KIDS COUNT Indicator Brief

Reducing the High School Dropout Rate

July 2009

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

701 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
www.aecf.org
www.kidscount.org

Produced for the Annie E. Casey Foundation by Rima Shore, Ph.D. & Barbara Shore, M.A.
 KIDS COUNT Indicator Brief
Reducing the High School Dropout Rate

Researchers use many different methods to calculate the high school dropout rate, and
depending on the approach, the numbers can look very different. Using data from the
U.S. Census Bureau, the KIDS COUNT Data Center reports the number and percentage
of young people, ages 16 to 19, who are not enrolled in high school and are not high
school graduates in a given year. Using this yardstick, in 2007, there were 1.2 million
dropouts in the U.S., and the nation’s dropout rate was 7 percent. The data reflect wide
geographic variation: five states had dropout rates that were 10 percent or higher
(Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada). Eleven urban school districts also
had dropout rates that were 10 percent or higher (KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2009).

Other researchers look at the percentage of ninth graders who fail to graduate with their
class at the end of four years. Using this yardstick, a recent study reported a national
dropout rate of 29 percent. The study found that nearly half of the ninth graders in the
nation’s 50 largest cities (47 percent) do not graduate with their class in four years. In
three cities (Cleveland, Detroit, and Indianapolis), the on-time graduation rate is under 40
percent (Swanson, 2009).

No matter which method is used, the key finding is the same: too many students are
leaving school without the knowledge and skills they need to meet the demands of
twenty-first century workplaces and communities. By any measure, the problem is
particularly pressing in urban school districts, and most strongly affects students of color
and males.

The costs of dropping out have always been high, but never higher than today. Over the
past three decades, people without a high school diploma have seen an absolute decline in
real income and have dropped further behind individuals with more education. The result
is a pattern of increased economic marginalization for those Americans with the least
education. Recent studies show that between the ages of 18 and 64, dropouts, on
average, earn some $400,000 less than high school graduates. For males, the differential
is even higher—$485,000 (Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009). While dropouts who
subsequently complete the requirements for a General Education Diploma (GED) fare
better than those who do not, their earning capacity is nevertheless lower than graduates
with high school diplomas (Caputo, 2005). As the report from the Center for Labor
Market Studies concludes, “The costs of dropping out of high school today are substantial
and have risen over time, especially for young men, who find it almost impossible to earn
an adequate income to take care of themselves and their families” (Center for Labor
Market Studies, 2009, p. 2).

This KIDS COUNT Indicator Brief outlines five broad strategies for reducing the dropout
rate:

• Adopt a long-term approach that begins with strengthening school readiness

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 2 of 16 July 2009

 • Enhance the holding power of schools, with an intensive focus on ninth grade
• Focus on the forces outside of school that contribute to dropping out
• Address the needs of those groups at highest risk of dropping out
• Build on the skills and understanding of the adults who affect teens’
motivation and ability to stay in school

• Adopt a long-term approach that begins with strengthening school readiness

A growing body of evidence suggests that efforts to improve academic achievement and
reduce the dropout rate need to begin long before children enter high school—or even
middle school.

Improve access to health care, beginning with prenatal care. Maternal health and the
availability of prenatal care influence children’s birth weights, which in turn affect
children’s likelihood of dropping out. Students who weighed less than 5.5 pounds at
birth are about 33 percent more likely to drop out of school; this is true even when
comparisons are made among siblings growing up in the same household (Johnson &
Schoeni, 2007).

Address families’ access to economic resources and human services in children’s

early years. Children’s educational attainment throughout childhood is affected by their
families’ economic situations. Children who experience poverty early in their lives are
more likely to drop out than children who experience poverty in later childhood or
adolescence (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1997). Policies or programs that bolster family
resources in the middle or high school years are therefore insufficient. Improving the
effectiveness of the home as a learning environment is critical to promoting long-term
school success (Druian & Butler, 2001).

Expand access to high-quality early education programs. A large and growing body
of research links high-quality preschool experiences with a greater likelihood of high
school graduation. One of these studies followed nearly 1,000 mostly African American
children from low-income families who took part in the Chicago Child-Parent Center
study in the mid-1980s. The study concluded that, compared with similar children who
were not in the program, participants had higher educational attainment up to age 20, they
stayed in school longer, and were more likely to graduate (Reynolds et al., 2001).

Provide intensive support to students who struggle in elementary and middle school.
Researchers say that students can get off-track as early as elementary school, and that
every year a child is not promoted from one grade to the next significantly decreases his
or her chances of graduating high school (Caputo, 2005). School districts should consider
evidence-based alternatives to retention, including early intervention, tutoring, and
intensive remediation efforts. Students who fall behind in core subjects, including reading
and math, are especially prone to dropping out (Steinberg & Almeida, 2008). Some
districts offer reading and math labs, where struggling students can keep from falling
behind (Bost & Klare, 2007).

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 3 of 16 July 2009

Strengthen middle schools. School districts can study feeder patterns in areas with high
dropout rates to determine what middle schools are doing (or not doing) to prepare their
students for high school (Bost & Klare, 2007). Closer coordination between middle
schools and high schools can help to ease the transition to ninth grade.

• Enhance the holding power of schools, with an intensive focus on ninth grade.
Studies of high school dropouts point to several factors that play a key role in students’
decision to leave school including, disengagement from classroom instruction, not being
promoted, behavior issues, high rates of absenteeism, and poor or failing grades in core
subjects (Azzam 2007; Kennelly & Monrad 2007). While their reasons for leaving
school vary, many dropouts share a common experience: They are met with too little
resistance from those in charge of their education.

Sustain a focus on the quality of instruction. Although studies have linked dropping
out of school with prolonged low achievement, school districts have often given
insufficient weight to effective teaching practices as a key strategy for keeping students
on track. Indeed, one study called effective instructional design and delivery an
“inconspicuous strategy” for dropout prevention, pointing out that effective, evidence-
based practice is especially important for keeping students with disabilities on track
academically (Bost & Riccomini, 2006, p. 301). Students who have dropped out, when
surveyed, say that efforts to make high school curricula and classes more engaging could
have helped them stay in school (Bridgeland et al., 2006).

Support students’ resiliency. Some young people stay in school and meet graduation
requirements despite tough circumstances. Resiliency researchers seek to understand
what makes the difference for these students. Their findings point to the wisdom of drop-
out prevention strategies that make students feel known as individuals, engaging them in
school and helping them build confidence, stay healthy, and cope with difficult times in
school and in their lives. Drawing on studies linking student outcomes with the relational
trust within school communities (Bryk & Schneider, 2002); resiliency researchers stress
the importance of supportive adult-student relationships. The presence of at least one
supportive, caring adult can make a huge difference for a high school student.
Researchers also say that dropout prevention strategies should reflect students’ own
perceptions about the holding power of schools. Prevention strategies must therefore
focus not only on programmatic approaches, but also on adults’ relationships, beliefs,
expectations, and willingness to listen (Hupfeld, 2007).

Establish effective early warning systems. Researchers have identified specific early
warning signs that a student is off track and at risk of dropping out. They have focused
most intensively on four factors. (1) On-time promotion: The first year of high school is
especially important. Studies in Chicago and several other cities say that on-time
promotion from ninth to tenth grade is highly predictive of whether students will
complete high school (Steinberg & Almeida, 2008). (2) Accrual of required high school
credits: Researchers report that dropouts earned fewer credits than did on-time graduates
within each year of high school, and the cumulative credit gap increased with each year.
The pattern held across all examined student and school characteristics (student sex,

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 4 of 16 July 2009

race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, school location, and sophomore class size)
(Hampden-Thompson, Warkentien & Daniel, 2009). (3) Attendance: Students who are
frequently absent, especially in ninth grade, are at greater risk of dropping out than
students who attend regularly (Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). (4) Behavior issues:
Recurring behavior problems in elementary and middle school have been linked with a
higher likelihood of dropping out. In particular, students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities leave school at higher rates than other students, regardless of the method used
to calculate the dropout rate (Thurlow, Sinclair & Johnson, 2002). Efforts to establish and
teach behavioral norms are important at every level of school, but may be especially
important in middle school (Bost & Klare, 2007). Establishing criteria for dropout risk
and monitoring the early warning signs not only help to identify at-risk students, but can
also lead to more effective, targeted interventions.

