text:
Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center
A policy analysis center of the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education Research conducted by: Intercultural Development Research Association Maria Robledo Montecel, Ph.D. Josie Cortez, M.A. Albert Cortez, Ph.D.
DR. LOUIS OLIVAS AMEPAC CHAIRMAN Arizona State University DR. ADELLA ARTOLA ALLEN The University of Arizona GARY BAE Representing Arizona Charter Schools DR. RA�L C�RDENAS Maricopa Community College District DR. JOSE COLCHADO Northern Arizona University DR. ALFREDO G. DE LOS SANTOS JR. Arizona State University DR. JUDITH DOERR State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona TONYA DRAKE Arizona Board of Regents GENEVA DUARTE Pima Community College District DR. ERNESTO G. ESCOBEDO Glendale Community College DR. JESUS GREER Douglas Unified School District EDMUNDO E. HIDALGO Chicanos Por La Causa Representing Community Minority Organizations FRED LOCKHART Arizona Private School Association DR. ROBERT MARTIN Tohono O'odham Community College THERESA NATONI PRICE Mesa Unified School District RALPH ROMERO Arizona Department of Education
AMEPAC Mission: To stimulate, through studies, statewide discussion, and debate, constructive improvement of Arizona minority students' early awareness, access, and achievement throughout all sectors of education.
AMEPAC is a policy analysis center of the
Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education
CONTENTS Stemming the Tide of Dropouts: An Action Agenda for Arizona By The Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center i How Big is the Dropout Problem in Arizona? ii What are the Costs of Dropping Out? vi What Has Worked Well in Combating High Dropout Rates? viii What Should the Citizens and Leaders of Arizona Do About the Dropout Crisis? x What Steps Can We Take to "Stem the Tide" Of Dropouts in Arizona? xii RESEARCH STUDY: Dropping Out of Arizona's Schools: The Scope, the Costs, and Successful Strategies to Address the Crisis By Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) 1-56
Commission Staff: VERNA L. ALLEN Executive Director TONI FLEISHER Program Specialist
Stemming the Tide of Dropouts:
An Action Agenda for Arizona
The Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC)
A policy analysis center of the
Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education
Arizona Education Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center May May 2002
Stemming the Tide of Dropouts:
An An Action Agenda for Arizona
Last January, two children strayed from their family during a hike in the woods of northern Arizona. Search and rescue teams from four county sheriff's offices and personnel from the U. S. Forest Service engaged in an intense effort to locate these children and return them safely. Professional trackers, scent dogs, all-terrain vehicles, and helicopters combined efforts in a spare-no-expense mission. The plight of the lost children and their frantic parents was broadcast throughout the state. There were hourly updates on the progress of the 170 search and rescue workers. The children were found and brought back safely to a collective sigh of relief. Our concern for these lost children was understandable and appropriate. Our response involved attention, personnel, and investment of resources. Children's lives were clearly precious. In the past year we lost more than 10,000 children due to the relentless, silent tide of dropouts in Arizona - and few of us seem to know about it - and even fewer seem to care. Their loss isn't broadcast on the nightly news; reporters aren't camping out on the school steps; and there are few search and rescue squads ready to save them. The children who quietly wander away from our schools probably won't die in the cold, but their life chances are dramatically diminished and their futures significantly limited. They are missing! They are lost! What are we doing about it? The loss of our children from schools is a crisis - and we need to respond to it with the kind of attention, resources, passion, and compassion we devoted to the physical rescue of those two children lost in a cold winter forest.
Most data in this document was made available through the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) and presented in an AMEPAC commissioned research paper, "Dropping Out of Arizona's Schools: The Scope, the Costs, and Successful Strategies to Address the Crisis" written by the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA). AMEPAC commissioned this study in an attempt to determine the scope of the Arizona dropout problem and strategies for changing this disastrous situation. IDRA was selected based on their record of expertise in this field.
How Big Is the Dropout Problem in Arizona?
A review of data related to the quantity and the types of students who leave before completing high school provides a revealing picture. The many Arizona children lost from our educational system is stunning � and deeply disturbing.
How Many Children Are We Losing?
Annual Rates
Each year during the six school years from 1994-95 to 1999-2000, Arizona's schools lost an average of: 32,000 children (8.8% of all students in Grades 7-12) 4,000 children from Grades 7 and 8 (3.2% of the total) 28,000 children from high school (11.9%) A total of almost 200,000 children dropped out of Arizona's schools during the last six school years of the 20th century. This is more than the entire population of any single rural county in Arizona.
Longitudinal Rates
The traditional method of calculating the annual number of students dropping out fails to reveal the full extent of our loss. In an article entitled "Graduation Statistics: Caveat Emptor" in the January 16, 2002 issue of Education Week, the author says, "Presenting dropout rates in annual terms is like reporting credit card interest rates in monthly terms; it just makes the number feel smaller."
Another approach is to track a cohort of students over a period of time. This can be done by identifying students who began first grade or those who began high school, then following them to the time of high school graduation for their class. Doing this type of "cohort analysis" or "longitudinal dropout rate" provides a more complete picture of what has happened to the children who enter our school system. Doing an accurate cohort analysis requires a sophisticated enrollment tracking system. In process of developing such a system, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) expects to have one operational by 2004. In the meantime, it is possible to provide an estimate of the longitudinal dropout rate in Arizona with the use of the approach originally developed by IDRA for application in Texas. Using this approach, IDRA concluded that Arizona high schools experienced the following attrition rates: 32.8% for the class of 1998 32.8 % for the class of 1999 31.8% for the class of 2000 For the class of 2000 alone, this translates to a loss of 21,472 students between 9th grade and high school graduation (IDRA, 2002).
Almost one third of Arizona students who begin 9th grade drop out prior to completing their high school education.
Who Is Dropping Out?
Arizona's experience is similar to that of other states in that males drop out of school at higher rates than females. For example, the dropout rate among all students in Arizona high schools in 1999-2000 was: 12.6% for male students 9.6% for female students Given available information, it was not possible to determine the longitudinal dropout rate for females and males over a four-year period.
Arizona again reflects the national trend, in that minority students drop out at higher rates than White students do. However, a substantial proportion of all dropouts are White and Hispanic. The students who dropped out of high school in the 1999-2000 school year can be used as an example. Annual Dropout Rate and Number by Ethnicity1 1999-2000 # Dropping Out 232 1,446 10,969 2,919 10,531 % Dropout Rate 4.8% 13.0% 15.4% 16.8% 8.1% % of All Dropouts 1.0% 5.5% 42.0% 11.2% 40.4%
Asian Black Hispanic Native American White
Troubling as these annual dropout rates might be, they mask the extent of the problem for each group. A cohort analysis reveals that the longitudinal dropout rates are: Longitudinal Dropout Rate by Ethnicity 1998-2000 Asian Black Hispanic Native American White Class of 1998 9.6% 34.9% 43.7% 45.3% 26.0% Class of 1999 13.3% 33.6% 44.0% 45.7% 25.6% Class of 2000 14.1% 32.6% 42.7% 48.3% 24.2%
The shocking fact is that approximately one quarter of White students and one third of Black students in Arizona are dropping out before completing high school. While wholly unacceptable, this statistic is almost overwhelmed by the alarming conclusion that virtually one half of all Native American and Hispanic children in Arizona are not completing high school (IDRA, 2002).
One third of all our children are not completing high school. Almost half the students from some ethnic groups are lost from our schools prior to graduation.1
Intercultural Development Research Association, 2002
The dropout rate in Arizona is not a "problem." The dropout rate in Arizona is a full-blown crisis! It demands action to stem this shameful tide of lost children.
Where Are They Dropping Out?
As would be expected in a state with one extremely large urban county, more than half (16,093) of the students who drop out live in Maricopa County. However, in 1999-2000, the dropout rate for Maricopa County (7.7%) was lower than the rate for the state as a whole. The lowest dropout rates were in Cochise County (6%) and Greenlee County (3.1%), while the highest rates were found in Mohave County (10.8%), Apache County (9.8%) and Pinal County (9.9%).
Why Do They Drop Out?
As with any complex social phenomenon, it is impossible to determine a single factor responsible for students dropping out of school. However, studies over the years have determined certain elements to be correlated with students dropping out. None will predict who will drop out, but these factors noted by IDRA in their study clearly relate to the likelihood of students doing so2. Factors related to socio-economic status in a community include: Family income Ethnicity Parents' level of education Migrant (AMEPAC Addition) Factors related to the individual student include: Being over age in grade Being a former retainee Teen pregnancy or parenthood Excessive absenteeism Boredom and not being academically challenged Academic underachievement Teachers teaching out-of-discipline areas (AMEPAC Addition)
IDRA does not support the contention that student factors determine reasons students drop out. A lack of focus on institutional characteristics and need for systemic change may explain why decades of dropout prevention initiatives have met with relatively limited success.
Factors related to school-based characteristics include: Expenditures per pupil Percentages of certified teachers Average years of teaching experience Opportunities for extra-curricular participation Effective efforts to reduce the number of children lost from the school system must therefore involve a variety of approaches, ones that account for the range of factors influencing whether or not children remain in school.
Given the importance of institutional characteristics associated with dropout rates, attention must be paid to issues of school funding and the quality of the schools themselves.
What are the Costs of Dropping Out?
A student dropping out of school prior to high school graduation is an event having major, long-term impacts. That individual's opportunities in life and projected income will be drastically curtailed. Society will also pay a heavy price for this action.
What Earning Potential Is Lost?
Among the most obvious results for the individual is a loss of earning potential. IDRA has pointed out that, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES): Male high school graduates in 1998 earned an average of $7,800 more per year than those who did not graduate Female high school graduates earned an average of $4,700 more per year than those who did not graduate If the male student who dropped out of high school had instead continued on to complete a baccalaureate degree, he would be earning an average of $22,300 more per year. The female student would be earning an average of $20,100 more per year had she completed a baccalaureate degree.
Over a lifetime of work, this could translate to well over half a million dollars in lost income for each individual who drops out of high school.3
The long-term cost of dropouts was estimated through the application to Arizona of the IDRA Texas-based model. For example, the 21,472 students who dropped out prior to graduating high school in 2000 will collectively: Lose an estimated annual income of $159.23 million Lose $13.61 billion in personal income in their lifetimes if they work until they are 60 years old (IDRA, 2002)
What Is the Cost to Society?
The cost to society for a high dropout rate is both direct and indirect. The lower incomes earned by those who did not complete high school result inevitably in lower tax revenues. As a group, dropouts experience higher levels of both unemployment and incarceration, so a high dropout rate will likely result in elevated costs for unemployment and workers compensation payments as well as the increased costs for correctional facilities (IDRA, 2002). Using the model developed by IDRA, it is estimated that $47.77 million will be lost annually in tax revenues because of the lower incomes. This translates to $4.08 billion in tax revenue lost to society over the working lifetimes of these dropouts. According to the IDRA formula, which includes federal income and social security tax; state income, property, sales, gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco tax; and any local taxes, if the higher costs for incarceration predicted for this group are factored in, the dropouts from the class of 2000 are likely to cost $103.4 million per year and an estimated $4.7 billion over the course of their lifetimes.
Intercultural Development Research Association, 2002
What Has Worked Well in Combating High Dropout Rates?
The disappointing news is that there is no "one best way" to prevent students from dropping out of school. The good news is that a number of programs and approaches seem to have been successful in reducing dropouts. The bad news is that attacking the problem of large dropout rates can be expensive. The good news is that a successful attack will more than pay for itself in increased human potential for the individual and in increased revenues for the state. As is often the case, many programs designed to reduce the dropout rates have been implemented with great commitment to success but little attention paid to measuring that success, so that even the programs that appear to work well often cannot prove that they are effective. Nonetheless, there are programs with records indicating that they have a positive impact on participants' probability of completing high school.
What programs have worked
in other states?
A number of programs seem to have had success in alleviating high dropout rates, including:
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), involving reform in middle through high schools with underachieving students in order to provide a rigorous college preparatory curriculum to most students. Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success (ALAS), utilizing a multi-faceted approach engaging home, school and community in providing social problem-solving training, counseling and recognition for academic excellence. Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA), employing a challenging environment that includes MESA classes, academic advising, peer group learning, career exploration, parent involvement and other services. Project Grad (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams), involving students in summer academic institutes and paid internships as well as engagement of parents, improved instruction and school discipline. SCORE, bringing together administrators, counselors, teachers, parents and students to improve academic achievement through a common core curriculum, development of study skills and provision of support personnel. Upward Bound, engaging students and schools since the 1960s in extra instruction, access to support services and financial assistance, and participation in an intensive summer academic program at a college campus.
What practices have worked
in Arizona?
In Arizona, some of the practices with successful records are:
Achieving a College Education (ACE), operating through South Mountain Community College since 1987 and involving students from Phoenix Union and Tempe Union High School Districts taking college courses while in high school as well as participation in additional summer and Saturday programs. Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program, developed by IDRA in 1984 and currently working with students in Tempe schools, placing junior high students in positions of responsibility as tutors of elementary school students. Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program, initiated by Arizona State University in 1984 and working with girls from the 8th grade through college by involving them and their mothers in a support network including tutoring, counseling and community role models. Jobs for Arizona's Graduates (JAG), a local affiliate of a national program serving six Arizona School Districts (Camelback, Carl Hayden, Dysart, McClintock, Peoria and Tolleson Union) with a multi-faceted approach including specialists working with groups of students, instruction in employment competencies, a student organization, and career development skills
Are there any common themes in these successful programs?
As the IDRA study pointed out, some common elements in the programs that appear to work are: Individual attention and support from an educator committed to the success of the student Schools that genuinely value all students Partnership between family and school, with a common focus on success for the student Schools that adapt creatively to the characteristics of their students and their environment Educators equipped with the tools to ensure students' success (i.e., high quality, professionally developed teachers with the necessary funds and materials)
What Should the Citizens and Leaders of Arizona Do About the Dropout Crisis?
The tide of dropouts in Arizona can only be turned by an urgent and concerted effort of an aware public and committed leaders.
We must devote time, attention and resources to saving our children from the limited futures available to those who drop out of school. This crisis demands immediate attention and action as well as long-term changes in the educational system of our state. Some recommended policy changes arising from IDRA's study, and the responsibility for implementing them, would include the following:
What Should Our Elected Leaders in Arizona Do?
Our State Legislature and Governor must: Reinforce requirements that all schools submit required dropout and graduation-related data in a timely manner Support funding for the Arizona Department of Education to expand existing monitoring, data gathering/auditing, and enforcement efforts to ensure full compliance with state dropout and graduation reporting requirements. Undertake a new major statewide reform that includes establishing new state graduation rate goals and developing a statewide plan for increasing local graduation rates and reducing related dropout numbers. Develop a new funding formula category that includes calculations of the number of at-risk students in a district and that targets dropout prevention and recovery programs for support Consider raising the exemption age for compulsory school attendance Explore ways to find or develop sufficient funding to support schools' efforts to provide a quality education for all students and to adopt programs designed to reduce the number of dropouts
What Should the Arizona Department of Education Do?
The Arizona Department of Education should: Complete the upgrading of the student information system as soon as possible to facilitate state-level student tracking and research on student persistence and graduation Partner in the development of a statewide clearinghouse for effective dropout prevention and recovery programs Conduct a comprehensive study of state costs resulting from students leaving school prior to graduation in order to solidify the need for ongoing support from the business and education sectors Support a coordinator in each district who will have primary responsibility for monitoring and supporting dropout prevention efforts Include graduation rate data in state accountability provisions with appropriate definitions for graduations rates and some weighting as well as sanctions and rewards for performance on reducing dropout rates Limit the time for finalizing counts to no more than one year to help inform dropout reduction and recovery efforts Support middle school programs aimed at dropout prevention and recovery efforts as well as high school programs Support early education awareness efforts of other state agencies (AMEPAC Addition) xi
What Should Local Leaders and School District Officials Do?
Local officials, community leaders and school district personnel should: Expand community awareness through local schools reporting on dropout and graduation rates via local print media and/or community forums Inventory and evaluate thoroughly the existing dropout prevention and recovery efforts, eliminating those determined to be least effective and implementing new efforts that have data documenting their effectiveness Create and maintain a district coordinator with primary responsibility for monitoring and supporting dropout prevention efforts Develop community action teams that are comprised of school, community, private sector, college/university, parent and high school student representatives to help raise awareness and to help design, evaluate and monitor community-level dropout and graduation-related efforts
What Steps Can We Take to "Stem the Tide" of Dropouts in Arizona?
Arizona's Youth (STAY) in School Initiative
AMEPAC has been studying the dropout problem in Arizona for several years. It has commissioned and released findings from four research studies in hopes that someone would "take the bull by the horns" and initiate a concerted systemic effort to address the dropout crisis. As a result of this research and emphasis from AMEPAC, the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education has formed the Success Today for Arizona's Youth Committee to implement the STAY in School Initiative. The STAY Committee will be comprised of community leaders and educators who take action on the recommendations listed above.
Success Today for
The primary focus of the STAY Committee will be to: Establish a statewide clearinghouse for effective dropout prevention and recovery programs Expand community awareness through local schools reporting on dropout and graduation rates via local print media and/or community forums Inventory and evaluate thoroughly the existing dropout prevention and recovery efforts, eliminating those determined to be least effective and implementing new efforts that have data documenting their effectiveness Develop community action teams that are comprised of school, community, private sector, college/university, parent and high school student representatives to help raise awareness and to help design, evaluate and monitor community-level dropout and graduation-related efforts
AMEPAC's "Stem the Tide" Campaign
AMEPAC has planned a series of 32 community workshops to disseminate the findings of the "Dropping Out of Arizona's Schools" research study. The workshops are intended to create awareness about the dropout crisis and engage educators and community leaders in the STAY in School Initiative. In addition to sharing the findings from the research study, AMEPAC members will provide each community with a profile of economic conditions in their community that can benefit from a well-prepared workforce as well as a summary of existing dropout prevention efforts. Communities may sign a commitment to be a STAY in School Task Force community and participate in the evaluation of existing practices and receive recommendations for new "best practices" where needed.
AMEPAC would like to acknowledge the input of all members with special appreciation to Dr. Judith Doerr and Ms. Tonya Drake for their writing and formatting expertise.
Intercultural Development Research Association. (2002) Dropping out of Arizona's schools: The scope, the costs, and successful strategies to address the crisis, commissioned by the Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center, Phoenix, AZ.
Executive Summary
This paper was commissioned by the Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center of the Arizona Commission on Postsecondary Education. The approaches used, conceptually and methodologically, build on the work that the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) has done in the area of dropouts in Texas over the past 15 years. While modeled after earlier state studies, the analyses conducted are based on Arizona student and program data obtained from the Arizona Department of Education, national data sources including the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and other researchers who compiled and reviewed state-level information. Before discussing possible remedies, this report describes the probable magnitude of the dropout issue in Arizona, the possible cost of the problem to the state in both economic and human terms, and the policies that may need to be addressed to facilitate the adoption and implementation of local and state dropout prevention and recovery efforts.
Cost of Dropouts � Major Findings
� For every student Arizona schools fail to keep in school through graduation, the state loses money in lost earning capacity and incarceration expenses. For the class of high school dropouts that would have graduated in 2000, total costs to Arizona were an estimated $214.4 million per year, and $14.25 billion over the lifetime of these individuals. For every $1 spent on getting students all the way through to graduation, the state saves $66 in state services and lost revenues.
� Arizona should conduct a comprehensive study of state costs resulting from students leaving school prior to graduation, including analyses of lost wages and related state taxes, incarceration costs, job training and unemployment expenses, and other state costs that may be significantly impacted by lower levels of education.
Dropout and Graduation Counts � Major Findings
� � According to the Arizona Department of Education's annual dropout studies, since 1994, a total of 168,004 high school students have dropped out of Arizona high schools � enough to populate a small city. In its analysis of high schools' holding power in Arizona, IDRA determined that only three out of every 10 students entering Arizona as freshmen in 1996-97 were not still enrolled in their senior year in 1999-00, an overall statewide attrition rate of 31.8 percent for that group. Translated to students, the 31.8 percent attrition rate means that a total of 45,971 students of an expected 67,443 12th grade enrollment were still enrolled in school, representing a loss of 21,472 students from that one class of students. Arizona's Native Americans, Hispanic and Black high school students drop out at disproportionate and alarming rates. Of the freshman class of 1996-97, 42.7 percent of Hispanics, 48.3 percent of Native Americans, and 32.6 percent of Black pupils were lost from enrollment by their group's senior year. Though White students' attrition was estimated at 24.2 percent, lower than all but the Asian sub-group of students, that number still represents an estimated loss of 9,057 White students. Because White students constitute the largest number of students in Arizona schools, 1
� �
the 9,057 White students represent 40.8 percent of the students lost from the total cohort. Not all students who drop out are from high school. In a related attrition study that considered middle school students, another researcher estimated that only 60 percent of Arizona eighth graders from the eighth grade class of 1993 were still enrolled in high school five years later, converting to a 40 percent attrition rate.
� Given the magnitude of the dropout problem, Arizona should launch a major statewide effort to address the dropout issue at the state and local community levels. The initiative should be structured in a way that meaningfully engages all major stakeholders including state officials, local school representatives, business and community leaders, parents and students. Because the extent of the problem varies across student groups and communities, efforts should be targeted to address groups, schools and areas with the greatest needs. Graduation rate data should be included in state accountability provisions with appropriate weighting and related sanctions for excessive dropout rates and rewards for accelerated reduction of dropout rates.
� �
Dropout Counting and Reporting � Major Findings
� � � Some state policies for identifying and counting dropouts and high school graduates are in place. Not all Arizona schools submit data needed to calculate local and statewide graduation and dropout rates. Although the state requires schools to submit dropout data with sanctions for schools that do not comply, lack of state resources to monitor compliance and audit school data significantly limit state-level staff ability to prescribe consequences for schools that fail to submit requested dropout or graduation related data. Arizona currently, and appropriately, does not include either GED or unverified enrollment counts in its dropout rate calculation, a practice that contributes to a more accurate estimate of students who annually drop out from Arizona high schools.
� These are ongoing efforts by the Arizona Department of Education that IDRA supports. The state of Arizona should continue to require all schools and school districts to submit enrollment and student status data to calculate graduation and dropout rates on a yearly basis, and the State Department of Education should consequently report annually graduation and dropout rate data. It should also increase the application of sanctions for schools or districts that fail to comply within reasonable time frames. Dropout rate calculations should continue to include GED students, unverified transfers, and all other "status unknown" students in local and state dropout counts. Graduation rate studies should exclude, but report separately, numbers of students who: (1) are enrolled in or completed GED programs, and (2) have finished all course requirements but failed to pass the AIMS test. The state should strengthen penalties or sanctions for schools who fail to submit required dropout or graduation data and incentives or rewards for those schools that comply.
� � �
State Dropout and Graduation Standards � Major Findings
� � � There is currently no established graduation rate goal for the state as a whole or for individual high school districts. State law prescribes that schools will not exceed an annual dropout rate of 6 percent, which converts to only a 76 percent graduation rate target over four years. Though the state accountability system includes provisions for considering local school and district dropout rates, the 6 percent benchmark established is so low that few if any districts fail to meet the state standard, minimizing the perceived severity of local and state dropout issues.
