Dropout Prevention Programs in Nine Mid-Atlantic Region School Districts: Additions to a Dropout Prevention Database. Issues &amp; Answers. REL 2011-No. 103
Author: Burzichelli, Claudia
Date: 2011-02-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Student Needs,Mentors,Poverty,Dropout Programs,Dropout Rate,Dropout Prevention,Dropouts,Mental Health Programs,Community Involvement,Urban Schools,School Districts,Databases,Low Income Groups,Clearinghouses,Educational Policy,Academic Achievement,Models,Ethnic Groups,Race,Program Descriptions,Attendance,Truancy,Socioeconomic Status,Special Needs Students,Behavior Problems,Teachers,Principals,School Counselors,Social Services,State Government,Federal Government,Financial Support,High School Students,Secondary Education

The current study replicates work of Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Northeast and Islands. It describes dropout prevention programs in nine Mid-Atlantic Region (Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) school districts serving communities with populations of 24,742-107,250 (as of July 2008). All nine districts have high dropout rates, large racial/ethnic minority student populations, and high percentages of students from households living below the poverty line. The study is driven by two research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of dropout prevention programs and policies in the nine districts?; and (2) Which programs have been reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse, and what were its findings? The study found that: (1) No district reported dropout prevention policies apart from those establishing the reported programs; (2) Only one program model was reported by more than one district; (3) The most common core strategies were advocating for student needs (64 percent of programs), engaging and supporting families (57 percent), and monitoring school attendance (53 percent); (4) The most common service goals were to improve academic performance (95 percent of programs), decrease truancy (66 percent), and provide support during transitions (60 percent); (5) The most common student subgroups targeted were students with academic needs (90 percent of programs), students from low socioeconomic status families (60 percent), and special needs students with behavioral challenges (57 percent); (6) Programs that targeted specific grades were most likely to focus on students in grades 9 or 12; (7) Teachers were involved in 86 percent of reported programs, guidance counselors in 78 percent, and principals or other administrators in 67 percent; (8) The most common forms of community involvement engaged parents (69 percent of programs), youth or social services staff (28 percent), mental health services staff (28 percent), police (22 percent), and mentoring program staff (21 percent). Twelve programs (21 percent) reported no community involvement; (9) Districts funded all or part of 79 percent of reported programs; state governments had some financial role in 41 percent, the federal government in 26 percent, and private sources in 7 percent. Four programs (7 percent) did not report a funding source; and (10) As of May 1, 2010, only 1 of the 58 programs--Talent Development High Schools--had been reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse, which found only one small study that met its evidence standards with reservations. Appendices include: (1) Study methodology; (2) Dropout prevention interventions evaluated by the What Works Clearinghouse (as of May 1, 2010); (3) Introductory letter; (4) Model commitment letter; (5) Interview guide; and (6) Interview template for recording data. (Contains 2 boxes, 9 tables, and 5 notes.) [For the summary report, see ED516739.]