Transcript Class of 2002 Promoting Power

Locating and
Preventing the
Dropout Crisis
How to Target and Transform High
Schools Which Produce The
Nation’s Dropouts
Robert Balfanz & Nettie Legters
Center for Social Organization of Schools
Johns Hopkins University
Prepared for the Alliance for Excellent Education
March 28, 2007
Dropout Crisis
1.2 million students drop
out of high school each
year
7,000/day, 12 million over
the next decade
Half of the nation’s
dropouts attended a
dropout factory
Where Did All The
Freshmen Go?
12th Graders
11th Graders
10th Graders
9th Graders
197
259
327
484
Number of 9th Graders in 1996/97 = 669
% Fewer 12th graders in 1999/2000 than 9th graders 1996/97 = 71%
Promoting Power
Twelfth grade enrollment Yr X
Ninth grade enrollment Yr X-3
 It is not a direct measure of
dropout/graduation rates
 It is a strong indicator of high
schools with low and high
graduation rates
 It is easily calculable and uses
readily available data
 We classify High Schools with
Promoting Power of 60% or less
as Dropout Factories
How Many Dropout Factories Are
There?
Number of High Schools Nationally by Different Levels of
Promoting Power (Class of 2003, 2004 and 2005)
4,629
5,000
4,000
2,955
3,372
3,000
2,000
1,827
1,860
0-60%
61-70%
1,000
0
71-80%
81-89%
Average Promoting Power
90% or more
Where Are The Nation’s
Dropout Factories
Located?
•About Half are Located in Northern,
Midwestern and Western Cities
•The rest are primarily found throughout
the South and Southwest
Counties with 1 or more weak promoting power high schools (gray shading) and counties with 5 or
more weak promoting power high schools (black shading), 2003-04
Top 10 States with the Largest
Number of Dropout Factories
State
Number of
Dropout
Factories
Nationally
1,827
Florida
Texas
Georgia
New York
California
South Carolina
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio
Illinois
208
190
131
124
103
91
89
74
70
62
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Top 10 States with the Largest Concentration
of Dropout Factories
State
South Carolina
Florida
Georgia
Nevada
North Carolina
Mississippi
Arizona
Alaska
Hawaii
Tennessee
Total
Number of
High
Schools
Number of
Dropout
Factories
178
416
298
56
315
238
198
63
39
274
91
208
131
17
74
55
45
13
8
56
% of High
Schools that
are Dropout
Factories
Rank
51%
50%
44%
30%
23%
23%
23%
21%
21%
20%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
School Districts with the Largest
Number of Dropout Factories
Districts with the Greatest Number of Dropout Factories (Class of 2003, 2004 and 2005)
District name
New York City Public Schools
Los Angeles Unified
City of Chicago School District 299
Philadelphia School District
Dade County School District
Detroit City School District
Dallas Independent School District
Houston Independent School District
Milwaukee School District
Duval County School District
Population
Rank
Total Number of
High Schools
Number of
Dropout
Factories
1
2
4
8
3
16
17
14
41
20
133
57
62
35
41
30
28
28
24
21
95
46
40
27
22
22
21
21
20
16
Percentage of
High Schools
71%
81%
65%
77%
54%
73%
75%
75%
83%
76%
Who Attends Dropout
Factories?
 Students who live in
Poverty
 Minority Students
Dropout Factories and Minority
Concentration
Percentage of High Schools by Minority Concentration that
are Dropout Factories
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
56%
39%
2%
5%
Less than 10%
minority
(n=5,941)
50% or less
minority
(n=11,216)
More than 50%
minority
(n=3,097)
Minority Concentration
More than 90%
minority
(n=1,064)
Percent of Minority Students
Attending Dropout Factories
Percentage of the Nation's Minority Student Populations in
Dropout Factories
100%
80%
60%
40%
33%
40%
8%
20%
0%
African American
Latino
Percentage of Race/Ethnicity Group
White
100%
68%
75%
67%
56%
46%
50%
39%
34%
34%
20%
25%
Vi
rg
in
ia
M
is s
is s
ip
pi
an
a
ba
m
a
Al
a
Ca
r
Lo
ui
si
ol
in
a
a
rid
Fl
o
No
rth
So
ut
h
Ca
r
ia
ol
in
a
0%
Ge
or
g
Percent of Race/Ethnicity
Percent of African American Students Who Attend High schools
with Low Graduation Rates in the Southeastern States
100%
75%
50%
45%
39%
35%
25%
25%
22%
20%
16%
4%
M
is s
is s
ip
pi
Lo
ui
s ia
na
Al
ab
am
a
Vi
rg
in
ia
Ca
r
ol
in
a
ia
No
rth
Ge
or
g
a
rid
Fl
o
Ca
r
ol
in
a
0%
So
ut
h
Percent of Race/Ethnicity
Percent of White Students Who Attend High Schools with Low
Graduation Rates in the Southeastern States
Weak Promoting Power High Schools - Class of 2002
Percentage of Students Attending High Schools with 60% or Fewer
Seniors than Freshmen
100%
80%
64%
59%
60%
40%
20%
46%
39%
32%
60%
57%
52%
35% 39%
39%
24%
11%
2%
9%
7%
5%
7%
0%
National
Ave.