� The state of Arizona should consider providing additional resources to expedite the completion of the new SAIS system to facilitate state-level research on student persistence and graduation.
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Programs � Major Findings
� � � There is no current major statewide initiative that is focused on addressing the Arizona dropout issue. There is currently no statewide comprehensive plan in Arizona that identifies research-based and effective dropout prevention and recovery programs. In addition, there is no statewide initiative to disseminate information on effective dropout prevention and recovery programs. There are an inadequate number of dropout prevention programs in Arizona that have adequately evaluated and documented their effectiveness over time. A small number of programs have documented their impact on dropout prevention and recovery efforts, and a few others show promise but require additional research. Research shows that students drop out of school for a number of reasons. However, proposing that student characteristics are the primary cause for dropping out of school is inaccurate and not useful to finding a solution to the problem. Schools, with support from state and other sources, are the primary institutions that decrease the number and proportion of students who leave schools. There is no single all-inclusive program for addressing the dropout issue. Programs must be varied to address school, student and family needs. All programs should value all students, families and communities. All dropout prevention and recovery programs should be informed by strong evaluation plans that identify which aspects of school dropout prevention or recovery programs work and which may need to be modified or eliminated and all programs should be part of a larger plan that requires schools to engage in sound educational practices for all of their students. Any short-term costs invested for dropout prevention will far outweigh the costs involved if that same student drops out of school. Compare the cost benefits: for every $1 invested in keeping students in school until high school graduation, the state saves $66 in costs that would have gone to lost revenues, social support services, and judicial and incarceration costs that are estimated to result from dropping out. Lack of data on dropout program effectiveness limits the ability of the state to provide targeted funding that will reduce dropout rates. Arizona does not currently provide targeted funding to help local schools directly address their local dropout problems. Estimated costs to the state for implementing one proven dropout prevention program (the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program) would be approximately $300 per student served. 3
� �
� � �
There is currently no centralized repository of information on effective dropout prevention or recovery efforts that could help guide local communities that wish to impact the dropout problem.
� � � � The state should develop a statewide dropout prevention plan with specific goals, time lines, benchmarks, responsible and accountable parties and ongoing evaluation. Though funding for dropouts is included as a category in state funding to local schools, its inclusion in a block grant reduces the probability that sufficient resources will be targeted on this specific issue at the local level. Arizona should adapt a new funding formula category to provide targeted funding for dropout prevention and recovery programs for schools based on the number of pupils who are identified as at risk of dropping out of school. State dropout prevention programs should incorporate community oversight teams comprised of all relevant stakeholders including schools, colleges and universities, community, private sector, parents, and high school students to design and evaluate community-level dropout prevention efforts. Arizona should undertake a comprehensive evaluation of existing dropout prevention programs in the state to identify critical features of programs that succeed in keeping students in school through high school graduation and beyond. The state should consider increasing the compulsory age at which students are exempted from required school attendance. However, such initiatives must be accompanied by relevant changes in schools' dropout prevention and recovery efforts. The state of Arizona should create a state-level clearinghouse of effective, research-based dropout prevention and recovery programs that provide support to schools and communities implementing new or existing proven programs. The state should fund a district-level coordinator responsible for the effective implementation of dropout prevention and recovery programs.
� � � �
The Cost of Dropouts for Arizona
Dropping out of school prior to graduation is a phenomenon that has plagued education in the United States since the days when many states chose to make attendance in school mandatory. Prior to 1950, students in most states were not required to attend school. And if they were, the requirements only applied until a particular grade level or age was attained. All states in the United States have now adopted compulsory attendance laws for students usually up to 15 to 18 years old. This includes Arizona, which requires students to attend school until they reach the age of 16 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Documentation of school attendance in Arizona has long been a feature of state accounting and reporting systems, with total enrollment and attendance rates used as the major determinant to drive state financing of local school operations. Student counts are considered crucial for estimating school funding needs. Numbers of students actually served impact a whole array of school services, including the number of teachers required, the textbooks needed, and similar services. Conversely, keeping track of the number of students who remain enrolled in the school system has been neglected in local school operations, not only in Arizona, but across the country. Most people assume that public schools have a system for tracking their pupils. Based in its work with hundreds of schools IDRA has found, that due to the amount of human and capital resources required to develop and maintain such student tracking systems, particularly before the age of desktop computers, few local school systems actually have such systems. Even as student data base development was facilitated by emerging computer technology, only some larger schools faced with the challenge of tracking the enrollment status of thousands of pupils, actually did so. As late as the mid-1980s, few states had any systems in place to help them track student enrollment or to calculate actual local, county or state dropout rates. While there are alternative ways to calculate annual and cohort (longitudinal) dropout rates, the best systems are based on individual student records accounting for every student who enrolled in a local school system. Why have states and local school systems often balked at the development of such student status tracking systems? This lack of concern with school dropouts � of students leaving school prior to receiving their high school diplomas � was in part due to the fact that until recent decades, parts of local, state and national economies were dependent on the availability of unskilled and non-literate individuals to perform work tasks that did not require education. Up to the 1930s, when agriculture was a mainstay of the U.S. economy, a high school education was not a prerequisite to employment. As late as the 1950s, when many states moved to dependency on an industrial work force, a high school diploma was not perceived as essential to performing jobs associated with various industries. As the national economy evolved, more industries and workplaces came to expect and require that their workforces have at least a high school education. Lack of adequate worker skills has recently caused many workplaces to expand their job preparation activities, costing billions of dollars in worker training and education (Horne, 1997). In fact, in a survey of workplace needs, employers complained of the need to upgrade workers' basic education skills in order to get them to a point of being productive workers (National Alliance of Business, 2001). This change in worker-related skills has drastically impacted the life chances of individuals who lack adequate educational preparation. According to various national studies conducted over the last decade, job opportunities available to individuals without a high school education are rapidly dwindling. We also are witnessing an expanding gap in earnings of high school graduates compared to non-graduates. The data on impact of education on workers' lifetime earnings have been recently calculated, reflecting that the gap in earnings between high school graduates and non-graduates has 5
increased in recent decades. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), male high school graduates in 1998 earned an average of $7,800 more per year than male nongraduates. Female graduates earned $4,700 more per year than female non-graduates (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). According to the same sources, the differentials between high school dropouts and individuals earning bachelor degrees is even more dramatic, with male college graduates earning an average of $22,300 more per year than non-graduates, and females earning $20,100 more than their non-graduating peers. Though earning differences are the most obvious and direct consequences of student failure to complete high school, the costs to society go far beyond loss in earning power. According to a broad array of research studies, high school dropouts also result in lost tax revenue, as individuals who earn less also contribute less to state and national revenues through payroll, sales, and other user taxes (Levin and Bachman, 1972). High school dropouts have also been noted to be over-represented among those who require worker compensation payments. They tend to be laid off more often and for longer terms, collecting greater proportions of unemployment than do high school graduates (Levin and Bachman, 1972). Though most individuals who do not have a high school diploma are law-abiding citizens, dropouts as a whole are over-represented in the juvenile justice and later in the adult jail and prison populations. Though it should not be assumed, and it is not implied here, that dropping out automatically leads a person to violate state or federal laws, the diminished options and reduced life chances for students without a high school diploma apparently does make some more prone to become entangled in the judicial systems. Over time, dropping out leads to more limited employment options and diminished earnings. Dr. Jay P. Greene notes: "Students who fail to graduate from high school face a bleak future. Because the basic skills conveyed in high school and higher education are essential for success in today's economy, students who do not receive those skills are likely to suffer with significantly reduced earnings and employment prospects" ( 2001). Dropping out also has been linked to diminished opportunities for family members, as children of dropouts are more likely to fail to complete high school requirements themselves, perpetuating cycles of poverty and disadvantage for generations. Though a contemporary reality in Arizona and many other states, dropping out of school is preventable with appropriate and timely interventions. Programs exist that have been proven effective in addressing the dropout issue. A few are found in Arizona, and many have been implemented in comparable communities around the country as identified in the Dropout Prevention and Recovery section of this paper.
Summary and Analysis of Arizona's Reported Dropout Rates
Most people will not address an issue until they become aware of its existence. Students dropping out of school has long been known to exist. Community members may see them at the street corners, in job training programs, in line at social support service agencies, and in other environments. Dropouts are not invisible, nor do they magically disappear from the population. Yet the extent to which they exist and how they impact social and economic realities are often grossly overlooked. It is important to note that any discussion of school dropouts is a discussion of a lack of a school's success in getting an individual student all the way through the educational system, up to and through high school graduation. Part of the reason for the lack of focus on dropouts is that in past eras, dropouts "did not matter." The need for an unskilled labor force diminished or outweighed dropout identification and prevention as a local or state issue. Though job requirements and economic realities have changed, lack of past focus on dropout identification and prevention, and a current reluctance to confront the issue often combine to reinforce a general aversion to address the issue. Before assessing whether one should do something it is critical to assess what is known about the extent of the dropout issue in Arizona, and what is currently being done to address the issue.
"The future of Arizona is at risk. While the rapid growth of a new global informationbased economy provides tremendous opportunities for all of Arizona's citizens, the state is at risk of missing out on potential benefits of the economic revolution. The risk factors for Arizona are real and alarming... among these is the alarmingly high rates at which students drop out of the education pipeline" (Governor's Task Force on Higher Education, 2000).
State Procedures for Counting and Reporting Dropouts
In Arizona, as has been the case in many other states, the state began to take a closer look at the dropout problem in the 1970s. At that time, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and others who compile demographic information on the U.S. population estimated educational levels of citizens. One such statistic was based on individual self reports in U.S. Census Bureau surveys in which individuals were asked to report the "number of years of schooling" they had completed (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983). Useful as a gross measure, these self reported data were quickly recognized as having limited utility, causing NCES to begin to compile information that was based on state agency reports that tabulated numbers of students enrolled, graduating from high school and earning high school equivalency diplomas (NCES, 1983). Though useful for education policy development purposes, these nationally compiled statistics did not cause states to more closely examine their own counting and reporting practices. Starting in the 1980s however, a national movement to increase school accountability was developed in part due to significant increases in education funding in selected states. More states began to look at high school graduation and/or dropout rates at local school and state levels. The state of Arizona first began to require schools to compile and report graduation and dropout data in the late 1980s. As the system currently operates, schools are required to submit official student enrollment data to the Arizona Department of Education. As noted by one state official, because the counts are the basis for calculating state education funding, there is a general consensus that the number of students reported as enrolled is relatively accurate and reliable. These official annual student enrollment submissions are used by local schools and school districts to calculate local school, school district, county, and state level enrollment and school dropout rates.