Focus on grade nine. Ninth grade appears to be a very precarious stretch on the road to
graduation. The difficulty of the transition from middle school to high school is well
documented, especially in large cities. Recent studies indicate that most ninth graders at
nonselective urban high schools enter with academic skills several years below grade
level, and that urban students who drop out have often encountered severe academic
problems in ninth grade. Dropout prevention efforts should therefore focus intensively on
grade nine (Allensworth & Easton, 2005; Neild, Stoner-Eby & Furstenberg, 2008;
Steinberg & Almeida, 2008).

Provide credit recovery programs. On-time accrual of credits is a major issue for many
high school students (Hampden-Thompson, Warkentien, & Daniel, 2009). For some
struggling teens, opportunities to catch up can make the difference between completing
school and dropping out. For example, the results of an analysis conducted by the New
York City Department of Education showed that 93 percent of the city’s dropouts were
overage for their grade and behind in the number of credits they had earned toward
graduation. After creating multiple pathways specifically designed for overage and
under-credited students—including smaller alternative schools and evening “catch-up”
programs—the city’s graduation rate for these students nearly tripled (American Youth
Policy Forum, 2007).

Root out policies that tacitly permit (or encourage) students to leave school. For the
vast majority of dropouts, leaving school is not a hasty or impulsive decision. Rather, it
is made gradually in response to a growing disengagement from school, falling behind in
core subject areas due to missing too many classes, and feeling academically unprepared
to handle high school classes. However, research shows that most dropouts are confident
that they could have made it through high school if they had tried—and if the
expectations and academic standards at their schools had been higher (Bridgeland et al.,
2006). In fact, many teens report being encouraged by administrators or teachers to stop
coming to school. Some researchers see evidence of a “push-out” syndrome in many
schools, where teachers and administrators make little effort to hold onto potential
dropouts (Druian & Butler, 2001). In some cases, accountability systems associated with
No Child Left Behind mandates may lead schools to “push out” students who are not
performing well in classes and on standardized tests (Losen, 2008). In some districts,

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 5 of 16 July 2009

disciplinary policies require schools to suspend or expel students who miss too many
days (Stearns & Glennie, 2006). School districts with high dropout rates should review
disciplinary policies, especially those guiding expulsions, with a view toward making
expulsion a very rare event. From the standpoint of dropout prevention, in-school
suspension is preferable to out-of-school suspension, especially if the time is used
productively (Bost & Klare, 2007).

Strengthen accountability systems and data collection. Many methodological

problems need to be solved so that researchers, states, and school districts can do a better
job tracking and accounting for school completion. Across the nation, there are many
different definitions of dropouts, and many different approaches to calculating dropout
rates. In some states or districts, students who leave school but enter GED programs are
considered dropouts; in others, they are not. Some states and districts count special
education students who leave school with certificates (rather than full diplomas) as
dropouts; others do not. In many cases, there is no clear definition of who is a dropout.
States and districts also differ in their ability to track students who move from one school
to another, or who leave school and then re-enroll. These and many other problems need
to be resolved (Bost & Klare, 2007).

Focus on school-level factors and address local conditions. The 2007 National High
School Center report, Approaches to Dropout Prevention: Heeding Early Warning Signs
with Appropriate Interventions, states: “There is growing consensus that school level
factors such as grades, retention, attendance, and classroom behavior and engagement are
better predictors of dropout than fixed status indicators such as gender, race, and
poverty…” (Kennelly & Monrad, 2007, p. 3). Different factors are at work in different
places, and the same remedy will not work in every community. To be effective,
programs and policies need to identify and address local conditions or factors that raise
the dropout rate. They also need to gear dropout prevention efforts to the age and profile
of at-risk students.

Provide service-learning opportunities. Successful interventions focus simultaneously

on several types of learning—academic, social/emotional and career-related skills and
knowledge—and offer students opportunities to explore real-world relationships and
experiences that bolster both their competency and confidence (Steinberg & Almeida,
2008). One strategy that combines these types of learning is service-learning. Service-
learning incorporates several approaches that are key to retaining students who might
otherwise drop out, including strengthening links between school and work, fostering
positive relationships between students and adults in the school and larger community,
bolstering students’ communication skills, and promoting community engagement.
Initiatives that involve teens, parents and other adults in the community have been shown
to be especially effective (Bridgeland et al., 2008).

Strengthen students’ understanding of the connection between education and job

opportunities. It is important to connect learning with students’ realities and future
opportunities. Some dropout prevention programs combine intensive, individualized
basic skills development with work-related projects. The goal is not only to enhance

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 6 of 16 July 2009

skills, but also to make clear the relationship between education, on one hand, and
economic and job prospects on the other (Druian & Butler, 2001).

• Focus on the forces outside of school that contribute to dropping out

Researchers have demonstrated that the odds of dropping out are influenced by many
forces beyond the classroom or school. Students who are male, who come from
economically disadvantaged families, and who are African American or Hispanic, are at
higher risk for leaving school without a diploma (Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). Many
“quiet troubles” associated with disadvantaged communities can make it difficult for
students to stay on track. Health issues (hunger, dehydration, asthma, obesity, and vision
or hearing problems) can hold students back in school. Psychological issues (depression,
anxiety, or fear) can get students off track as well. Caretaking responsibilities (for
younger or older relatives) are particularly onerous for high school students. One study
conducted in the 1990s found that 12 percent of high school dropouts nationwide left
school to take care of a family member, and researchers say that this hurdle remains high
(Weissbourd, 2009). Others obstacles to staying in school are less easily categorized:
lacking clothes or shoes; lacking a quiet place to do schoolwork, lacking money for
books or a computer, and lacking transportation to after-school activities.

Promote awareness of the links between staying in school and the resources
available to families and communities. Access to economic opportunity affects the
dropout rate. While people in every state and of every race, gender and income level
make up the nation’s dropouts, the crisis affects low-income youth, males, Hispanics and
African Americans disproportionately (Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009).
Nationally, the dropout rate tends to be highest in districts with high levels of poverty and
segregation, and in schools with a high enrollment of special education students. In fact,
research shows that the poverty level in a school district had the strongest impact on
dropout rates, particularly for African American students (Swanson, 2004).

Address the social and emotional conditions associated with poverty. Young people
in low-income families are less likely than those in middle- or upper-income families to
finish school (Caputo, 2005). Families living in poverty are less able to supply the
nutrition and materials needed for children’s healthy development. They have less access
to safe neighborhoods, good schools, appropriate recreational facilities, and adequate
health services. Moreover, children growing up in poverty often do not have similar
access to learning resources such as tutoring or enrichment programs as children from
families with more money. But it is not simply a lack of buying power that makes
children in low-income families more likely to drop out. Rather, the decision to leave
school often stems from the social and psychological forces that accompany poverty. For
example, researchers studying the link between economic security and children’s
emotional status have found that economic loss is associated with changes in parenting
practices that have adverse consequences for children’s emotional well-being. Newer
research has pointed to the effects of stress on the brains of children living in poverty.
One study followed a group of 195 poor and middle-class white students from age 9 until
age 17 and concluded that living in poverty not only causes stress, but actually wears
down brain cells and impairs memory—which is closely linked with reading, writing and

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 7 of 16 July 2009

problem-solving abilities (Evans & Schamberg, 2009). More research is needed to shed
light on the specific aspects of children’s environments that reduce their chances for
educational success.

Address the linkages between residential mobility, school mobility, and dropping
out. Stable housing is an important protective factor in the lives of teenagers, but it is not
unusual, in urban districts, for about 20 percent of the student population to change
schools in any given year (Weissbourd, 2009). Abundant research has linked mobility
and the likelihood of dropping out. One recent study also noted that both mobile and
non-mobile students are at greater risk for dropping out when they attend schools with
high rates of student mobility (South et al., 2007). Community development efforts that
focus on housing can therefore help to reduce the dropout rate. In addition, district
policies that allow students to remain in the same year when they move or become
homeless can keep students from falling through the cracks. States and districts can also
improve systems that track students when they move, and can standardize methods of
reporting number of credits accrued (Bost & Klare, 2007).

Address minor problems before they snowball into issues that keep students out of
school. Problems that seem minor can become impediments to school attendance,
leading young people to drop out. Lost eyeglasses that are not replaced, persistent
teasing that is not addressed, or conflict with a single teacher can begin a chain of events
that ends with a student leaving school without a diploma (Weissbourd, 2009).

• Address the needs of those groups at highest risk of dropping out.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of students throughout the nation leave school without
graduating. While these are young people of every demographic description, dropping
out is more common among some groups than others. The KIDS COUNT Data Center
reports significant variation in the 2007 dropout rate across racial and ethnic groups:
American Indians (12 percent), Hispanics (12 percent) and non-Hispanic blacks (8
percent) had higher dropout rates than non-Hispanic whites (5 percent) and
Asians/Pacific Islanders (3 percent) (KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2009). Researchers
using other methods to calculate the dropout rate also report sharp differences among
racial and ethnic groups. Researchers who measure the percentage of students who fail to
complete high school on time, in four years, show that American Indians (49.4 percent),
non-Hispanic blacks (44.7 percent) and Hispanics (42.4 percent) had higher non-
completion rates than non-Hispanic whites (22.4 percent) or Asians (18.7 percent)
(Swanson, 2009).

Focus intensively on strategies to help Hispanic students stay in school. Hispanic

students (12 percent) are more than twice as likely as white students (5 percent) to drop
out of high school. Hispanic students are also more likely to drop out than their African
American counterparts (8 percent). Researchers have identified several factors that affect
the Hispanic dropout rate, including low levels of cultural understanding in schools;
insufficient academic advisement; school environments that are not supportive of
Hispanic students; fewer placements in college-preparatory courses; and a paucity of
demanding courses and high expectations (Nevarez & Rico, 2007). In recent years,

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 8 of 16 July 2009

researchers have been adding to the body of knowledge about what is needed and what
works to retain Hispanic students in high school through graduation, such as providing
parents access to and information about both the school system and the social services
and community resources available to them and their children; ensuring that Hispanics
are well represented among the teaching and administrative staff of the schools they
attend; offering opportunities for alternative educational strategies, such as self-directed
learning and small-group work; integrating Hispanic culture and cultural awareness into
educational programs; and ensuring that there are capable leaders in schools who are
skilled at building linkages with other stakeholders in the community (Santiago &
Brown, 2004).

Provide intensive support to students from immigrant families. For students from
immigrant families, staying on track for high school graduation can be especially
challenging. In 2007, 21 percent of children spoke a language other than English at home
and 20 percent of children in immigrant families had difficulty speaking English (KIDS
COUNT Data Center, 2009). Evidence-based educational services geared to English-
language learners are therefore a key to dropout prevention. Moreover, children in
immigrant families are less likely than other children to live with well educated parents.
More than one-quarter (26 percent) of children in immigrant families live with parents
who did not graduate from high school, and half of those children (13 percent) live with
parents who have less than a ninth-grade education (KIDS COUNT Data Center, 2009).
Students would benefit if parents had access to translation services at their children’s
schools, as well as access to adult education and English as a Second Language
programs.

Investigate the potential of providing incentives for students to stay in school. Some
states link drivers’ licenses and work permits for teens to school attendance (Bost &
Klare). In recent years, researchers and educators have proposed a range of other
incentive programs for students, parents and teachers, from establishing an incentive fund
for school districts interested in launching innovative programs to stem the dropout rate
and higher pay for teachers who work in high-poverty schools to cash incentives for
students who stay in school. Continued research is needed in this area (Bishop, 2006).

Focus intensively on dropout prevention for high school students with disabilities
and other special needs. Because different states take different approaches to exit
requirements for students with disabilities, data on special education graduation and
dropout rates can be hard to interpret. Researchers agree, however, that students in
special education (especially those with emotional/behavioral disabilities) drop out at
substantially higher rates than students in general education (Thurlow, Sinclair &
Johnson, 2002). Over the past 15 years, as standards-based education has taken hold,
states have experimented with a variety of high school diploma options for students with
and without disabilities. Since 2004, 28 states increased their requirements for graduating
from high school with a standard diploma for students both with and without disabilities,
and some states report that one result was a rise in dropout rates (National Center on
Educational Outcomes, 2007). States have taken varied approaches to including students
with disabilities in their efforts to raise standards. Those states that require students to

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 9 of 16 July 2009

pass graduation examinations also vary with respect to requirements for students with
disabilities. The question remains: How will these reforms affect the ability of students
with disabilities to graduate? Research is needed to determine how states’ diverse
approaches will affect graduation rates and employment outcomes for students with
disabilities and other special needs (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2007).

• Strengthen the skills and understanding of the adults who affect teens’
motivation and ability to stay in school
A caring adult can act as a personal anchor, helping high school students stay on track
(Hupfeld, 2007). The adults in a school community can mentor students, offer emotional
support during hard times by acting as the student’s advocate when conflict arises in
school or at home, or provide opportunities to pursue a special talent or interest. They
often benefit from guidance and support as they take on these roles.

Expand access to parent education and family support programs geared to the
challenges of raising adolescents. While peers, teachers, coaches, and friends’ parents
can take on added importance as children become teens, parents remain a powerful
influence in promoting healthy development and keeping their children on track. While
information about teen issues is widely available in books and on the Internet, relatively
little attention has been paid to supporting the parents of adolescents. Providing
increased access to parent education and family support programs can help parents
negotiate conflicts or crises that can lead children to leave school. These programs need
effective outreach, curricula, staff development, evaluation, and linkages with other local
services.

Include strategies for helping at-risk youth stay on track in teacher education,
leadership preparation, and professional development programs. To be effective,
dropout prevention initiatives have to be aligned with districts’ and schools’ broader
efforts at improvement and reform. For this reason, effective, informed leadership has
long been seen as a critical factor in ensuring the success of dropout prevention efforts
(Schargel, Thacker & Bell, 2007; Dynarski & Gleason, 1999). Strategies for working
with at-risk youth should also be infused in teacher education coursework and fieldwork
as well as ongoing professional development offerings

Promote an understanding of the relationship between health and dropping out.

Students’ health can affect their likelihood of staying in school, but the opposite is also
true. The more education that people have, they are likely to be healthier over the course
of their lives. Data conclusively show that high school dropouts experience more and
more serious health issues over their lifetimes. For example, people with less schooling
are at greater risk of dying younger, smoking, being overweight and getting less exercise
(Freudenberg & Ruglis, 2007).

Use a variety of media and formats to offer more and better information to the
parents of teens. As researchers gather new findings and generate new knowledge about
parenting adolescents, better ways of disseminating the information are needed. Stronger
informational resources would benefit not only parents and teens, but policymakers,

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 10 of 16 July 2009

health care and human services providers, religious leaders, advocates and others who are
involved in the lives and well-being of adolescents.

