School Drop Out Rates Essay Example

School Drop Out Rates Essay One of the greatest gifts to have been bestowed upon the children of our nation is the offering of equitable academic education.   It is by means of the education presented that we as individuals are able to develop and advance the necessary skills to lead productive and prosperous lives.   In retrospect, while many may look back thankfully at the knowledge gained throughout our school years, the same may not be said for everyone, as dropout rates continue to play a dramatic role in today’s society.  Ã‚   So what are dropout rates and how are they important to not only the individual dropout but to society as well?   Throughout the following we will answer these questions as well as analyze various methods of measurement, the validity of those measurements, minority and ethnic groups affected and potential solutions regarding this crucial issue.If â€Å"knowledge is power†, then why would one opt to negate such an extraordinary gift?   Though the idea of schoo l for certain students can undoubtedly be difficult, uncomfortable and boring at times, the consequences rendered from ridding themselves of this learning process can be far more overwhelming in the long run.   Low paying jobs, illiteracy and quality of life issues are only a few such consequences.   Furthermore, individual dropouts are not the only ones to suffer from these effects.   Communities with higher dropout rates tend to have greater percentages of residents collecting public assistance, tax revenue losses and elevated crime rates.   For instance, it is believed that dropouts are 3.5 times more likely to commit crimes.   That being said, 75% of prison inmates have not graduated from a high school program. This in turn spurns greater prison costs. Additionally, studies have shown that illegal drug use may increase among high school dropouts. (Smink, J., Drew, S. Duckenfield, M., 2006)Sadly, children may also find themselves victims in the educational push and pul l as they become prone to repeating the cycle of their parents. (Smink, J., Drew, S. Duckenfield, M., 2006)   As children, we gained much knowledge by what we saw and what we â€Å"believed† to be correct.   On that note, if parents do not take their own education, or lack thereof, seriously, then it stands to reason as to what direction their children will take?   Yet, to speak of ill effects may not be enough.  Ã‚   In order to at least comprehend the magnitude of this ongoing issue and its social ramifications, governing entities must be able to statistically evaluate information that presents itself as a means to develop solutions.   Dropout rates may serve this very purpose.Since the 1970’s dropout rates have gradually decreased, yet issues of educational abandonment remain.   The compilation of data used to study dropout rates can be a promising tool not only in determining school performance but they may also be helpful in deciphering trends.  Ã‚   By studying these rates, the development of special services devoted to the reduction and prevention of dropouts from state to state can be initiated.   It is noteworthy to mention that available services come from partnered efforts such as governmental and community agencies as well as through business.  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Students generally are considered to have dropped out when they leave school, do not transfer, do not graduate and do not return to school in the next year.†Ã‚   Methods of determining dropout rates vary, however, dependant upon the question to be answered, such as specific age groups, yearly percentages or combined grade levels over a period of time.   Some of the most noted rate structures are Longitudinal, Attrition, Annual and Status Rates.   (Creech, 2000)Longitudinal Rates are useful in determining â€Å"the percentage of 9th graders who do not graduate in five years†.   Using division (No. of dropouts / No. of original class members) this rate is easily generated and offers the student a greater period of time to obtain their high school certificate.   However, due to limited availability of necessary information like that of the actual number of school transfers, the rates may not be wholly accurate.   For this reason, Longitudinal Rates are mainly projections of yearly rates.   (Creech, 2000)Similarly, Attrition Rates are determined by 9th grade percentages but do not allow for the extra (5th) year and like Longitudinal Rates certain necessary information may be lacking to accurately arrive at true percentages.   These rates are computed by subtraction and division methods using the number of 9th grade students enrolled four years prior minus the total number of graduating students and then dividing by the 9th grade enrollment numbers.   (Creech, 2000)   While difficult to understand, the following example may serve to clarify any confusion.   If we had 450 total students enrolled in 9th grade an d four years later only 350 graduated, it is obvious we would have 100 students who would considered dropouts.   If we then take those 100 students and divide it by the 450 students initially enrolled our Attrition Rate would result in 22.2% dropout rate covering that four-year period of time.School performance percentages are the primary goal of Annual Dropout Rates which compares enrollment for the months of May and June to those of the following September.   Although overall dropout percentages from year to year are easily determined by this method, state variations on grade levels included display no uniformity.   As a result, state-to-state comparisons are not feasible.   Another disadvantage of analyzing only the number of dropouts for that given year is lower percentage rates that may not paint a complete picture of the actual problem.   For instance average rates compiled over a period of four years may not correspond to yearly rates.   Lower rates can also be at tributed to the grade level variations, as states including 7th and 8th grade students in their final percentage.   Typically, students of younger age groups do not dropout of school until much later when restrictions are lifted.   In this sense, underestimation seems inevitable. (Creech, 2000)Status Rates are accumulated through U.S Census Bureau Population Surveys and are used to determine dropout rates among specific age groups and are the most beneficial or accurate rates for comparison of state-to-state percentages.   For example, Status Rates may report the percentage of 16 through 19 year-olds who have not graduated high school and who are not enrolled.   (Creech, 2000)   According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2001) â€Å"in October 1999, there were 3.8 million 16-24-year-olds were not enrolled in a high school program and who had not completed high school†, regardless of when they attended school.   Consequently, 11.2% of 16 throu gh 24-year-old dropouts in the United States fell within this category.  Ã‚   Through such rates the overall dropout problem existing within our population is revealed. Status Rates can greatly aid in the furtherance of developing additional education and training designed to help incite dropouts to more readily participate within the nation’s economy as well as lead more productive lives.The NCES also computes annual Event Rate Statistics.  Ã‚   These rates encompass, ages 15 through 24-year-olds in grades 10-12 who have dropped out in the year preceding the data collection and is a valuable measure as to the effectiveness of educator’s ability to keep students enrolled.   It is important to mention that with the statistical calculations for Event Rates, students are viewed as having completed a high school program whether through traditional class work or by receiving their certification via alternate means such as a GED.   It is estimated that while over the last 25 years Event Dropout Rates have fluctuated, an overall decrease has been recorded from 6.1% in 1972 to 5.0% in 1999.  Ã‚  Ã‚   Event Status Rates (1999) also determined â€Å"5 out of every 100 young adults who were enrolled in high school in October 1998 were no longer in school and had not successfully completed high school†.   Event rates are collected through Current Population Surveys (CPS).   Such surveys allow for calculations to be determined based on characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, location of residency and income level.   For instance, the NCES has compiled data in 1999 that supported the fact that students of families in the lowest 20% of household incomes had a five times higher likelihood of dropping out of school.   Which minority groups overall are more likely to dropout of school can also be determined through Event Rates.   (NCES, 2001)According to calculated percentages Hispanics make up the majority of school dropouts among minor ity and ethnic groups.   As Creech (2000) points out, statistics set forth by the NCES, determined that 38% of Hispanic students had dropped out of school in 1998, whereas, only 17% of black students were estimated to have dropped out within that specified year.   Figures such as these may be largely due to language barriers of students born abroad or living with families where English is used primarily as a second language.  Ã‚   Overall black and Hispanic students were 2-3 times more likely to drop out of school than white students.   Other social influences that may contribute to higher   drop out rates are pregnancy, behavioral problems and self-esteem issues.   In order to combat these problems, special programs for groups like teen parents and those whose first language is not English must be instituted.   (Creech, 2000)Yet, even with the mass amounts of technical information offered as to the various methods and calculations of dropout rates, we are left with th e question, are dropout rates valid as a true account of the nationwide problem?   As discussed in earlier paragraphs, accuracy is not always achieved.   For instance, most school informational systems do not have a means to track students who have transferred to other schools or who have failed.   During calculations of Longitudinal and Attrition Rates, the only information taken into account is the number of enrolled students compared to non-enrolled students over a given time period.   As a result, actual transfer students are included as dropouts when such is not the case.   While it has neither been proved nor disproved, states that have adopted the Exit Exam policies before certification can be received, may lead to a greater percentage of students failing.   This in turn will not only lower graduation rates but may increase inaccurate dropout percentages. (Greene, J. Winters, M.A., 2005)In fact, the mere defining of the term â€Å"dropout† can in itself cr eate reporting inaccuracy.   This is primarily caused by a great number of states that differ in their opinion as to who should be counted as a dropout.   Furthermore, these variances make it nearly impossible to compare the rate of dropouts between states or statistics presented in previous years.   (Creech, 2000)Status Rates have also been criticized.   Sum and Harrington (2003) believe Status Rates, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Education are â€Å"substantially biased†.   One reason may be the denominator attributed to Status Rates that does not allow for future dropouts in students 18 through 24 years of age.   The problem being, as research has shown, it is more likely these students over the age of 18 will decide to drop out of school as they are well over the average age of their peers.Another issue presented is the exclusion of those students who have left school but have acquired their GED.   While the positive aspects of obtaining a GED may be inspiring, studies have determined that the GED is not an equitable assessment of a traditional high school diploma.   Moreover, students age 18 through 24 who have been institutionalized or imprisoned are also excluded from Status Rate calculations.   (Sum, A. Harrington, P., 2003)Overall, prevention is key in the reduction of dropout rates.   Legislative enforcements like that of The Education and Economic Development Act (2005) have been enacted to improve academic achievement while focusing on career choice, work skills and graduation rates.   (Smink, J., Drew, S. Duckenfield, M., 2006)   In addition, it may prove significantly beneficial for policymakers to set in place more advanced data   systems that can better predict and detail those students who are most likely to dropout of school.   Means of intervention via education administrators must also come into play for schools that have repeated performance issues that may diminish student motivation and incr ease dropout rates.   (Achieve, Inc., 2006)In summary, while the implementation of calculating dropout rates can be beneficial tools to the researcher, they may not serve the best interest of the community or students assessed.   Without an accurate depiction of the existing problem we cannot achieve the goal of preventing and/or reducing dropout rates. Still, we must continue on through trial, error and heated debate, in hopes of a better tomorrow for our young adults. School Drop Out Rates Essay Example School Drop Out Rates Essay One of the greatest gifts to have been bestowed upon the children of our nation is the offering of equitable academic education.   It is by means of the education presented that we as individuals are able to develop and advance the necessary skills to lead productive and prosperous lives.   In retrospect, while many may look back thankfully at the knowledge gained throughout our school years, the same may not be said for everyone, as dropout rates continue to play a dramatic role in today’s society.  Ã‚   So what are dropout rates and how are they important to not only the individual dropout but to society as well?   Throughout the following we will answer these questions as well as analyze various methods of measurement, the validity of those measurements, minority and ethnic groups affected and potential solutions regarding this crucial issue.If â€Å"knowledge is power†, then why would one opt to negate such an extraordinary gift?   Though the idea of schoo l for certain students can undoubtedly be difficult, uncomfortable and boring at times, the consequences rendered from ridding themselves of this learning process can be far more overwhelming in the long run.   Low paying jobs, illiteracy and quality of life issues are only a few such consequences.   Furthermore, individual dropouts are not the only ones to suffer from these effects.   Communities with higher dropout rates tend to have greater percentages of residents collecting public assistance, tax revenue losses and elevated crime rates.   For instance, it is believed that dropouts are 3.5 times more likely to commit crimes.   That being said, 75% of prison inmates have not graduated from a high school program. This in turn spurns greater prison costs. Additionally, studies have shown that illegal drug use may increase among high school dropouts. (Smink, J., Drew, S. Duckenfield, M., 2006)Sadly, children may also find themselves victims in the educational push and pul l as they become prone to repeating the cycle of their parents. (Smink, J., Drew, S. Duckenfield, M., 2006)   As children, we gained much knowledge by what we saw and what we â€Å"believed† to be correct.   On that note, if parents do not take their own education, or lack thereof, seriously, then it stands to reason as to what direction their children will take?   Yet, to speak of ill effects may not be enough.  Ã‚   In order to at least comprehend the magnitude of this ongoing issue and its social ramifications, governing entities must be able to statistically evaluate information that presents itself as a means to develop solutions.   