Arizona's Reported Annual Dropout Rate
The Arizona Department of Education, Research and Policy Division is given primary responsibility for calculating and reporting district level dropout statistics. Since at least 1994-95, the division has compiled and reported the annual dropout rate for the state as a whole, for all of the state's school districts, and for individual charter and public schools. As is the case in many other states, the state of Arizona calculates annual dropout rates. These are based on the number of students who are considered dropouts (defined in Arizona as "reported or official" dropouts, plus those students whose enrollment status is "status unknown" as prescribed by state education officials). To calculate the dropout rate, the state simply totals the number of dropouts (using state criteria) and divides that number by the total enrollment reported from July 1 through June 30 of any given school year. For dropout calculation purposes, the state of Arizona considers reports of the number of students who have been enrolled at any time in the school year ending on June 30 of that school year. In addition to this base enrollment number, the state adds the total number of students enrolled in the prior year who did not return to an Arizona school in that same year, and whose reenrollment status is unknown or not verified (Arizona Department of Education, 2001 ). Based on the above methodology, the state of Arizona reported in its 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study that out of 365,701 students enrolled in Arizona schools in grades seven through 12, 30,186 were considered dropouts. These 30,186 students constituted 8.3 percent of the seven through 12th grade total enrollment span (the 30,186 total dropouts divided by the 365,701 total enrollment). Exhibit 1 summarizes dropout data reported by the Arizona Department of Education for the last six school years compiled from Arizona dropout rate studies for each of those school years. The data reflect that the statewide dropout rates reported for 1994-95 through 1999-00 have been relatively consistent over the six-year period, with annual dropout rates hovering between the 8 percent and 9 percent level during that span. Exhibit 1: Arizona Annual Total Dropout Rates, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
Total (Grades 7-12) Enrollment (including un-graded) 331,658 341,456 368,609 376,675 398,926 365,701 Total Dropouts Annual Dropout Rate 8.8% 9.0% 9.5% 8.5% 8.9% 8.3%
School Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total
29,298 30,877 34,875 31,965 35,637 30,186 192,838
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
Dropouts by School Level (Elementary School [7-8] and High School [9-12])
In the study, the state reports subsets of the dropout data, including analyses by grade level and school level (elementary level, including grades seven and eight, and high school level, including grades nine, 10,11, and 12). According to the state's report for 1999-00, out of a grade seven and eight statewide enrollment of 131,582 pupils, an estimated 4,089 students dropped out of school. These 4,089 pupils represented a 3.1 percent dropout rate in 1999-00. See Exhibit 2. Arizona also calculates a separate annual dropout rate for its high schools. Included in these calculations are all students enrolled in the ninth through 12th grades in conventional public high 8
Exhibit 2: Arizona Annual Elementary (Grades 7-8) Dropout Rates, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
School Year Grades 7 and 8 Enrollment Total Dropouts Annual Dropout Rate 3.2% 3.6% 3.5% 3.0% 2.7% 3.1%
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total
121,687 125,789 131,106 132,168 138,800 131,582
3,929 4,476 4,581 3,966 3,793 4,089 24,834
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
Exhibit 3: Arizona Annual High School Dropout Rates, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
School Year Total High School Enrollment (including un-graded) 209,971 215,667 237,503 244,507 260,126 234,119 Total Dropouts Annual Dropout Rate 12.1% 12.2% 12.8% 11.5% 12.2% 11.1%
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total
25,369 26,401 30,294 27,999 31,844 26,097 168,004
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
schools, and pupils reported as enrolled in all un-graded high schools in Arizona, which includes students enrolled in charter schools and other alternative educational settings in the state. According to Arizona Department of Education dropout reports for the 1999-00 school year, out of a total high school enrollment of 234,119 pupils, an estimated 26,097 students were determined to have dropped out in 1999-00. This number converts to an 11.1 percent annual dropout rate in Arizona high schools which is higher than the 8.3 percent for grades seven through 12. See Exhibit 3.
Annual Dropouts by Types
A closer examination of Arizona's dropout counting methods reveals that the state divides its dropout totals to enable it to distinguish between "officially reported" dropouts and students it has determined are of "status unknown." In other words, students who were previously enrolled, but who are no longer enrolled and for whom there is no verified evidence of re-enrollment in a school granting high school diplomas. Of the 26,097 pupils counted as dropouts in 1999-00 in the ninth through 12th grade, 15,249 (or 57.6 percent) were from the category "status unknown." Discussions with Arizona Department of Education research staff indicate that the unknown status category may include some students who are still enrolled in Arizona or other school systems, but who are considered status 9
unknown due to the absence of clear evidence that they are actually enrolled. In a small-scale study involving a large school system, the state did find a percentage of the unknown status student population actually enrolled in another school. Limits in the methodology however did not enable it to generalize that finding to all schools � accentuating the need for a more comprehensive student tracking system. Arizona's annual dropout report also disaggregates dropout counts to determine how many of the year's dropouts left during the regular school year, from those who do not return after the summer vacation. According to official state reports for 1999-00, of the 26,097 dropouts in that year, 22,912 (87.8 percent) left school during the school year with the remaining 3,185 (12.2 percent) failing to return over the summer. An important observation however was that the 1999-00 summer dropout rate for students in grades seven and eight was 34.8 percent, which was more than three times the 12.2 percent of high school summer dropouts. This finding has obvious implications for possible interventions that will be discussed later in this report. Also noted in the data analyses is that Arizona contributes to the dropout count by expelling students from its ninth through 12th grade schools, which are a subset of the dropout totals reported. In many other states expelled students are required to attend state-funded alternative schools allowing such students to remain enrolled and thus be excluded from dropout calculations. Expelled students accounted for 1,535 students, or 5.8 percent of Arizona's annual dropout rate in 1999-00. See Exhibit 4.
Annual Dropout Rates by Gender
In addition to compiling an annual dropout rate for its seventh and eighth grades and its high schools, Arizona calculates and reports annual dropout rates by gender (male and female) and race and ethnicity (White, Hispanic, Native American, Black, and Asian). The state's gender-based analysis of dropout data mirrors national dropout studies that reflect that males drop out at slightly higher rates than females. Arizona males have an annual dropout rate of 9.3 percent � 3.3 percent in grades seven and eight, and 12.6 percent at the high school level. Females had an overall annual dropout rate of 7.2 percent in 1999-00, with the seventh and eighth grade rates reported as 2.9 percent, and a high school dropout rate of 9.6 percent.
Exhibit 4: Arizona Annual (Grades 9-12) Dropout Rates by Withdrawal Codes, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
School Year Total High School Dropouts 25,369 26,401 30,294 27,999 31,844 26,097 168,004 Illness Expelled Official Dropout Status Unknown
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total
275 187 375 197 266 295 1,595
994 4.0%
12,628 49.8% 12,168 46.1% 12,108 32.2% 10,741 38.4% 11,580 36.4% 9,018 34.1% 68,243
11,472 12,819 16,288 15,739 18,224 15,249 89,791
45.2% 48.6% 53.8% 56.2% 57.2% 57.6%
0.7% 1,227 4.6% 1.2% 1,523 5.0% 0.7% 1,322 4.7% 0.8% 1,774 5.6% 1.1% 1,535 5.8% 8,375
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
Exhibit 5: Arizona Annual High School Dropout Rates by Racial and Ethnic Group, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
School Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 White Hispanic Dropout Rate Dropout Rate 9.1% 9.5% 8.6% 7.7% 8.5% 8.1% 17.1% 17.8% 18.6% 17.0% 17.6% 15.4% Native American Dropout Rate 17.8% 18.3% 22.6% 18.8% 19.1% 16.8% Black Dropout Rate 14.3% 16.4% 14.8% 14.6% 15.4% 13.0% Asian Dropout Rate 6.6% 7.0% 6.1% 5.8% 8.2% 4.8%
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
Exhibit 6: Arizona Annual High School Enrollment and Dropout Numbers by Racial and Ethnic Group, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
School Year 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total White
Enroll. Drop.
Enroll. Drop.
Native American
Enroll. Drop.
Drop. Enroll.
124,216 11,296 126,403 10,992 136,761 11,819 140,682 10,887 147,643 12,531 129,503 10,531 68,056
14,701 14,079 16,947 16,516 18,216 17,418
8,935 1,277
4,072 4,107 4,579 4,894 5,341 4,867
267 289 278 282 437 232 1,785
61,761 11,015 68,725 12,806 71,449 12,129 76,739 13,514 71,188 10,969 70,435
2,573 9,317 1,532 3,834 10,491 1,557 3,104 10,966 1,597 3,483 12,187 1,879 2,919 11,143 1,446 18,890 9,238
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
Annual High School Dropout Rates by Racial and Ethnic Group
Annual high school dropout data by race and ethnicity also tend to reflect national studies. In Arizona, in the 1999-00 school year, 16.8 percent of Native American students and 15.4 percent of Hispanic students were reported as dropping out of school. These rates were about double the 8.1 percent annual dropout rate reported for the state's White pupil enrollment in grades nine through 12. Dropout rates for Arizona's Black pupils were also high, with 13.0 percent reported as dropping out in a single year. Asian pupils enrolled in Arizona schools reflected the national trend of lower dropout rates, showing a 4.8 percent annual dropout rate in Arizona, lowest among all groups analyzed for grades nine through 12. See Exhibits 5 and 6. Analysis of total enrollments for each racial and ethnic group in seventh through 12th grades considered in the dropout counts indicates that Hispanic students, Native American students, and Black students are over-represented among dropouts compared to their proportion of each level. For example, while Hispanic pupils accounted for 30.4 percent of the state's 1999-00 high school enrollment, the group accounted for 42 percent of all high school dropouts. In a similar vein, Native American students accounted for 7.5 percent of the high school enrollment in that same year, but they accounted for 11.2 percent of the high school dropouts. Conversely, White students and Asian students are under-represented among dropouts. While White pupils accounted for 55.4 percent of the high school enrollment, they made up 40.4 percent of the high school dropout population. See Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 7: Racial and Ethnic Proportion of Population and of Arizona Dropouts, 1999-00
Black 5% Native American 8% Asian 2% White 55% Black 6% Native American 11%
Asian 1%
White 40%
Hispanic 30% Proportion of Population
Hispanic 42%
Proportion of Arizona Dropouts
Annual Dropout Rates by County
Another way Arizona assesses its annual dropout data is by county. Exhibit 8 summarizes county-level dropout data for each of the state's 15 counties. Those data show that annual dropout rates vary from county to county, with some of the state's smallest counties (in terms of student population) reflecting the lowest dropout rates. By contrast, the counties with some of the largest student enrollments (e.g., Maricopa) reflect the highest rates. An examination of the six-year trends shows that counties reflect a mixed history, with most showing some decline in dropout rates, while a few reflect annual dropout rate increases over the six-year span reported.