In summary, more is known than ever before about the forces that help students stay on
track or lead them to drop out of school. There is a great deal that states, school districts,
and schools can do to bolster the holding power of high schools. Some important
strategies focus on the roots of disengagement in early childhood and the elementary- and
middle-school years; others key in on transition points, especially ninth grade; and still
others address issues that affect students’ persistence across the high school years. There
is much more that can be done, starting with clarifying what a dropout is and how the
dropout phenomenon is best measured so that early warning and accountability systems
can be put into place. Dropout prevention strategies need to address both school-level and
community-level issues. Effective efforts will reflect not only risk factors, but also the
factors that foster resiliency and help students stay on track despite difficulties.

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 11 of 16 July 2009

References

Allensworth, E. & Easton, J.Q. 2005. The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school
graduation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

American Youth Policy Forum. 2007. Forum brief: Development and implementation
of multiple pathways to graduation in New York City—Friday, October 26, 2007.
Accessed at: http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2007/fb102607.htm.

Azzam AM. 2007. Why students drop out. Educational Leadership: The prepared
graduate 64(7):91-93. Accessed at:
www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/apr07/vol64/num07/Why_Students_D
rop_Out.aspx.

Bishop, J. 2006. Drinking from the fountain of knowledge: Student incentive to study and
learn—externalities, information problems and peer pressure. In Hanushek, E.A. &
Welch, F., Handbook of the economics of education, Vol 2, Ch. 15.

Bost, L.W. & Klare, M. 2007. The impact of policies and procedures on dropout and
school completion. Transcript of conference call, National Dropout Prevention Center for
Students with Disabilities, October. Accessed at: http://www.ndpc-
sd.org/documents/Teleseminars/Bost-071016/Klare.pdf.

Bost, L.W. & Riccomini, P.J. 2006. Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for
dropout prevention. Remedial and Special Education 27(5):301-311.

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, J.J. & Morrison, K.B. 2006. The silent epidemic:
Perspectives of high school dropouts. Civic Enterprises/Peter D. Hard Research
Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Accessed at:
www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/thesilentepidemic3-06.pdf.

Bridgeland, J.M., Dilulio, J.J. & Wulsin, S.C. 2008. Engaged for success: Service-
learning as a tool for high school dropout prevention. Civic Enterprises. Accessed at:
www.servicelearning.org/library/lib_cat/index.php?library_id=7540.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., Maritato, N. 1997. Poor families, poor outcomes: The
well-being of children and youth. In J Brooks-Gunn and GJ Duncan, eds. Consequences
of growing up poor. Russell Sage Foundation.

Bryk, A.S. & Schneider, B. 2002. Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Caputo, R.K. 2005. The GED as a predictor of mid-life health and economic well-being.
Journal of Poverty 9(4):73 – 97.

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 12 of 16 July 2009

Center for Labor Market Studies. 2009. Left behind in America: The nation’s dropout
crisis. Accessed at: www.clms.neu.edu/.

Druian, G. & Butler, J.A. 1987, updated 2001. Effective schooling practices and at-risk
youth: What the research shows. NW Regional Educational Laboratory. Accessed at:
www.nwrel.org/comm/topics/atrisk.html.

Dynarski, M. & Gleason, P. 1999. How can we help? Lessons from federal drop-out
prevention programs. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Evans, G.W. & Schamberg, M.A. 2009. Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult
working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 106:6545-49. Accessed at:
www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6545.full?sid=f5b42293-222f-4e71-ae85-0cadd539de3d.

Freudenberg, N. & Ruglis, J. 2007. Reframing School Dropout as a Public Health Issue.
Preventing Chronic Disease 4(4). Accessed at:
www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/oct/07_0063.htm.

Hampden-Thompson, G., Warkentien, S. & Daniel, B. 2009. Course credit accrual and
dropping out of high school, by student characteristics. Statistics in Brief, National Center
for Education Statistics. February.

Hupfeld, K. 2007. Resiliency skills and dropout prevention: A review of the literature.
ScholarCentric. Accessed at:
http://scholarcentric.com/images/pdf/resiliency_skills/SC_Resiliency_WP_FNL.pdf.

Johnson, R.C. & Schoeni, R.F. 2007. The influence of early-life events on human
capital, health status, and labor market outcomes over the life course. University of
Michigan National Poverty Center Working Paper. Accessed at:
www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/?publication_id=117&.

Kennelly, L. & Monrad, M. 2007. Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early

warning signs with appropriate interventions. National High School Center at the
American Institutes of Research.

KIDS COUNT Data Center. 2009. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Accessed at:
http://datacenter.kidscount.org.

Losen, D. 2008. Beyond accurate reporting: Why Congress should improve graduation-
rate accountability in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. Teachers College Record. Accessed at:
www.tcrecord.org/PrintContent.asp?ContentID=15258.

National Association of State Boards of Education. 2002. Students with disabilities and
high school graduation. Policy Update 5(6).

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 13 of 16 July 2009

National Center on Educational Outcomes. 2007. Diploma options for students with
disabilities: Synthesis of the NCEO document. Accessed at:
www.projectforum.org/docs/DiplomaOptionsforSWD-
SynthesisoftheNCEODocument.pdf.

Neild, R.C., Stoner-Eby, S., Furstenberg, F. 2008. Connecting entrance and departure:
The transition to ninth grade and high school dropout. Education and Urban Society
40(5):543-69.

Nevarez, C. & Rico, T. 2007. Latino education: A synthesis of recurring

recommendations and solutions in P-16 education. The College Board. Accessed at:
www.professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/Latino-Education-A-Synthesis.pdf.

Pinkus, L. 2008. Using early-warning data to improve graduation rates: Closing cracks
in the education system. Alliance for Excellent Education. Accessed at:
www.all4ed.org/files/EWI.pdf.

Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L. & Mann, E.A. 2001. Long-term effects of
an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-
year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) 285:2339-2346.

Santiago, D.A. & Brown, S.E. 2004. What works for Latino students. Excelencia in
Education, Inc.

Schargel, F.P., Thacker, T. & Bell, J.S. 2007. From at-risk to academic excellence: What
leaders can do. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

South, S.J., Haynie, D.L. & Bose, S. 2007. Student mobility and school dropout. Social
Science Research 36(1):68-94.

Stearns, E. & Glennie, E.J. 2006. When and why dropouts leave high school. Youth &
Society. Sage Publications. Accessed at:
http://yas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/1/29.

Steinberg, A. & Almeida, C.A. 2008. Raising graduation rates in an era of high standards:
Five commitments for state action. White paper for Staying the Course: High Standards
and Improved Graduation Rates, a joint project of Achieve and Jobs for the Future,
February.

Swanson, C.B. 2009. Closing the graduation gap: Education and economic conditions in
America’s largest cities. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.

Swanson, C.B. 2004. Who graduates? Who doesn't? A statistical portrait of public high
school graduation, class of 2001. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 14 of 16 July 2009

Thurlow, M.L., Sinclair, M.F. & Johnson, D.R. 2002. Students with disabilities who drop
out of school: Implications for policy and practice. National Center on Secondary
Education Transitions Issue Brief 1(2), June.

Weissbourd, R. 2009. The ‘quiet’ troubles of low-income children. Education Digest,

January. Accessed at:
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/36120251/The-Quiet-Troubles-of-
LowIncome-Children.

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 15 of 16 July 2009

Online resources

Alliance for Excellent Education.

www.all4ed.org

America’s Promise Alliance

www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Dropout-Prevention.aspx

American Youth Policy Forum

www.aypf.org

Center for Labor Market Studies

www.clms.neu.edu

National Association of State Boards of Education

www.nasbe.org

National Center on Educational Outcomes

www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO

National Center on Secondary Education Transitions

www.ncset.org

National Dropout Prevention Centers

http://www.dropoutprevention.org/

National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities

www.ndpc-sd.org/

National High School Center at the American Institutes of Research

www.betterhighschools.org/

Annie E. Casey Foundation Page 16 of 16 July 2009