Wisconsin
Michigan
African Americans
Ohio
Latinos
Illinois
Whites
Indiana
Poverty and Dropout Factories
Percentage of Schools that are Dropout Factories by Percentage of Students
Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch
98%
100%
93%
85%
77%
80%
71%
65%
60%
60%
54%
42%
40%
24%
28%
15%
20%
1%
2%
4%
8%
or
e
or
m
70
%
60
-6
9%
50
-5
9%
40
-4
9%
30
-3
9%
20
-2
9%
10
-1
9%
09%
0%
Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (2004-05)
Percent of Schools that are Dropout Factories
Class of 2005 Overall Promoting Power
Class of 2002 African American, Latino and White Promoting Power
in California High Schools by Free and Reduced-Price Lunch
Eligibility
Concentrated Poverty
Promoting Power
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
40% or more
25-39%
10-24%
Less than 10%
Percent of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch
African American
Latino
White
Class of 2002 Promoting
Power
African American and White Promoting Power by Percent of Students
Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch in the Southeastern States:
Class of 2002
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.55
0.60
0.64
0.53
0.56
0.70
0.78
0.68
0.60
0.40
60% or more
40-59%
20-39%
10-19%
Less than
10%
Percent Eligible
African American Promoting Power
White Promoting Power
What Causes a High
School to be a Dropout
Factory?
• Concentrated Poverty is the
key driver
• But Controlling for Poverty,
Minority Concentration,
School Size, Student-Teacher
Ratio, and Urban Location also
play roles.
The Greatest Proximate
Cause is that there is a
fundamental Miss-Match
between the Number of
Students in Need of
Academic and Social
Supports in a High School
and the Human Resources
and Know How Available to
Help
The Educational
Challenge Faced by
Dropout Factories
• Philadelphia Case Study-High
Poverty Neighborhood High
Schools vs Selective
Admission Magnets
Percentages of 9th Graders who are First-Time
Freshmen by High School
Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Magnet or Vocational Schools
Percentage of 9th Graders who are On-Age, FirstTime Freshmen by High School
100%
Percent
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Magnet or Vocational Schools
Percent
Percentage of 9th Graders who are On-Age, First
Time Freshmen with 80%+ Attendance in 8th Grade
by High School
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Magnet or Vocational Schools
Percentage of 9th Graders who are On-Age, First
Time Freshmen with 80%+ Attendance in 8th Grade
and Math and Reading Skills at the 7th Grade Level
or Higher by High School
100%
Percent
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Magnet Schools
Targeting Resources and
Know How to End the
Dropout Crisis
• Case Study-African American
Males
Overall Promoting Power by Race/Ethnicity and Gender
Promoting Power Ratio
1.00
0.87
0.80
0.60
0.69
0.91
0.71
0.64
0.57
0.40
0.20
0.00
Black
Hispanic
Male
Female
White
Which High Schools Do
African American Males
Dropout From?
• 80% of African Americans are
attend Public High School in
16 states
• In these 16 states there are
roughly 2400 high schools
where the promoting power for
African American Males is less
than 65%
Cont.
• These 2400 High School
produce 90% of the African
American Male Dropouts in
the 16 states are about 75% of
the nation’s African American
Male Dropouts
Cont.
• About Half are Dropout
Factories
• The Other Half are Grad Gap
Schools
• The Number of High Schools
per state ranges from 65 in
New Jersey to 266 in Texas
This is a Solvable Number
It is within our Capacity to Transform
the Nation’s Dropout Factories and Grad
Gap High Schools
In So Doing we can Transform the
Nation
The Consequences of
Under-Education
 A new high school dropout in 2000
had less than a 50% chance of
getting a job
 That job earned less than ½ of what
the same job earned 20 years ago
 Lack of education is ever more
strongly correlated with welfare
dependency and incarceration
 Some U.S. jobs cannot be filled by
U.S. trained skilled employees
Benefits > Costs
A recent study finds that our
nation can recoup 45 billion
dollars in lost tax revenues,
health care expenditures,
and social service outlays if
we cut the number of high
school dropouts in half
(Levin et. al, 2007).
Failure to Succeed
 Enter High School with Below Grade
Level Skills or Poor Attendance
Habits or struggle with the transition
to high school
 Miss 20 or more days of the 9th grade,
sometimes 10 of the first 30 days
 Fail Two or More and often Nearly All
of their 1st Semester Courses.
