Each year, nearly 30 percent of all public high school undergraduates– and approximately 50 percent of all blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans – do not succeed in graduating from public high schools among their class. A lot of these students dropout from school with less than two years remaining for completion of their high school learning program. In 1997, the dropout rate for students aging from 16 to 24 years was recorded at 11 percent, signifying a minor reduction as compared to the 1990 figures.
(Reyes, 2006) The dropout rate for white students was found to be lesser than the figures for Hispanic and black students. For instance, in 1997, an 8 percent the dropout rate was recorded for white, non-Hispanic students while figures for black students and Hispanic students stood at 13 percent and 25 percent respectively. (Jimerson, 2007) The consequences of this problem are unfavorable for mostly students. However, it has adverse effects on teachers, schools and the economy as a whole.
A steadily increasing dropout rate across the nation amplifies the threat to the states’ potency and prosperity. Various studies reveal a constant raise in the number of students who fail to graduate, and authorities are disturbed by those figures, as it would signify increasing costs for social programs and prisons, along with bad debt and decreased tax revenues owing to the abridged earnings competency of dropouts. Dropouts are also inexplicably treated by the criminal regulation system, and they account for nearly 75 percent of state prison convicts.
(Egyed, 2007) Literature Review The dropout predicament is a complex social and economic problem and necessitates a multifaceted assortment of solutions. No single miraculous solution exists for the dropout problem. Dropouts have divergent temperaments and thus a number of causes appear in the studies aiming at finding out the reasons for dropping out. Therefore, the need for diverse programs, which cater to their individual status and requirements, is imperative.
In surveys conducted amongst the dropout population, almost 70 percent said that they lacked motivation and two-thirds among them would have put in more efforts if required. Around one-thirds dropped out citing personal reasons, for example to acquire employment or family related reasons. In addition, anther one-third stated that underperformance was as a key factor. Parental association is a decisive factor, as students with parents only “to some extent” concerned or “insufficiently” involved in their schooling are more liable to opt out from schools.
Socio-economic backgrounds of students also play a major role in effecting dropout rates. In this paper, we argue that school budgets have a definitive impact on dropout rates. It is the school’s responsibility as much as the society has to initiate dropout prevention. Schools ignoring this concern demonstrate a higher dropout rate. For example, Shelbyville authorities were proved wrong whilst citing a graduation rate of 90 percent, when the correct figures were nearer to 75 percent.
Subsequent to this episode, they enforced well-built reforms, which led to an increase in the graduation rate. (Janosz, 2008) Research Objective Schools should realize the significance of including dropout prevention programs in their budgets. They should shoulder responsibility, take initiatives such as providing free schooling for economically backward students, a dropout recovery program, an adult advocacy/parent involvement projects, and make efforts to incorporate corporate firms in work-study and service education programs. (Aloise-Young, 2007)
There consistent standards of reporting or examining dropout rates do not exist. This hinders the proper implementations of measures. Proper reporting and investigative conventions must be established across the state to make some progress on the problem at hand. (Bradshaw, 2008) References: Aloise-Young, Patricia A & Ernest L. Chavez; 2007; Not all school dropouts are the same: Ethnic differences in the relation between reason for leaving school and adolescent substance use; Psychology in the Schools; 39, 5, 539-547; Colorado State University Bradshaw, Catherine P, Lindsey M. O’Brennan, Clea A. McNeely; 2008; Core competencies and the prevention of school failure and early school leaving; New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development; 2008, 122, 19-32; Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence and the University of California, Santa Barbara; Adolescent Health Center at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Egyed, Carla J. David E. McIntosh, Kay S. Bull; 2007; School psychologists’ perceptions of priorities for dealing with the dropout problem; Psychology in the Schools; 35, 2, 153-162; University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO; Education 232, Programs in School Psychology, University at Albany-SUNY, Albany, NY 12222; Oklahoma State University, OK Janosz, Michel, Isabelle Archambault, Julien Morizot, Linda S. Pagani; 2008; School Engagement Trajectories and Their Differential Predictive Relations to Dropout; Journal of Social Issues; 64, 1, 21-40.
The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues; cole de psychoducation, Universit de Montral Jimerson, Shane R, Gabrielle E. Anderson, Angela D. Whipple; 2007; Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the relation between grade retention and dropping out of high school; Psychology in the Schools; 39, 4, 441-457; University of California, Santa Barbara Reyes, Olga & Leonard A. Jason; 2006; An evaluation of a high school dropout prevention program; Journal of Community Psychology; 19, 3, 221-230; DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois.