Abstract
Students across the nation are encountering more and more difficulties in their transition to high school. Not only are a significant number of students dropping out, but those who stay are also leaving high school without the skills they need to become productive citizens. Several intervention strategies are recommended to help students make a successful transition. From better academic preparation to structural reforms, probably all of them are needed and have an important place. In 2008, central office administrators and principals of a New Jersey school district, gathered to brainstorm about methods of early intervention strategies. The middle and secondary school principals recognized and agreed on the urgency to address these strategies by collecting data and searching for possible solutions. This article discusses the use of student data to develop a warning system, an “at risk” indicator for the 2008-2009 freshman class in one of New Jersey’s school districts.
Introduction
Efforts to raise academic standards in public schools enjoy wide bipartisan support. In early 2009, bipartisan efforts led to the enactment of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The act demands greater accountability from schools and educators, providing stiff penalties, such as reorganization and replacement of staff, for schools that fail to raise achievement. One of New Jersey’s school district’s drop-out rates is relatively low; however, extensive analysis of student transfers reveals a lack of consistency in utilizing the coding system and the established procedures. Consequently, a large number of dropouts are not identified.
New Jersey’s school districts have always supported the concerted efforts to address the increasing drop-out rate. Administrators and teachers have been working feverishly to combat the increasing drop-out rate. For several decades, this examined school district has tried to combat the increasing high school drop-out rate. Students drop out of school for many reasons: family problems, poor attendance, course failure, gang involvement, and a lack of interest in school, as well as other mitigating factors. Their students drop out for the same reason as students in other districts, but there are certain factors unique to this district, which afflict its student body: gang activity, lack of employment opportunities, drugs and alcohol addiction, and an increase in the likelihood of early pregnancy.
The examined district is diverse, impoverished, and in need of improvement. It enrolls 42,149 students in 76 sites: 64 serve K-8 students and 12 serve the high school population. As one of the largest school districts in New Jersey, this school district serves a diverse population: approximately 59% are of African descent (African American, Caribbean, and West African), 32% are of Hispanic heritage (Puerto Rican, Central American, and South American), 8% are White, and 1% are of Asian or Other heritage. The school district has identified 41 languages other than English spoken in the homes of its students. For the 2008-2009 academic year, 9% of students were English language learners and 10% received special education services. The city’s 2010 census population count, which was 277,140, exemplifies the poverty and political isolation characteristics typical of large American cities: The city’s per capita income is not quite 60% of that of the state, the majority (67%) of the children and youth enrolled in district schools are from families with incomes that qualify them for federal free or reduced-price lunches, the population is highly transient, issues of multigenerational family disintegration and low literacy levels are endemic, and, until recently, for more than 30 years, there had been an erosion in educational quality resulting in chronically low-performing schools. For the school year 2005-2006, the district was identified by the New Jersey Department of Education as a “district in need of improvement” because it did not make adequate yearly progress (a “No Child Left Behind” requirement) in all grade spans in elementary, middle, and high schools for two consecutive years in either language arts/literacy or mathematics content areas.
Researchers in Chicago have created an “on track” indicator, which appears to be fairly accurate in predicting which students will graduate from high school by the end of the freshman year. Students who are on-track are four times more likely to graduate than those who are not (Montgomery, 2008).
Presently, there is obviously a catastrophe in high schools in the United States. Nationally, barely 30% of incoming freshmen can read at grade level (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007). More than 1.2 million U.S. high school students drop out every year—roughly 7,000 each school day (Editorial Projects in Education, 2007). In a survey presented by the National Center for Education Statistics, 42% of freshmen in community colleges and 20% of freshmen in public 4-year institutions require remedial courses in reading, writing, or math to handle college-level work. After analyzing several assessments of employer satisfaction, it is apparent that the skill level of recent high school graduates reflects employer dissatisfaction. In 2005, 60% of U.S. manufacturing companies surveyed said that high school graduates were poorly prepared for entry-level jobs (National Association of Manufacturers, 2005). Employers and college professors by large majorities nationwide say that public high schools are graduating students with just fair or poor skills in writing, grammar, and basic math, and most do not consider a high school degree as any guarantee a student has mastered the basics.
For the most part, Black and Latino students do not perform as well as their White counterparts. Instead of motivating social equity, our education system widens the present achievement gap for our Black and Latino students. This is exemplified by the 2,000 U.S. high schools—called “drop-out factories” and serving mainly minority youth—whose students stand only a 60% or less chance of graduating within 4 years (Balfanz & Legters, 2004).
The penalties of this predicament for dropouts and for the public at large are considerable. A high school diploma is barely a qualification for most jobs. Nearly 10 years ago, a student who dropped out of high school in the United States could be paid only US$10,000 less than a graduating student. On average, those with no high school diploma earn US$260,000 less over the course of a lifetime than those who graduate from high school (Rouse, 2005). Furthermore, high school dropouts are usually higher tax consumers instead of taxpayers, comprise a higher percentage of welfare recipients, utilize public health services at a higher rate, and commit crimes. Researchers estimate that each high school dropout costs society at large about US$209,000 over the course of his or her lifetime (Levin, Belfield, Muennig, & Rouse, 2007).
Policy initiatives are particularly important in urban areas. If state-led endeavors to extend widespread national principles that are equivalent to international models and requirements are sustained, students’ and districts’ achievement will increase.
Method
Students from the class of 2012 were evaluated beginning in their sixth grade. At the time the evaluation was completed, the following data were available:
performance in Grades 6 and 7 (Assessment of Skills and Knowledge [ASK] Math and Language Scale scores), and
attendance information for Grades 6, 7, and 8.
Performance data were analyzed, using the 25th percentile in each content area as criterion for “at risk” students. Values for this percentile were 174/167 in math and 177/184 in language for Grades 6 and 7, respectively.
Attendance data were also analyzed, using days enrolled and days absent to calculate percent absences. Alternative cutoffs were used for attendance. A student would be “at risk” if absent more than 10% of the time, or if he or she was enrolled for 45 days or less (which is 25% of the school year).
A number of students who were enrolled in those early grades did not have some of the indicators available, perhaps because of transfers during the school year. When that happened, we included their names among the students at risk. The school must determine whether they belong to the group once classes and interventions start.
Freshman Class 1 and Gender Demographics
Table 1 shows the distribution of students by gender in each of the schools. District wide, the distribution of male/female was almost perfectly even, for the students who had been enrolled for all 3 years under consideration as well as for those who were enrolled in the district at any time during their middle school years (6-8). The magnet schools, except for School 11, had a larger proportion of female students, and School 10 had a significantly larger proportion of male students. Despite the high mobility in the district, 75% of the students in the class analyzed here had been in the district all 3 years of their middle school career. The average Grade 7 New Jersey ASK (NJASK7) score for this group of students was 200 in language (202 for girls and 197 for boys) and 191 in math (191 for girls and 190 for boys.)
Enrollment by Gender and Permanency in District.
Students at Risk
Performance data were available for Grades 6 and 7 (since eighth grade data are not yet available), while attendance was provided for Grades 6 to 8. Overall, that would produce seven potential indicators for every student, which might be difficult to process and a little redundant. We opted for aggregating the related indicators to obtain one for each area; for example, a student is identified as being at risk for attendance if his or her attendance in any of the three grades was less than the cutoff or if his enrollment was lower than the minimum.
The tables described next discuss these indicators and some combinations of them.
A total of 735 freshmen were considered at risk based on their math indicator. As mentioned before, these were students who scored below the 25th percentile in mathematics, in Grade 6, Grade 7, or both. The average score by gender and school mentioned earlier corresponds to Grade 7. Notice that the average math score in Table 2 was less than 163, which was a few points below the score corresponding to the 25th percentile (167) for this grade level. Although these students were selected on the basis of their math scores only, their language score (less than 176) also happens to fall much lower than the 25th percentile for language (184).
Students at Risk on the Math Indicator Only.
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
It is also important to mention that girls performed more than 2 points below boys in math, but outperformed boys in language by almost 7 points. At the same time, significant differences existed among schools.
Table 3 portrays students who were classified as being at risk based on their language indicator only. The number of students in this group was 580 and included many more boys than girls. The average language score was very low (163), well below the value of the 25th percentile (184). The average math score (171), on the other hand, was higher than the 25th percentile value of 167.
Students at Risk on the Language Indicator Only.
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
Table 4 corresponds to students who were classified as being at risk based on two performance indicators, language and math. These students present more of a challenge than the other two groups, and schools must be prepared to provide the support they need. With the exception of School 5, all comprehensive high schools have between 16% and 23% of their students in this category.
Students at Risk on the Language and Math Indicators.
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
Tables 5 and 6 include students who are considered to be “at risk” because of their attendance issues and performance on math (see Table 5) or language (see Table 6). The student performance in each table is clearly connected to the indicator addressed. Thus, students in Table 5 (math) had an average math score of less than 161, while their language score was close to 182. Students in Table 6 (language), on the other hand, scored about 170 in math and about 172 in language.
Students at Risk on the Math and Attendance Indicators.
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
Students at Risk on the Language and Attendance Indicators.
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
Table 7 includes the 201 students who were identified to be “at risk” based on all three indicators. Their scores were low and so was their attendance. These students must be provided special support to prevent them from dropping out.
Students at Risk on All Three Indicators (Math, Language, and Attendance).
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
Table 8 pertains to students who were considered to be at risk based exclusively on our attendance criteria; they scored at or above the 25th percentile in both content areas and both grades. Note that this is the group with the largest number of students (932), almost equally distributed between boys and girls, enrolled in every district high school and performing, as a group, 13 and 15 points lower in language and math, respectively, than the population whose attendance patterns in all three grades were above the attendance criteria.
Students at Risk on the Attendance Indicator Only.
LAL = Language Arts Literacy; G7 = Grade 7.
Attendance plays a significant role in students’ performance. Absenteeism is considered the most prominently identified characteristic of the “at risk” students and it has been proven that it has a strong link to achievement.
Several research studies show that appropriate interventions may reduce absenteeism; parental involvement in their children’s schooling is beneficial to combat it (Volkman, 1996); orderly environment and strong teaching methods also contribute to decreased absenteeism (Mora, 1997), and positive reinforcement and even compulsory attendance have a positive effect. If schools create a positive atmosphere and design appropriate interventions, the problem will be addressed.
Findings
Absenteeism prevention measures must be taken early in a student’s career to stop the waste of talent and resources; schools and parents must work together to improve attendance at all levels. Early intervention is also important in the content areas. Schools must make an effort to ensure the reliability of student data. If this type of analysis is going to be made every year, all data must be reliable and readily available. High schools receiving “at risk” students must have interventions ready to address the needs of incoming freshmen or transfer students.
Recommendations
To reform education throughout this district, utilizing the guidance of research-based models by enabling collaborative teams with the technical assistance required to engage in strategic planning and implementation of the following process: (a) a total transformation of existing educational programs offered in the district through the adoption of two or more models currently in effect at other districts; (b) professional development for all staff to ensure clarity, buy-in, and effective delivery of experiential learning curriculum; (c) expanding the knowledge base, and changing the perception of community and district employed stakeholders as related to alternative education, its national trends, and best practices; and (d) the reformulation of program evaluation and accountability procedures, identification of tools that will allow for consistent and accurate data collection, and the publication of assessment findings.
To support such initiatives, the district may need to include totally new full-time employees consisting of social workers, program coordinators, and guidance counselors, along with sustaining the salaries of the project management team. The key deliverables will be tools and strategies for successful implementation, such as extended classroom experiences, activity designs, instructional materials, evaluated assessments, and training protocols. These products will facilitate adjustments of the district’s successes. The educational administration should address the challenges that impeded the educational success of at-risk students and work to implement the distinctive features of the reform of education in the district through the research-based models.
The major components of these models include authentic learning, teaching, and performance assessment. These components will engage students in ventures that get them excited about learning and motivate them to follow their zeal as they become proficient in state standards, meet graduation requirements, and so on. Advisors should also work with each student to develop a personal learning plan (PLP) that suits the right type of learning. As a result, students can have the opportunity to come into a wide selection of teaching and learning approach in a technology-infused setting. In addition, students learn self-administration and teamwork as they expand into independent projects and work with others on group projects. Lastly, a full performance-based evaluation system by means of multiple measures includes standard public presentations of learning that offer an opportunity for reliable assessment by peers, family, and community partners.
Conclusion
Appreciating and indulging in each student’s unique academic story and utilizing that story to develop an exceedingly custom-made learning environment will lead to an entrusted and involved school building. The culture and highly encouraging consultative system where every student is treated as an individual will assist in developing positive relationships between adults and students, between students and their peers, and students and community partners.
In addition, a new tier of professionalism will be established that coincides the students’ education with that of other professions and fields. Measuring performance via an organization responsible for budgeting, staffing, and the educational program and accountability for results, individually and collectively, will assist in the overall goal of student achievement.
Allowing such democratic measures to take place will allow all stakeholders, students, parents, educators, governing board members, and community partners to be engaged in the contribution as well as recognize the importance of the measures. With the anticipated transformation of existing educational setting, the district can embark on a paradigm shift. By moving away from engaging students via an intervention model toward examining indicators of student vulnerability and engaging students earlier, a prevention model can lead to a higher level of retention rates.
By engaging students and their parents earlier, the district will be poised to garner feedback at a critical juncture in the educational relationship. It is anticipated that students who are not fully disengaged, or just beginning to lose interest in school, will be more vocal in expressing their desired outcomes when solicited and more prone to latching on to new and innovative learning models. Currently, the district oversees five middle school programs that can be used as a vehicle for early identification efforts as well as a portal for gathering data related to the onset of vulnerability characteristics among students within the district.
Students across the nation are encountering more and more difficulties in their transitions to high school as well as out of high school, particularly in urban districts. Not only are a significant number of students dropping out, but those who stay are also leaving high school without the skills they need to become productive citizens. Several intervention strategies are recommended to help students make a successful transition. From better academic preparation to structural reforms, all of these programs are needed and have an important place.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.