 Do Not Earn Enough Credits to be
Promoted to the 10th Grade
 Repeat 9th Grade, Fail Again
 Eventually Dropout, Perhaps after a
Brief Transfer to another school
Failure to Succeed
Dropouts
Are Easily Identifiable Using
Data Routinely Collected by
Schools
Can be Identified a Key
Junctures of Secondary School
When Their Odds for Success are
About to Take a Turn for the
Worse
Often Persist in School for a
Long Time before Dropping Out,
Despite Years of Struggles
Chicago On-Track
Indicator
Earn 5 Credits in 9th Grade
Have no More than one semester
F in a core course
On Track Students 3.5 Times
more likely to Graduate
Better Predictor than Test Scores
or background characteristics
Some Students with High Test
Scores Fall off Track in 9th Grade,
Some Students with Low Test
Scores stay on Track
9th Grade Experience is Key
Philadelphia 8th Grade
Indicators
8th Graders who Attend less than
80% of the Time and/or Fail
Math and/or Fail English make
up 54% of Dropouts
Students Who Do Not Have 8th
Grade Indicators but have to
Repeat 9th Grade make up 22%
of Dropouts
Only 23% of Dropouts Do Not
Have a 8th Grade or 9th Grade
Indicator
Effective
Intervention and
Prevention
Follow the Public
Health Model
Comprehensive
Prevention Model
Type of
Intervention
Portion of
Failure to
Succeed
Students
Addressed
Resource Needs
School-wide
Preventative
65-75%
Maybe able to
Re-Organizes
Existing
resources
Targeted
15-25%
Additional
Resources
Typically Needed
Intensive
5-10%
Partners with
Resources
Needed
Talent Development High
Schools Reform
Components
School Organization
– Ninth Grade Academy, Teams, Career
Academies, Block Schedule
Curriculum/Instruction
–
–
–
–
Double & Triple Dose
Active Instruction
Freshman Seminar
Integrated Career Themes
Staff Support
– Leadership
– Planning & Coaching
Comparison of Academies Alone & Academies with Teams and Good Schedules
on School Learning Environment
0.3
0.26
Standardized Regression Coefficients
0.25
0.2
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.03
-0.01
0
0
Students Feel Safe
Students Enjoy School
Students Get Along with Teachers
-0.05
ACADEMIES ALONE
ACADEMIES WITH TEAMS
Students Believe their Teachers
Care
Teaching Teams Invoke Collective Responsibility
100%
77%
80%
58%
60%
45%
40%
20%
0%
No SLC implementation
SLC without teaming
SLC with teaming
Level of Implemenation
Teachers report that they make phone calls to absent students to get them back to school
EFFECT OF PEER COACH ON READING INSTRUCTION PRACTICES
90%
80%
79%
80%
79%
75%
70%
64%
64%
64%
Percent
60%
48%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Read Aloud Think Aloud
Whole Books
No Coach
Student Team Discussion
Have Coach
Self-selected Reading
We Now Know That…
Sustained implementation of a
strong, comprehensive intervention
at the high school level, with
particular emphasis in the ninth
grade, results in improvements in:







Climate
Attendance
Achievement
Course Passing
Grade Promotion
Career/College Ready
Graduation
MDRC Evaluation
Using an unusually rigorous research method, MDRC
studied the impact of Talent Development across five
high schools in Philadelphia over a five-year period.
MDRC’s analysis compared gains in student
engagement, achievement, and attainment in the
Talent Development high schools to a set of match
control schools in the same district. Their study found
that:
 “Talent Development produced substantial gains in
attendance, academic course credits earned
(particularly in algebra), and promotion rates during
students’ first year of high school.” p.ES-1
 “The improvements in credits earned and promotion
rates for ninth-graders were sustained as students
moved through high school.” p.ES-1
 “The pattern of results in this report stands out from
other research on high school reforms because the
impacts are consistently positive across several
outcomes, they emerged in the first year of
implementation, they are sustained for successive
cohorts of students, and they were found across five
high schools,”
Good News
 Manageable number of
schools and we can locate
the bulk of the work
 Converging discourse on what
needs to be done
 Increasing level of know how
 Leadership and support
Challenges
Transforming low
performing high
schools and systems
is not easy, fast, or
cheap
Not Easy
 Need comprehensive and
systemic approach to avoid
isolated efforts that
exacerbate inequity
 Consider multiple approaches
as appropriate to context
 Develop and scale-up technical
and human supports for
transformation
 Align federal, state, district,
and school-based efforts
How Teacher Involvement in Decisions Influences Commitment to Change
100%
92%
87%
90%
80%
71%
70%
60%
54%
50%
44%
40%
41%
40%
30%
20%
24%
17%
15%
5%
10%
9%
0%
Staff dedication to real school
reform is improving
Faculty goes the extra mile to
get behind changes for better
school
Staff morale is positive
KEY - Teachers are involved in making policy or administrative decisions that affect them
Not At All True
Not Very True
Sort of True
Very True
Not Fast
“The trick is how to sustain
interest in a reform that
requires a generation to
complete.”
Debbie Meyer
NCLB & States must acknowledge
reality and progress using multiple
indicators
Not Cheap
 Continue and expand
public and private funding
 Institutionalize targeted
resources
– Title I
– Perkins
– Dedicated Fund for Low
Performing High Schools
Coming Soon…
Bingaman $2.5 Billion High
School Reform/Dropout
Reduction Bill