., Stuart, E., & McKie, A. (2006). 

The Quantum Opportunity Program 

demonstration: final impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with 

emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 465–82.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, 

D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Dropout 

prevention for youth with disabilities: 

efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 

65(1), 7–21.

Sipe, C. (1996). Mentoring: a synthesis of 

P/PV’s research: 1988–1995. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. (ED 

404 410)

Skromme, A. B., Van Allen, J., & Bensen, M. 

J. (1998). The cause and cure of dropouts. Moline, IL: Self-Confidence Press.

Smink, J. (1990). Mentoring programs for 

at-risk youth: a dropout prevention research report. Clemson, SC: National 

Dropout Prevention Center.

Snipes, J. C., Holton, G. I., Doolittle, F., & 

Sztejnberg, L. (2006). Striving for student success: the effect of Project GRAD 

on high school student outcomes in 

three urban school districts. New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation.
References

( 65 )

St. John, E. P., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, 

A. B., & Chung, C. G. (2002). Meeting the 

access challenge: Indiana’s Twenty-First 

Century Scholars Program. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education, New Agenda Series.

Sterns, D., & Stearns, R. (2007). Combining 

academic and career-technical courses 

to make college an option for more students: evidence and challenges. Multiple perspectives on multiple pathways: 

preparing California’s youth for college, career, and civic responsibility. 

Retrieved November 20, 2007, from 

http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/projects/

multiplepathways/index.html

Stiles, J., & Brady, H. (2007). Pipelines, 

pathways, and payoffs: economic challenges and returns to changing demographics in California. Multiple perspectives on multiple pathways: preparing 

california’s youth for college, career, 

and civic responsibility. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://idea.gseis.

ucla.edu/projects/multiplepathways/

index.html

Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., & Roney, 

C. (2006). National Assessment of Title 

I Interim Report to Congress: Volume I: 

Implementation of Title I. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston, I. (In press). 

Predictors of categorical at-risk high 

school dropouts. Journal of Counseling 

and Development.

Swanson, C. B., & Schneider, B. (1999). Students on the move: residential and educational mobility in America’s schools. 

Sociology of Education, 72, 54–67.

Temple, J. A., Reynolds, A. J., & Miedel, W. 

T. (1998). Can early intervention prevent 

high school dropout? Evidence from the 

Chicago child parent centers (Discussion 

Paper 1180–98). Madison, WI: University 

of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006). Income 

in 2005 by educational attainment 

of the population 18 years and over. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). No 

Child Left Behind—2008: detailed summary of proposed Title I regulations.

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

(2006). No Child Left Behind Act: education actions needed to improve local 

implementation and state evaluation 

of supplemental educational services

(GAO-06-758). Washington, DC.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. 

(1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 72, 1161–76.

Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with 

school. American Journal of Education, 

105(3), 294–318.

Waldfogel, J., Garfinkel, I., & Kelly, B. 

(2007). Welfare and the costs of public 

assistance. In C. Belfield and H. Levin 

(Eds.), The price we pay: economic and 

social consequences of inadequate education (pp. 162–74). Washington, DC: 

The Brookings Institution.

Warren, J.R. & Halpern-Manners, A. (2007). 

Is the glass emptying or filling up? Reconciling divergent trends in high school 

completion and dropout. Educational 

Researcher, 36, 335–43.

Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., King, S. P., Powell, 

L. C., Holland, N. E., Gladden, R. M., & 

Mosak, E. (2000). Small schools: great 

strides. A Study of New Small Schools 

in Chicago. New York: The Bank Street 

College of Education.

Wehlage, G. G. (1989). Dropping out: can 

schools be expected to prevent it? In L. 

Weis, E. Farrar, and H. G. Petrie (Eds.), 

Dropouts from school: issues, dilemmas, 

and solutions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., 

Lesko, N., & Fernandez, R. R. (1989). 

Reducing the risk: schools as communities of support. New York: Falmer 

Press.
References

( 66 )

Weinberger, S. (1992). How to start a student mentor program. In Phi Delta Kappa 

Fastbook 333. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta 

Kappa Educational Foundation.

Willms, D., & Flanagan, P. (2008). Tell Them 

From Me. [website]. Retrieved May 27, 

2008, from http://www.thelearningbar.

com/ttfm/main.php

Woloszyk, C. A. (1996). Models for at 

risk youth: final report. Kalamazoo, 

MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment 

Research.