Dropout rates may serve this very purpose.Since the 1970’s dropout rates have gradually decreased, yet issues of educational abandonment remain.   The compilation of data used to study dropout rates can be a promising tool not only in determining school performance but they may also be helpful in deciphering trends.  Ã‚   By studying these rates, the development of special services devoted to the reduction and prevention of dropouts from state to state can be initiated.   It is noteworthy to mention that available services come from partnered efforts such as governmental and community agencies as well as through business.  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Students generally are considered to have dropped out when they leave school, do not transfer, do not graduate and do not return to school in the next year.†Ã‚   Methods of determining dropout rates vary, however, dependant upon the question to be answered, such as specific age groups, yearly percentages or combined grade levels over a period of time.   Some of the most noted rate structures are Longitudinal, Attrition, Annual and Status Rates.   (Creech, 2000)Longitudinal Rates are useful in determining â€Å"the percentage of 9th graders who do not graduate in five years†.   Using division (No. of dropouts / No. of original class members) this rate is easily generated and offers the student a greater period of time to obtain their high school certificate.   However, due to limited availability of necessary information like that of the actual number of school transfers, the rates may not be wholly accurate.   For this reason, Longitudinal Rates are mainly projections of yearly rates.   (Creech, 2000)Similarly, Attrition Rates are determined by 9th grade percentages but do not allow for the extra (5th) year and like Longitudinal Rates certain necessary information may be lacking to accurately arrive at true percentages.   These rates are computed by subtraction and division methods using the number of 9th grade students enrolled four years prior minus the total number of graduating students and then dividing by the 9th grade enrollment numbers.   (Creech, 2000)   While difficult to understand, the following example may serve to clarify any confusion.   If we had 450 total students enrolled in 9th grade an d four years later only 350 graduated, it is obvious we would have 100 students who would considered dropouts.   If we then take those 100 students and divide it by the 450 students initially enrolled our Attrition Rate would result in 22.2% dropout rate covering that four-year period of time.School performance percentages are the primary goal of Annual Dropout Rates which compares enrollment for the months of May and June to those of the following September.   Although overall dropout percentages from year to year are easily determined by this method, state variations on grade levels included display no uniformity.   As a result, state-to-state comparisons are not feasible.   Another disadvantage of analyzing only the number of dropouts for that given year is lower percentage rates that may not paint a complete picture of the actual problem.   For instance average rates compiled over a period of four years may not correspond to yearly rates.   Lower rates can also be at tributed to the grade level variations, as states including 7th and 8th grade students in their final percentage.   Typically, students of younger age groups do not dropout of school until much later when restrictions are lifted.   In this sense, underestimation seems inevitable. (Creech, 2000)Status Rates are accumulated through U.S Census Bureau Population Surveys and are used to determine dropout rates among specific age groups and are the most beneficial or accurate rates for comparison of state-to-state percentages.   For example, Status Rates may report the percentage of 16 through 19 year-olds who have not graduated high school and who are not enrolled.   (Creech, 2000)   According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2001) â€Å"in October 1999, there were 3.8 million 16-24-year-olds were not enrolled in a high school program and who had not completed high school†, regardless of when they attended school.   Consequently, 11.2% of 16 throu gh 24-year-old dropouts in the United States fell within this category.  Ã‚   Through such rates the overall dropout problem existing within our population is revealed. Status Rates can greatly aid in the furtherance of developing additional education and training designed to help incite dropouts to more readily participate within the nation’s economy as well as lead more productive lives.The NCES also computes annual Event Rate Statistics.  Ã‚   These rates encompass, ages 15 through 24-year-olds in grades 10-12 who have dropped out in the year preceding the data collection and is a valuable measure as to the effectiveness of educator’s ability to keep students enrolled.   It is important to mention that with the statistical calculations for Event Rates, students are viewed as having completed a high school program whether through traditional class work or by receiving their certification via alternate means such as a GED.   It is estimated that while over the last 25 years Event Dropout Rates have fluctuated, an overall decrease has been recorded from 6.1% in 1972 to 5.0% in 1999.  