Exhibit 8: Arizona Total Grade 7-12 Enrollments and Dropouts by County, 1994-95 through 1999-00*
County Apache � E n r o l l m e n t D r o p o u t Count Cochise � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count Coconino � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count Gila � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count 1994-95 7497 901 10,746 1,267 10,029 990 4,314 468 2,806 194 1,169 46 1,522 180 181,954 13,973 9,702 1,328 8,926 643 5 4 , 111 5,307 11 , 0 9 4 1,243 3,934 356 9,686 938 13,015 1,425 1995-96 6,496 708 10,285 845 10,062 1,052 4,373 414 2,993 172 1,034 52 1,508 111 188,674 15,926 10,200 1,252 9,597 679 56,291 6,139 11 , 3 9 9 1,228 4,139 283 9,740 747 13,103 1,203 1996-97 7,407 789 10,583 932 11 , 2 0 5 1,248 4,349 445 2,901 173 1,161 42 1,502 139 206,607 18,054 10,676 1,176 11 , 0 3 3 1,292 57,160 6,379 11 , 9 6 8 1,450 4,567 384 11 , 0 0 4 1,032 13,638 1,114 3,028 226 368,609 34,875 1997-98 7,455 441 10,359 779 10,640 977 4,429 433 3,058 177 1 , 11 7 26 1,504 161 213,193 16,947 10,919 1,199 10,530 967 58,677 5,559 12,156 1,760 4,130 292 10,373 536 13,922 968 4,213 443 376,675 31,965 1998-99 7,545 810 10,244 831 10,985 887 4,725 598 3,095 199 1076 27 1,599 174 227,068 18,644 10,845 984 11 , 2 7 8 1,173 60,271 5,913 12,594 1,632 4,605 388 11 , 9 0 4 999 14,355 1,197 6,737 1,181 398,926 35,637 1999-00 6,535 642 8,170 495 9,906 821 4,294 391 2,998 230 912 28 1,128 96 209,022 16,093 11 , 5 7 8 1,252 12,010 1,077 56,627 4,825 9,486 943 5,030 409 11 , 4 2 6 1,078 13,903 1,075 2,676 731 365,701 30,186
Graham � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count Greenlee � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count La Paz � E n r o l l m e n t D r o p o u t Count Maricopa � E n r o l l m e n t D r o p o u t Count Mohave � E n r o l l m e n t D r o p o u t Count Navajo � E n r o l l m e n t D r o p o u t Count Pima � Pinal � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count Enrollment D r o p o u t Count
S a n t a Cruz � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count Ya v a p a i � E n r o l l m e n t D r o p o u t Count Yu m a � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count
A r i z o n a Dept. of Youth Training and Rehabilitation � Enrollment 1,153 1,562 D r o p o u t Count 39 36 State � Enrollment D r o p o u t Count 331,658 29,298 341,456 30,877
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
Conclusions Related to Arizona Dropout Counting and Reporting
Despite the fact that dropout rates are not similar among minority and non-minority populations, the annual dropout rates as a whole are unacceptably high. Analyses of Arizona's annual dropout rate reports reflects that the yearly dropout rate for the state, as calculated by the department of education, has averaged between 8.5 percent to 9.0 percent per year since 199495. Of greater concern is the fact that annual dropout rates for high school, when analyzed as a separate category reflect that between 10 percent and 12 percent of all high school pupils leave school every year. The data also show that, while the 11.1 percent to 12.8 percent annual dropout rate is common in regular high school settings, the sub-group of high school students attending un-graded secondary schools (charter schools) reflects even greater losses ranging from 15.5 percent to 29.7 percent in different years. See Exhibit 9. Adding all counts of dropouts reported by the Arizona Department of Education for each year since 1994-95, IDRA has estimated that Arizona has lost a total of 168,004 high school pupils over this six-year span. This is too many lost students for any state that wishes to remain competitive in today's high tech job markets. Exhibit 9: Arizona Ungraded Secondary Schools Dropout Rate 1994-95 through 1999-00*
School Year Total Ungraded Secondary School Enrollment not reported 3,305 7,404 6,416 13,132 8,794 Total Ungraded Secondary School Dropouts � 513 2,603 1,063 3,796 2,611 10,586 Annual Ungraded Secondary School Dropout Rate � 15.5% 35.2% 16.6% 28.9% 29.7%
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total
* of the school districts reporting Source: Arizona 1999-00 Dropout Rate Study
A Major Caveat
In onsite discussions with Arizona Department of Education, Research and Policy Division, IDRA was advised that both the annual dropout rate and the graduation rate reports published by the department include only those public schools who voluntarily submit their data in any given year. Due to the fact that not all schools report the requested dropout data, all of the statewide summaries are incomplete. Though the department of education is required by statute to compile and report dropout information, until adoption of Proposition 301, there had been no comparable requirement that local school districts submit the data required for the statewide summary report. The number of schools and students excluded from the statewide report has, therefore, varied from year to year. This legislation has given the department of education the authority to reduce classroom site funds if schools do not report. It will be important that compliance with the new requirements be closely monitored. An example of the impact of this lack of reporting is evident from a comparison of the 199899 and 1999-00 annual dropout totals in grades nine through 12. In 1998-99 the state reports 31,844 dropouts. In 1999-00 the dropout count declines to 26,097. One could easily assume that this lower number resulted from extensive successful dropout prevention efforts. Another more 14
plausible explanation however could be that fewer schools submitted their data in 1999-00 than in 1998-99. Until all schools submit the required dropout data on an annual basis, all state dropout reports must be considered with caution. Arizona Department of Education staff points out that the state is in the process of constructing a sophisticated data base that will eventually track the status of each Arizona student and allow for calculation of school, district and statewide dropout statistics. Unfortunately that data system is still in the developmental stages and, according to the Arizona Department of Education, is not expected to be fully operational until 2004 or 2005. Until this system is operational, Arizona may have to rely on a combination of dropout reporting measures to triangulate various data to arrive at an estimate of the true extent of the dropout problem. Though annual dropout rates are one important way of measuring schools' holding power, dropout experts recognize other ways to assess the extent of the problem. The primary role of determining when individual pupils may be leaving the school system is vital for informing community and school officials in order to craft appropriate dropout prevention and recovery efforts. Waiting to determine who may have left complicates dropout recovery efforts, for the longer a student is out of school, the more difficult it will be to successfully re-integrate him or her into the existing system. However, it is also important to acquire estimates of school holding power over time.
Arizona Department of Education Graduation Rate Study
In response to legislative requirements, the Arizona Department of Education, Research and Policy Division conducted a study of the four-year graduation rate for the class of 1994. Data for 1992-93 graduation rates were included in the 1993-94 study to facilitate comparison. In its study, the department tracked the status of students from the class over time, dating back to the year that the students were entering high school as ninth graders. In addition, the class of 1994 was adjusted to include all students who had transferred into the class at any time over the four years ending in 1993-94. It also considered and adjusted for all students who had transferred or died over the course of the four years involved (Arizona Department of Education, 1996). According to policy and research staff, the department has conducted no graduation rate study since. In the graduation rate study, high school graduates were defined as all students who (1) completed graduation requirements, and (2) received a certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or another non-traditional diploma recognized as meeting graduation requirements. Not included were students who left school and later earned GED certificates. According to that report, only 69.3 percent, or 29,826 of the 43,057 students in the class of 1994 remained in school until high school graduation. Based on its extensive experience in dropout related research, IDRA contends that the inverse of a graduation rate is the state dropout rate for the 1994 cohort studied. This means that according to the department's report, about 30.7 percent, or 13,231 pupils, from the class of 1994 did not graduate as expected. To its credit the state's study did establish that 2,770 pupils who did not graduate were still enrolled allowing it to estimate a 24.3 dropout rate for the 1994 cohort studied. See Exhibits 10 and 11.
Graduation Rates by Gender and by Race and Ethnicity
In addition to the statewide data, the Arizona Department of Education also analyzed the graduation data by gender and by race and ethnicity. According to the report, 73.7 percent of females graduated at the end of the fourth year of high school. Males had a lower graduation rate with only 65 percent of the male cohort successfully meeting requirements after four years. Racial and ethnic group cohort dropout rates are summarized in Exhibits 10 and 11. The data indicate that, for the class of 1994, over the four years tracked, White pupils dropped out at a rate of 18.9 percent, Hispanic pupils had a dropout rate of 34.4 percent, Native American pupils had a dropout rate of 33.6 percent, Black pupils had a dropout rate of 30.6 percent, and Asian pupils had a dropout rate of 11.8 percent. 15
Exhibit 10: Class of 1994 Graduation Rate Study*
Class Size S t i l l Four-Year Graduation Percent Four-Year Number Enrolled Graduates Rate St i l l Dropout Dropouts Enrolled Rate
Male Female White Black Hispanic Native American Asian Total
21,994 21,063 26,074 1,643 11,396 3,037 907 43,057
1,747 1,023 1,278 128 957 337 70
14,296 15,530 19,881 1,013 6,523 1,679 730
65.0% 73.7% 76.2% 61.7% 57.2% 55.3% 80.5% 69.3%
7.9% 4.9% 4.9% 7.8% 8.4% 11.1% 7.7% 6.4%
27.1% 21.4% 18.9% 30.6% 34.4% 33.6% 11.8% 24.3%
5,951 4,510 4,915 502 3,916 1,021 107 10,461
2,770 29,826
* of the school districts reporting Source: Graduation Rate Study Class of 1994 Arizona Department of Education, 1996
Exhibit 11: Class of 1993 Graduation Rate Study*
Class Size S t i l l Four-Year Graduation Percent Four-Year Number Enrolled Graduates Rate St i l l Dropout Dropouts Enrolled Rate
Male Female White Black Hispanic Native American Asian Total
22,295 21,580 26,785 1,775 11,388 3,064 863 43,875
1,912 1,104 1,396 148 1,130 278 64
14,445 15,388 19,883 1,056 6,335 1,883 676
64.8% 71.3% 74.2% 59.5% 55.6% 61.5% 78.3% 68.0%
8.6% 5.1% 5.2% 8.3% 9.9% 9.1% 7.4% 6.9%
26.6% 23.6% 20.6% 32.2% 34.4% 29.5% 14.3% 21.5%
5,938 5,088 5,506 571 3,923 903 123 11,026
3,016 29,833
* of the school districts reporting Source: Graduation Rate Study Class of 1993 Arizona Department of Education, 1996
A related finding was that not all students missing from the class of 1994 had dropped out. Of the total original enrollment, an additional 6.4 percent of pupils were found to be "still enrolled" in the high schools. The graduation rate study completed for the class of 1994 also provided comparable summary data for the class of 1993. For that 1993 cohort, the four-year graduation rate was 68.0 percent (compared to 69.3 percent for the class of 1994). The cohort dropout rates for most subgroups were similar to, though somewhat lower than the class of 1994, with Hispanic students dropping out at a rate of 34.4 percent, Native American pupils at 29.5 percent, and Black pupils at 32.2 percent. White pupils and Asian pupils reflected somewhat higher dropout rates in 1994 than in 1993. According to the report, White pupils dropped out at a rate of 20.6 percent in 1993 (compared to 18.9 percent in 1994), while Asian pupils had a dropout rate of 14.3 percent compared to 11.8 percent in 1994.
A Major Caveat Regarding ADE Annual and Graduation Rate Data
After reviewing the graduation rate data, IDRA staff met with Arizona Department of Education, Research and Policy Division to discuss the methods used in the class of 1994 graduation 16
rate study. In that discussion, Arizona Department of Education staff cautioned that the study was limited by the extent of response (or non-response) to the request for cohort data from local schools. Lacking any authority to require compliance with data requests, the Arizona Department of Education was, and historically has been, unable to require universal submission of the data needed to compile the required information. This lack of data from some schools makes the statistics reported incomplete in that not all Arizona schools are included in the study. Given the missing data, which varies from year to year, the state-reported rates are the best available estimates, but may be understating the extent of the dropout problem in Arizona schools. Only when all schools submit all required data will a full state assessment of the extent of the dropout problem be possible.
An Alternative Assessment of Arizona's Longitudinal or Cohort Dropout Rate � Attrition Estimates
Another critical way of examining dropout rates involves tracking groups of pupils from the time they enter the system (kindergarten) through the 12th grade to determine how many of a particular group progress through the system and graduate. This assessment of students' progress through the whole system is called either a cohort analysis or longitudinal dropout rate. It allows policymakers, community members, and parents to make judgements about the quality and effectiveness of their schools. To conduct a cohort tracking study to determine the number of pupils who make it all the way from kindergarten or first grade to graduation, a state would need a system that allows it to track the enrollment of every student. While the state of Arizona is in the process of developing such a student-based system, it has not yet completed that process. Lacking the necessary data, the State Department of Education has been unable to calculate a state, district, or county cohort or longitudinal dropout rate or its inverse, a statewide graduation rate. While some graduation rate data are compiled and submitted by individual districts, lack of mechanisms for verifying the self-reported data also gives such submissions limited utility. In the absence of individual student tracking data in many states, IDRA developed an alternative method to estimate the number of students that may be lost from enrollment over a period of several years. In 1986, when IDRA conducted its first attrition study, many states had not developed student tracking systems that allowed them to precisely calculate the actual dropout rate for a group of students who were tracked over several years. Thus, lack of student-specific data thwarted efforts to determine how many students out of thousands of high school freshman enrolled in a given year were still enrolled four years later as seniors. While it is indeed difficult to determine the exact number of pupils that may have dropped out in such circumstances, it is possible to develop estimates of those losses. By examining statelevel enrollment data, we can calculate an estimated dropout or school "attrition rate." Using such an approach, IDRA has developed dropout estimates for Texas since 1986. IDRA's attrition studies have significantly impacted state policy, leading to the adoption of comprehensive dropout prevention and recovery policy, and ultimately leading to the creation of a student tracking process that has substantially improved the state's ability to determine the actual enrollment status of every pupil on an ongoing basis. Since Arizona does not currently calculate its own cohort dropout or graduation rate, we applied the IDRA attrition formula to existing state enrollment data to arrive at estimates of its longitudinal dropout rate. The calculation of an attrition rate requires access to enrollment data for specific grades and grade spans. IDRA acquired such data from the Arizona Department of Education, which posts an array of school, district, and state level enrollment data. This student enrollment information, in addition to being reported in the aggregate or total, is also provided for sub-groups of the student population including breakouts by grade level (grades seven to 12), counts of students in 17
high schools that are identified as un-graded, counts by gender (male and female), and counts by racial and ethnic groups (Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White). Given available data, IDRA was able to calculate an attrition rate for the total state high school enrollment excluding un-graded school counts. Because the attrition formula relies on specific grade level enrollment data for parts of its calculations, inclusion of un-graded counts was deemed inappropriate. In order to facilitate comparisons with other states' attrition rates, which often are limited to the high school level, it was determined that our analysis of the Arizona data would also be limited to high school attrition.
The IDRA Attrition Formula
The IDRA attrition formula involves: (1) determining the enrollment in ninth grade for a specific school year, which is considered the base year; and (2) determining the enrollment level for the year in which that group of ninth graders would have been enrolled in the 12th grade, or end year. It would be relatively easy to propose that one simply subtract the total number of students in the ninth grade, from the total enrolled in the 12th grade four years later to compute an attrition rate. While a "neat" calculation, such an approach would not take into account any change in the overall enrollment of that grade cohort over the years involved and thus could yield inaccurate results. For example, if there were 400 freshmen enrolled in ninth grade in the base year and only 300 seniors in the end year, one could say that the attrition rate was 25 percent (400-300� the original 400 pupils enrolled in the ninth grade). But, it may be that an additional 50 enrollees joined the original ninth grade group over the time they were tracked. Adding these new pupils to the original number of ninth graders would have caused one to expect a 12th grade enrollment of 450, rather than 400. If only 300 of that 450 made it to their senior year then the real attrition rate for the group being tracked would be 450-300�450, or 33 percent (rather than 30 percent). IDRA's attrition formula incorporates an adjustment to account for the upward or downward change in enrollment over the time being analyzed. Because specific student level data are unavailable to allow a more precise adjustment, the formula determines the difference between the ninth to 12th grade enrollment in the base year, and the ninth to 12th grade enrollment in the end year, and adjusts the original ninth grade number to reflect the proportion of that growth that would have impacted the grade level involved, yielding a truer estimate of the 12th grade enrollment that could be expected to result from the enrollment changes that normally occur (C�rdenas, et. al, 1987). See Appendix 3 for an expanded description of IDRA's attrition model. In a recent article in Education Week, writers note that accurate state and local data on dropouts are difficult to acquire (Viadero, 2001). Other researchers who have employed attrition based dropout models note in the absence of these data, attrition based approaches may be the best alternative currently available to arrive at more reliable estimates of local and state dropout rates (Balfanz and Legters, 2001). Using IDRA's attrition model, we were able to calculate an estimated longitudinal attrition rate for Arizona's high schools for the cohorts that would have graduated in 1998, 1999, and 2000, as well as estimated attrition rates for sub-groups. Sub-group rates were calculated by gender and by racial and ethnic group for the three school years. Major findings for each area follow.
Arizona Attrition Rates
Based on IDRA's analysis, Arizona high schools experienced a 32.8 percent overall attrition rate for the class of 1998, 32.8 percent for the class of 1999, and 31.8 percent for the class of 2000. IDRA estimates that approximately three out of 10 students who enter high school in Arizona are not still enrolled in the system four years later. The level of attrition is similar to but somewhat lower than the overall attrition rate for Texas, which was estimated at 42 percent in the 1999-00 school year. See Exhibit 12. 18
Exhibit 12: Overall Enrollment and Attrition Rates in Arizona
1994-95 9th Grade Enrollment 59,150 1995-96 9th Grade Enrollment 60,633 1996-97 9th Grade Enrollment 62,863 1997-98 12th Grade Enrollment 43,402 1998-99 12th Grade Enrollment 43,958 1999-00 12th Grade Enrollment 45,971 1994-95 9-12th Grade Enrollment 194,196 1995-96 9-12th Grade Enrollment 199,459 1996-97 9-12th Grade Enrollment 205,895 1997-98 9-12th Grade Enrollment 212,170 1998-99 9-12th Grade Enrollment 214,968 1999-00 9-12th Grade Enrollment 220,896 1997-98 Expected 12th Grade Enrollment 64,625 1998-99 Expected 12th Grade Enrollment 65,380 1999-00 Expected 12th Grade Enrollment 67,443 Attrition Rate (%) 32.8% Attrition Rate (%) 32.8% Attrition Rate (%) 31.8% Number Students Lost To Attrition 21,223 Number Students Lost To Attrition 21,422 Number Students Lost To Attrition 21,472
Source: Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1994-95; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1995-96; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1996-97; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1997-98; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1998-99; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1999-00.
For each of the years analyzed, the number of students lost to attrition in Arizona totaled: 21,223 pupils lost from the class of 1998; an additional 21,422 lost from the class of 1999; and an estimated 21,472 students lost from the class of 2000. The cumulative number of pupils lost from Arizona high schools between October 1997 and October 1999 totaled 64,117 pupils, enough individuals to fill 16 high schools of 4,000 or more or to populate a small city in Arizona.
Attrition Rates by Gender
Enrollment data required to conduct the attrition analysis by gender were not available from the Arizona Department of Education, precluding the calculation of attrition rates by these student characteristics.
Attrition Rates by Race and Ethnicity
IDRA found a notable disparity in the estimated attrition rates among Arizona's major racial and ethnic student populations, paralleling the findings of the Arizona Department of Education's annual dropout studies. The largest levels of attrition were found among Arizona's Hispanic and Native American student populations. According to IDRA's attrition calculations, approximately four out of every 10 Hispanic pupils enrolled in the ninth grade in Arizona high schools are no longer present by the 12th grade. Hispanic high school attrition rates were estimated to be 43.7 percent for the class of 1998, 44.0 percent for the class of 1999, and 42.7 percent class of 2000. Native American pupils were lost to attrition at levels that were close to that of Hispanic students. Attrition rates for Arizona's Native American high school students were 45.3 percent for the class of 1998, 45.7 percent class of 1999, and 48.3 percent for the class of 2000. Attrition rates for Black high school pupils in Arizona, though somewhat lower, were also determined to be excessive. According to IDRA's calculations, attrition rates for Black students were 34.9 percent for the class of 1998, 33.6 percent class of 1999, and 32.6 percent for the class of 2000. Approximately three out of every 10 Black pupils enrolled in the ninth grade were lost from school enrollment. 19
The IDRA attrition analysis for White pupils in Arizona high schools found that the attrition rate for the group was lower than the rates found for the state's major minority student populations. Attrition rates for White pupils were 26.0 percent for the class of 1998, 25.6 percent for the class of 1999, and 24.2 percent for the class of in 2000. Asian pupils reflected the lowest attrition rate: 9.6 percent for the class of 1998, 13.3 percent for the class of 1999, and 14.1 percent for the class of 2000. An important observation for the Asian sub-group is that, in contrast to all other sub-groups showing small declines in attrition rates from 1998 to 2000, the Asian attrition rate increased for the group over the same time period. See Exhibits 13, 14 and 15. Though a smaller proportion of the sub-group analyzed, it is important to note that those percentages for White pupils represent a loss of about 10,000 pupils from that group for each of the years analyzed, or approximately 27,000 White pupils. Too often there is a misperception that dropouts are primarily a "minority community problem." According to IDRA's attrition analyses and other Arizona dropout studies, White students account for almost one half (42.2 percent) of all students who leave school prior to graduation. Dropout prevention strategies that focus exclusively on minority communities would miss thousands of pupils who would benefit from an expanded state emphasis on dropout prevention and recovery. At the same time it is important to recognize that the group attrition rates for Hispanic, Native American and Black pupils also reflect that all three groups leave school at disproportionate rates, a fact that dictates that minority focused dropout prevention and recovery efforts will also be needed to address the issues at state and local levels.
Other Dropout Indicators and How They Compare to State Reports
In order to better demonstrate the extent of the dropout problem in Arizona, IDRA researchers examined other studies. One source is the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which annually produces a report on dropout rates in the United States. Due to a time lag associated with collecting data at the national level, these NCES reports usually report data at least one year prior to the report's release date. For example, in December 1997, NCES released Dropout Rates in the United States, 1996 (NCES, 1997). One of the reporting categories involves providing information on the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who are "not currently enrolled in high school, and who have received a high school Exhibit 13: 1994-95 Enrollment and 1997-98 Attrition Rates in Arizona by Racial and Ethnic Group
Racial 1994-95 Ethnic 9th Grade Group Enrollment 1997-98 1994-95 1997-98 1997-98 12th Grade 9-12th Grade 9-12th Grade Expected 12th Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Grade Enrollment Attrition Number Rate Lost
White Hispanic Native American Black Asian Total
33,992 17,362 4,427 2,383 986 59,150
26,863 11,103 2,665 1,713 1,058 43,402
117,493 52,004 13,128 7,796 3,775 194,196
125,717 59,104 14,451 8,604 4,482 212,358
36,317 19,732 4,873 2,630 1,171 64,723
26.0% 43.7% 45.3% 34.9% 9.6%
9,454 8,629 2,208 917 113 21,321
Source: Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1994-95; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1995-96; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1996-97; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1997-98.
Exhibit 14: 1995-96 Enrollment and 1998-99 Attrition Rates in Arizona by Race and Ethnic Group
Racial 1995-96 Ethnic 9th Grade Group Enrollment 1998-99 1995-96 1998-99 1998-99 12th Grade 9-12th Grade 9-12th Grade Expected 12th Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Grade Enrollment Attrition Number Rate Lost
White Hispanic Native American Black Asian Total
34,682 18,006 4,567 2,397 1,011 60,663
27,327 11,210 2,544 1,805 1,072 43,958
119,632 54,099 13,959 7,884 3,885 199,459
126,771 60,193 14,314 8,939 4,751 214,968
36,752 20,034 4,683 2,718 1,236 65,423
25.6% 44.0% 45.7% 33.6% 13.3%
9,425 8,824 2,139 913 164 21,465
Source: Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1995-96; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1996-97; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1997-98; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1998-99; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1999-00.
Exhibit 15: 1996-97 Enrollment and 1999-00 Attrition Rates in Arizona by Racial and Ethnic Group
Racial 1996-97 Ethnic 9th Grade Group Enrollment 1999-00 1996-97 1999-00 1999-00 12th Grade 9-12th Grade 9-12th Grade Expected 12th Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Grade Enrollment Attrition Number Rate Lost
28,323 11,977 2,638 1,912 1,121 45,971
122,743 56,952 13,831 8,226 4,143 205,895
128,964 62,573 15,006 9,349 4,824 220,716
37,380 20,901 5,099 2,837 1,305 67,522
24.2% 42.7% 48.3% 32.6% 14.1%
9,057 8,924 2,461 925 184 21,551
Hispanic 18,969 Native American 4,700 Black Asian Total 2,496 1,121 62,863
Source: Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1996-97; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1997-98; Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 1998-99; and Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 199900.
diploma or its equivalent (GED)." These data are reported for the nation as a whole as well as for individual states. According to the 1996 NCES dropout report, between 1991 and 1993 Arizona reported a school completion rate of 81.1 percent, or its inverse an 18.9 percent dropout rate. For the years 1994 to 1996, the three-year average had improved to 87.8 percent. The "completion" rates reported for the years involved are noticeably higher than the state's own dropout estimates. This difference however, can be explained by the state's more stringent definition of high school dropouts, where GED recipients are not counted among graduate totals. Another difference is that the NCES data include all 18- to 24-year-olds living in the state for the period covered by the study and thus includes individuals who may have been enrolled in, graduated from, or dropped out of schools outside of Arizona. Because of this broader pool, the state dropout figures in this case may be more accurate estimates of the extent of the Arizona dropout problem. 21
Another distinct national study was recently completed by Dr. Jay P. Greene of the Manhattan Institute (Greene, 2001). In his analysis, Greene calculated attrition rates for the graduating class of 1998 assessing the status of students enrolled in eighth grade and expected to be seniors five years later. According to the Greene report, the estimated graduation rate for the state of Arizona was only 60 percent, a statistic that converts to about a 40 percent attrition rate for the eighth grade group analyzed. Greene's study indicates that data are not reported by sub-group because sub-group related information was not available for the study as conducted. According to a recent dropout study conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office, Arizona has the lowest completion rate of all states estimated at 73.5 percent (2002). Though both of the preceding studies present very different perspectives of the dropout issue, they do reinforce the finding that Arizona has among the highest dropout rates in the country, with estimates ranging from 20 percent to 40 percent. The various data sets also clearly indicate that White pupils account for a significant proportion of the state's dropouts primarily because they also constitute the majority of the state's high school enrollment. However, when examining dropout rates within the state's racial and ethnic groups, that is assessing the proportion that dropouts constitute within each of the states identifiable sub-groups, it is also evident that Native American, Hispanic and Black dropout rates are considerably higher than White pupils within group dropout rates.
Factors Related to Dropping Out of School
Studies that have attempted to determine the reasons students leave school prior to graduation have often focused on student-related factors that include such characteristics as: � being over age in grade or former retainee; � parents' level of education; economic status, sometimes re-framed as need for employment; � teen pregnancy or teen parent; � excessive absenteeism; � bored or not academically challenged; � levels of parent involvement; and � academically underachieving. Too often not considered or reported are school-based characteristics such as: expenditures per pupil; percentages of certified teachers; average years of teaching experience; and opportunities for extra-curricula participation. Researcher Linda Darling-Hammond has stated, "The U.S. educational system is one of the most unequal in the industrialized world, and students routinely receive dramatically different learning opportunities based on their social status: The wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. school districts spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent. Yet despite differences in funding, teacher quality, curriculum, and class sizes, the prevailing view is that if students do not achieve, it is their own fault" (1998). This lack of focus on institutional characteristics and need for systemic change may explain why decades of dropout prevention initiatives have met with relatively limited success. There is no single reason that all students leave school prior to graduation. Though our research has suggested that lack of success in school is a major factor. Many programs have been developed to help address the dropout problem, few have demonstrated evidence of success. AMEPAC requested that IDRA identify available dropout prevention and recovery programs. A later section of this report presents our findings related to successful programs implemented in Arizona and around the country. � � � �
The Economic Implications of Dropouts for Arizona
Schools recognize that the loss of students results in lost funding because state aid is based on the numbers of students enrolled. The extent of the annual school funding losses caused by dropouts is based on the proportion that those dropouts are of the total student enrollment for a given year. The annual dropout reports compiled by the state of Arizona provide data on the number of reported dropouts and the average state expenditures per student in a given year. With this, the approximate costs to individual schools and school districts can be calculated. The state revenues that are lost by individual counties also can be calculated from county-level enrollment and dropout data. Based on information compiled by the Arizona Department of Education, the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) determined that, on average, Arizona public schools spent an estimated $5,000 in state and local funding per pupil in the 1999-00 school year (Arizona Department of Education, 2001). Multiplying the per pupil funding figure of about $5,000 by the number of dropouts provides us with an estimate of the total lost revenue to schools produced by dropouts for that year: $107.3 million. While not an overwhelmingly large number when considered in isolation, the costs for students lost over several years can be added to determine the cumulative cost in lost school funding, from the state, caused by dropouts. According to IDRA estimates, Arizona schools lost a total of 64,117 students to attrition from the classes of students expected to graduate in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Multiplying that total by an average of $5,000 per pupil spent in Arizona schools during that span produces an estimated cost of $320.58 million in lost resources that would have been available to schools and local communities had these students been kept enrolled in high school over the years involved.
The Long-term Cost of Dropouts in Arizona
Though impressive when looked at on an individual year or annual basis, the true cost of dropouts over the lifetime of those individuals is actually staggering, costing the state billions of dollars in additional social support services, job training costs, lost taxes, and, most importantly, lost revenues that would have been earned by those individuals over the course of their working lives. In a 1986 study, IDRA developed a model for estimating the cost of dropouts in individual states. This model assessed social service costs related to job training, adult education, unemployment and job placement. It also considered crime, incarceration, lost wages and related lost tax revenue. The model has been used annually to estimate the costs of dropouts in Texas since 1986, with formulas adjusted to incorporate inflation experienced for each of the years of the study. To estimate the long-term cost of dropouts to the state of Arizona, IDRA utilized Arizonaspecific data whenever it was available. Where state-specific data were not located, the latest available national information was substituted with the understanding that state costs may be higher or lower depending on how Arizona compares to the national average in the category involved. For this analysis only incarceration and lost income and related tax losses were estimated.
Incarceration and Related Judicial Costs
In its original cost benefit model, IDRA recognized that not all students who drop out of school are criminals, but cited research that has established that dropouts are over-represented in the prison population in all states studied. After calculating the proportion of the state dropout group that could be expected to wind up in the state prison system, IDRA estimated the total costs that one class of dropouts would create for these systems. Using data generated by the Arizona Department of Corrections, IDRA established that the state spent an average of $20,737 per inmate to house, feed, and monitor the state's prison population in fiscal year 2000 (2001). Total reported expenditures for all Arizona prisons in fiscal year 2000 were $510,431,581. Related research on prison populations estimates that as much as 33 percent of criminal costs are attributable to inadequate education (Levin and Bachman, 1972). Using a conservative estimate of only 12.5 of 21,472 students, multiplied by the $20,737 per Arizona inmate yields an estimate of incarceration annual cost of $55.7 million per year that can be attributed to under education. Multiplying the annual figure by an inflation adjusted average of 10 years yields an incarceration cost of $638.06 million that may not have been spent on prisons if those inmates had experienced expanded options associated with completing high school.
Lost Wages and Related Tax Revenues
Though all of the aforementioned are important financial implications that can be ascribed to dropouts, the largest costs to the state and nation come in the form of lost wages, and the taxes that would be derived from that income. The differential earning power between high school dropouts and those who graduate has long been known. Unfortunately, less well known is how this difference in earning ability translates to major lost revenues. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the median income for workers who left school before the 11th grade will average $21,391 compared to the median income of high school graduates who will average $28,807, a net difference of $7,416. Multiplying that differential by the 21,472 students lost from the class of 2000 yields a total annual revenue loss of $159.23 million per year over the working lifetimes of these individuals (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Assuming that these individuals will work until they are 60 years old, and using an annual 3 percent inflation adjustment (reflecting the average inflation rate for the past 15 years) produces an estimated lost earnings over the working lifetimes of these individuals. Multiplied by the 21,472 pupils, this translates to a total of $13.61 billion in lost personal income for that one group of students. The model estimates that individuals pay about 30 percent of their income in some form of tax, be it income, sales, property taxes, etc. Multiplying the total lost wages by 30 percent yields an estimated lost tax revenue amount of $47.77 million in lost taxes in one year, and a total of $4.08 billion, in lost tax revenue over the working lifetime of that one group of individuals.
Total Costs of Dropouts in Arizona
Based on cumulative costs of the IDRA cost benefit model, IDRA estimated that over the course of their lifetimes each dropout costs Arizona an average of $663,664 in increased costs and lost revenues per individual. Multiplying that $663,664 per dropout times the total number of students we identified as lost to attrition from the class of 2000, IDRA estimates that Arizona will lose a total of $14.25 billion over the lifetimes of those individuals in lost revenues and incarceration expenses. Adding the 42,645 additional dropouts estimated from IDRA's attrition analyses for the previous two ninth grade classes (21,422 from the class of 1999, and 21,233 from the class of 1998), 24
yields a total cost of $42.58 billion for the last three groups of students estimated to have been lost to attrition. See Exhibits 17 and 18. While these costs are estimates based on current counts and costs, these dropout estimates do not include the additional students that drop out of Arizona's middle schools, or ungraded high schools (which were not included in the attrition calculation because of the absence of grade enrollment data required by this approach to estimating dropout counts), resulting in a relatively conservative overall dropout cost estimate. Review of the Arizona Department of Education's annual dropout reports for un-graded high schools clearly reveals that the dropout rates for these alternative settings � many of which attempt to serve students who are considered to be more at risk of dropping out � are actually higher than for the conventional graded high schools. It is clear from these data that whether one considers or excludes the costs of dropouts from un-graded high schools, the overall costs of dropouts to the state of Arizona and or to the nation are excessive and unacceptable. Exhibit 17: Long-Term Costs of Dropouts to the State of Arizona
Annual Cost Incarceration costs Lost wages Lost tax revenue (30 percent of lost wages) Total cost for students lost from the class of 2000 Total cost for last three classes of dropouts $55.7 million $159.24 million $47.77 million $214.94 million
Cumulative Cost $638.06 million $13.61 billion $4.08 billion $14.25 billion $42.58 billion
Source: State Funding For Education 1999-2000: Superintendent's Annual Report 1999-2000.
Costs of Keeping Prospective Dropouts Enrolled in School
Calculating a cost benefit model involves comparing the costs of keeping pupils enrolled in school to those created by their dropping out. Assuming that Arizona was able to mount effective dropout prevention efforts that prevented this from being a persistent trend, the state would have to spend an additional $320.58 million per year ($5,000 x 64,117 pupils lost from enrollment over the last three years) times about two years ($641.17 million) to provide a complete high school education to the groups of students who were lost from grades nine to 12 in the preceding three years. Failure to ensure that all Arizona pupils remain enrolled at the high school level until graduation however, will cost the state approximately $42.58 billion for that same group of pupils over the working lifetime of those same individuals. Calculating the costs of dropouts versus the costs of keeping the students enrolled results in extensive savings to the state. For every $1 spent on getting all students all the way through to graduation, the state saves $66 in job training, social support and lost earnings, an impressive return on investment. It should also be noted that the additional $320.58 million required to successfully graduate the current dropout population would be offset by reductions in social services, incarceration, job training and increased personal incomes. 25
Exhibit 18: Long-Term Costs of Dropouts to the State of Arizona
$4,080,000,000 Lost Tax Revenue From Lost Wages
$638,060,000 Incarceration and Judicial Costs
$13,610,000,000 Lost Wages
$14,250,000,000 Total Cost for One Class of Dropouts
$42,580,000,000 Total Cost for Last Three Classes of Dropouts
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Programs
The National Picture
In 1986, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded that "what works" in dropout prevention is unknown. While there may have been some exemplary or model programs across the country, there was little generalizable information that would permit program replication. Sixteen years later, the GAO reports that a variety of state, local and private dropout prevention programs exist, but in many cases their effectiveness is unknown because they have not been rigorously evaluated. At the national level, the Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program (currently slated for 2002 recision and 2003 elimination in the Bush administration's recommended budget) specifically targets dropouts but does not have any evaluation data because the program is new. Astoundingly, the GAO report notes, "The federal government does not track the amount of federal funding used for dropout prevention services or require that evaluations of programs include assessments of their effect on dropout rates, even for programs for which dropout prevention is an objective" (2002). The 2002 GAO report recommends that the U.S. Department of Education evaluate the quality of existing research, encourage the rigorous evaluation of dropout prevention programs, and identify effective means for disseminating information on programs deemed effective. This lack of rigorous evaluation, identification and dissemination of information on effective dropout prevention programs and practices leaves schools without the guidance and critical data needed to make informed choices for their students. There are close to 4,000 listings on the Internet for dropout prevention and recovery programs. Despite this impressive number, it is difficult to find rigorous evaluations or research on the program models. The privately-funded National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) housed at Clemson University in South Carolina, provides a data base of dropout prevention model profiles. What is missing from many profiles, however, is any evaluative information.