Ã‚  Ã‚   Event Status Rates (1999) also determined â€Å"5 out of every 100 young adults who were enrolled in high school in October 1998 were no longer in school and had not successfully completed high school†.   Event rates are collected through Current Population Surveys (CPS).   Such surveys allow for calculations to be determined based on characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, location of residency and income level.   For instance, the NCES has compiled data in 1999 that supported the fact that students of families in the lowest 20% of household incomes had a five times higher likelihood of dropping out of school.   Which minority groups overall are more likely to dropout of school can also be determined through Event Rates.   (NCES, 2001)According to calculated percentages Hispanics make up the majority of school dropouts among minor ity and ethnic groups.   As Creech (2000) points out, statistics set forth by the NCES, determined that 38% of Hispanic students had dropped out of school in 1998, whereas, only 17% of black students were estimated to have dropped out within that specified year.   Figures such as these may be largely due to language barriers of students born abroad or living with families where English is used primarily as a second language.  Ã‚   Overall black and Hispanic students were 2-3 times more likely to drop out of school than white students.   Other social influences that may contribute to higher   drop out rates are pregnancy, behavioral problems and self-esteem issues.   In order to combat these problems, special programs for groups like teen parents and those whose first language is not English must be instituted.   (Creech, 2000)Yet, even with the mass amounts of technical information offered as to the various methods and calculations of dropout rates, we are left with th e question, are dropout rates valid as a true account of the nationwide problem?   As discussed in earlier paragraphs, accuracy is not always achieved.   For instance, most school informational systems do not have a means to track students who have transferred to other schools or who have failed.   During calculations of Longitudinal and Attrition Rates, the only information taken into account is the number of enrolled students compared to non-enrolled students over a given time period.   As a result, actual transfer students are included as dropouts when such is not the case.   While it has neither been proved nor disproved, states that have adopted the Exit Exam policies before certification can be received, may lead to a greater percentage of students failing.   This in turn will not only lower graduation rates but may increase inaccurate dropout percentages. (Greene, J. Winters, M.A., 2005)In fact, the mere defining of the term â€Å"dropout† can in itself cr eate reporting inaccuracy.   This is primarily caused by a great number of states that differ in their opinion as to who should be counted as a dropout.   Furthermore, these variances make it nearly impossible to compare the rate of dropouts between states or statistics presented in previous years.   (Creech, 2000)Status Rates have also been criticized.   Sum and Harrington (2003) believe Status Rates, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Education are â€Å"substantially biased†.   One reason may be the denominator attributed to Status Rates that does not allow for future dropouts in students 18 through 24 years of age.   The problem being, as research has shown, it is more likely these students over the age of 18 will decide to drop out of school as they are well over the average age of their peers.Another issue presented is the exclusion of those students who have left school but have acquired their GED.   While the positive aspects of obtaining a GED may be inspiring, studies have determined that the GED is not an equitable assessment of a traditional high school diploma.   Moreover, students age 18 through 24 who have been institutionalized or imprisoned are also excluded from Status Rate calculations.   (Sum, A. Harrington, P., 2003)Overall, prevention is key in the reduction of dropout rates.   Legislative enforcements like that of The Education and Economic Development Act (2005) have been enacted to improve academic achievement while focusing on career choice, work skills and graduation rates.   (Smink, J., Drew, S. Duckenfield, M., 2006)   In addition, it may prove significantly beneficial for policymakers to set in place more advanced data   systems that can better predict and detail those students who are most likely to dropout of school.   Means of intervention via education administrators must also come into play for schools that have repeated performance issues that may diminish student motivation and incr ease dropout rates.   (Achieve, Inc., 2006)In summary, while the implementation of calculating dropout rates can be beneficial tools to the researcher, they may not serve the best interest of the community or students assessed.   Without an accurate depiction of the existing problem we cannot achieve the goal of preventing and/or reducing dropout rates. Still, we must continue on through trial, error and heated debate, in hopes of a better tomorrow for our young adults.