"Hispanic youth need to be coached, not rescued. They should be able to take credit for what they achieve. They need encouragement and opportunities to take responsibility for their learning and later lives, to set longrange, real-life goals, and to take steps needed to achieve those goals. Adults who advocate for students, who encourage students to dream about their futures, who mentor students on how to achieve those dreams, and who hold students accountable for their actions can provide needed support for students to make their dreams come true" (Secada, et al., 1998).
The Regional Picture
The regional picture mirrors the national picture. The Intercultural Development Research Association's (IDRA) landmark research study in 1986 canvassed Texas for dropout prevention and recovery programs. A survey of all Texas school districts, community colleges, universities, service delivery areas and community-based organizations found the following. � Ninety percent of the dropout programs in Texas reported having no evaluation data. (Program staff were often confused, embarrassed or even defensive when asked for evaluation data or reports.) Furthermore, program personnel lacked information about the type of data needed to adequately evaluate a dropout prevention and recovery program. � No individual in any of the institutions surveyed was charged with coordinating program efforts. � There was no standardization or uniformity in data collection methodology nor did there exist any centralized or accessible information on programs in the state much less across the country. The same situations remain in Texas and can be found in Arizona almost two decades later � no one individual is accountable for ensuring that students remain in school in a meaningful way, and there is no centralized repository for programs and models that work to keep students engaged and valued in schools.
Another serious problem is the lack of research on school factors that contribute to students dropping out. Most reports misguidedly conclude that student deficiencies are the cause for dropouts (poor grades, lack of "motivation," absenteeism, etc.), or they cite "family background factors" (poverty, less educated parents, single-parent families, family mobility, low levels of English language proficiency, race-ethnicity, etc.). As a result, the programmatic responses are based on "fixing" the student rather than identifying what school characteristics contribute to a student leaving school � characteristics such as the lack of quality teaching, low expectations for certain students, lack of professional development, a lack of resources, non-credentialed teachers, or a lack of leadership. A review of the types of programmatic responses clearly shows that the deficit model prevails. Many programs are add-ons to the school with no institutional changes, or they take the student out of the traditional school setting to an alternative one that focuses on the "at-risk" factors.
"Explicit in good practice models is the recognition that young people, like all people, need to feel a sense of comfort and need to be offered a sense of autonomy in order to profit from program teachings and experiences... Consistent demonstrations of caring and high expectations for young people with choice and `voice' regarding program operation, and, in response to the racial and ethnic diversity of adolescents, many practitioners incorporate cultural traditions and values into programs" (Williams, 1999).
What Works
IDRA's research on strategies for reducing the dropout rate, based on a review of the research of effective dropout prevention strategies and IDRA's experience over the last three decades, shows the following components are vital to successful dropout prevention: � All students must be valued. � There must be at least one educator in a student's life who is totally committed to the success of that student. � Families must be valued as partners with the school, all committed to ensuring that equity and excellence is present in a student's life. � Schools must change and innovate to match the characteristics of their students and embrace the strengths and contributions of students and their families. � School staff, especially teachers, must be equipped with tools to ensure their students' success, including the use of technology, different learning styles and mentoring programs. Effective professional development can help provide these tools. These components are also grounded in seven philosophical tenets that IDRA developed over many years of our work in dropout prevention: � All students can learn. � The school values all students. � All students can actively contribute to their own education and to the education of others. � All students, parents and teachers have the right to participate fully in creating and maintaining excellent schools. � Excellence in schools contributes to individual and collective economic growth, stability and advancement. � Commitment to educational excellence is created by including students, parents and teachers in setting goals, making decisions, monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes. � Students, parents and teachers must be provided extensive, consistent support in ways that allow students to learn, teachers to teach and parents to be involved. Fulton provides a series of evaluative questions that can help educators decide if a model or program is appropriate and effective for their students (Williams, 1999). They should ask: � What well-documented evidence or results in student achievement exist; � Tough questions about suggested reforms and those already in place; � The intended goals of a strategy, and how one knows if they are achieved; � How to measure progress throughout the program's implementation and assess its impact; � How to identify and apply corrective measures; and � How long to allow a program to operate before deciding whether to continue, expand, or abandon it.
Fulton also recommends using a combination of strategies that include well-researched approaches as well as cutting-edge ones. Whatever strategies are used, they should be part of a comprehensive, long-term plan that improves student achievement (Williams, 1999). In 1997, Olatokunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin reviewed dropout prevention programs throughout the country and determined that only two, the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program and Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success, had rigorous evaluations that provided evidence of effectiveness. Several other programs also have some evidence of their effectiveness (as described in Williams, 1999, the NDPC and Internet searches) and are described in this next section. It is important to remember that the programmatic responses listed below are only part of the dropout solution. Schools must engage in good educational practice for all of their students as part of their "regular" schooling and teaching /learning practices.
Examples of Proven Programs
Achieving a College Education
Achieving a College Education (ACE) is a nationally-recognized program targeting students who traditionally would not consider going to college. The ACE program began at South Mountain Community College in 1987. Since then, 250 high school students have participated in the program's summer institute each year. The program provides an opportunity for high school juniors and seniors from Phoenix Union High School District and Tempe Union High School District to take college courses while attending high school. During these two years, students attend South Mountain Community College during the regular summer sessions and every Saturday during the fall and spring semesters. Program eligibility requires that students be the first in their family to attend college, have evidence of economic hardship, are a member of an under represented group, and have environmental challenges (personal, single-parent, etc.). Preliminary evaluation information is promising. SMCC provides the funding for the program's cost, which averages about $1,250 per participant. Contact Information Isabel LeRoy, Program Director West Annex Complex South Mountain Community College 602-243-8063
"Involving parents is an essential component of any reform strategy, but it is not a substitute for a high-quality education program or thoughtful, comprehensive school improvement. Getting parents involved is merely a means to an end � it is not the destination. Moreover, involving parents will not compensate for a curriculum that does not meet the students' needs; nor will parent involvement compensate for poor instruction, any more than public relations campaigns will disguise poor instruction" (Williams, 1999).
Advancement Via Individual Determination
Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) is a comprehensive middle school through senior high school reform program designed to prepare educationally disadvantaged, underachieving students who have demonstrated potential for success in a rigorous secondary school curriculum for four-year college eligibility. The program also restructures the teaching methodology of an entire school to make the college preparatory curricula accessible to almost all students. AVID has developed a comprehensive professional development program. As of 1998, AVID has been implemented at 750 middle schools and high schools in 13 states, including California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. AVID also serves the U.S. Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) with 55 sites in Europe and the Pacific. Costs of the AVID program vary from state to state. In California, AVID is a state-funded program with resources provided for 11 regional centers. The initial cost of the program is under $2 per student per day in Year One, declining to under $1 per student in Year Three. Outside California, initial costs per student are typically under $3 per day, with Year Three costs declining to under $1 per day. AVID has been thoroughly studied through independent research. A well-developed AVID program improves schoolwide standardized test scores, advanced-level course enrollments, and the number of students attending college. In Constructing School Success (Mehan, 1997), Dr. Hugh Mehan and colleagues studied eight AVID high schools and found that AVID graduates 29
"Armstrong approaches the task of teaching children from a rather nontraditional perspective. He asks teachers to view every student as a genius... From the standpoint of education, genius means essentially giving birth to the joy of learning. Furthermore, he suggests that this is the central task of all educators. It is the genius of the student that is the driving force behind all learning, they must further have a thorough understanding of what lies at the core of each students' intrinsic motivation to learn, and that motivation originates in each student's genius. Imagine what could happen in classrooms across America if teachers were to approach all students as if the students were geniuses instead of low-achieving students, average students, highachieving, gifted students, learning disabled students, or students at risk. Labeling and tracking students undermine the premise that every student is or can be a genius" (Williams, 1999).
outperformed their comparison groups in college enrollment. This research team from the University of California, San Diego, also discovered the 89 percent of the AVID graduates were still in college after two years. Mehan et al. also discovered that 92 percent of all AVID graduates enrolled in college, a rate 75 percent higher than the overall student population. The AVID national office � The AVID Center � has collected data indicating that 85 percent of AVID's graduates complete four-year college requirements and that more than 60 percent of AVID graduates enroll in college. Contact Information Mary Catherine Swanson, Executive Director Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) Center McCoughy House 2490 Heritage Park Row San Diego, California 92110 Voice: 619-682-5050 Fax: 619-682-5060 email@example.com www.avidcenter.org
Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success
Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success (ALAS) is a dropout prevention program for middle or junior high school Latino students who are most at risk of dropping out of school before graduating. ALAS focuses on youth with learning and emotional and behavioral disabilities using a multifaceted approach of home, school and community. The program is primarily implemented in California schools with high-poverty neighborhoods. Students are provided with social problem-solving training, counseling and recognition for academic excellence. School strategies include improving social and task-related problem-solving skills, intensive attendance monitoring, providing recognition and bonding activities, and providing frequent teacher feedback to parents and students. The program also focuses on integrating school and home needs with community services, and advocating the student and parent when necessary. Community strategies include promoting collaboration among community agencies for youth and family services. A rigorous evaluation showed a lower dropout rate for ALAS students (2.2 percent) when compared to a control group (16.7 percent). The ALAS program worked especially well for students in the special education and high risk groups. Contact Information Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success Katherine A. Larson and Russel W. Rumberger University of California Graduate School of Education Phelps Hall Santa Barbara, California 93106
Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program
The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program was first developed by IDRA in 1984. Since then, the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program has kept more than 11,500 students in school, middle and high school students previously thought to be at risk of dropping out of school, including students in Tempe, Arizona schools. The Valued Youth philosophy, that all students are valuable, none is expendable, helps more than 250 schools in 25 cities keep 98 percent of valued youth in school. The program works by placing junior high school students in positions of academic responsibility as tutors of elementary school students. Tutors are paid a minimum wage stipend for their work, reinforcing the worth of the students' time and efforts. Rigorous Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program evaluations show students consistently feel better about themselves and their schools, and improve their grades, attendance and discipline. The program also improves communication between schools and families, lessens financial burdens and renews family pride.
Coca-Cola Valued Youth are an inspiration to the children they tutor, positive leaders among their peers, motivated learners to their teachers, a source of pride to their parents, and contributors to their communities. The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program is a U.S. Department of Education exemplary program, validated for its effectiveness by the Program Effectiveness Panel. One Valued Youth tutor reported he is saving his wages from the program to purchase a headstone for his mother. She had died recently, and there is no other way his family would be able to afford a headstone. One tut
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.