Date post: | 07-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | molly-haack |
View: | 16 times |
Download: | 0 times |
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Hispanic Dropout Rates: A Multidimensional Analysis
Molly C. Haack
Senior Research Capstone
Lynchburg College
1
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
ABSTRACT
This research study reviews the social phenomenon of higher dropout rates among
Hispanic students enrolled in secondary education. It argues for the merits of multidimensional
analysis that accounts for the interaction of multiple social factors. This research study focuses
on both student specific and institutional factors; the individual perspective focuses more on the
individual, case-specific factors associated with dropping out, and the institutional perspective
emphasizes the contextual factors found in the students’ families, schools, and communities.
This research study also discusses the extent to which these frameworks can be used, by
explaining differences in dropout rates among social groups, particularly Hispanic students. The
analysis section of this study examines various strategies to help address the at risk student. This
is conducted by reviewing examples of both programmatic and systemic solutions, and the extent
to which a given policy can effectively address serious impediments to educational success.
INTRODUCTION
Higher dropout rates among Hispanic students in secondary education are a concern that
has plagued our nation. In light of this sustained decrease in academic enrollment,
multidimensional analyses are required that account for the interaction of multiple social factors.
Specifically, a more comprehensive approach to dropout rates should take account of both
student specific and institutional factors. The crucial question here becomes: what factors are
most essential to analyze collectively? There are social and financial pressures that have become
more imperative than one’s own right to (and desire for) an education. The multidimensional
framework for this study includes individual, case-specific and institutional perspectives. The
individual perspective focuses more on the individual factors associated with dropping out. The
2
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
institutional perspective emphasizes the contextual factors found in students’ families, schools,
communities, and peers. Both of these frameworks are necessary to understand this complex
social phenomenon that has not only influenced the Hispanic community, but the totality of our
nation as well.
METHODS
The purpose of this secondary research study is to analyze previous literature, theories,
and key factors, which may in fact, influence Hispanic students to drop out of high school.
Government reports, statistics, and varying research studies have been analyzed in order to make
an assertion of the leading cause for such a high percentage of dropout rates, pertaining
specifically to this ethnic group. A more comprehensive approach to dropout rates takes account
of both students, case-specific and institutional factors. The crucial question throughout the
entirety of this study: what factors are most essential to analyze together? The multidimensional
frameworks for this study included both individual and institutional perspectives. The individual
perspectives focused more on the individual factors associated with dropping out. The
institutional perspective emphasized the contextual factors found in students’ families, schools,
communities, and peers.
In order to operationalize the data provided, one must review the representation of needs
that are considered most important to the Hispanic student population, rather than the
achievement of graduating high school. The dependent variables collected, are the factors that
influence a Hispanic student (the independent variable) to drop out of school. Both individual
and institutional perspectives affect the lives of these students firsthand. Individual social (socio-
personal) factors include: race, ethnicity, values, attitudes, behaviors, relationships (peer and
3
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
adult), and English as a second language. Although, social factors are an imperative influence
towards the “at risk” students, institutional factors are essential as well. These institutional
perspectives include: school activities, exit exams, per pupil spending, late retention, and
demographics (low income areas). Both of these frameworks are essential to understand this
complex social phenomenon that has influenced the Hispanic community.
These reiterated variables truly reflect the concept of both qualitative and theoretical data.
Addressing the problem of low graduation rates among Hispanic students, allows one to fathom
the reasoning for choosing a synthesis of particular variables, i.e., the individual and institutional
perspectives as the greatest form of conceptualizing adequate data. Visual models can be
examined in tables 1 and 2, stated below. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate 2002-2009
(Table 1) documents the graduation rates between both White and Hispanic students. The
percentage among White students underwent a relative increase, while the percentage of
Hispanic students either remained stagnant, or decreased over the documented years. In terms of
dropout rates for 16 through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity, from 1990-2012 (Table 2), the status
dropout rate was lower for Whites than for Black and Hispanic students. The Hispanic rate was
significantly higher than both Black and White races, which was comprised as a similar outcome
between both tables.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Each year in the United States, five percent of all high school students drop out of school;
dropout rates vary widely among major racial and ethnic groups. “In 1998, the dropout rates
among persons 16 to 24 years old were 7.7 percent for White, non-Hispanics, 13.8 for Black,
non-Hispanics, and 29.5 for Hispanics” (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
4
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Education Statistics, 2000, Table 108). The high capacity of dropout rates among Hispanic
students has become a particular concern for the federal government. Students who drop out of
high school are becoming a financial liability to our nation and more importantly, represent
considerable loss of potentially positive contributions to social wellbeing. “Research
demonstrates that dropouts are also more likely to have health problems, engage in criminal
activities, and become dependent on welfare and other government programs than high school
graduates” (Rumberger, 1987). All of these factors come at the nation’s expense. Through
government aid and spending, taxpayers are blindly supporting the lives of high school dropouts,
since they consist of 75 percent of those who are unemployed.
According to the United States Department of Education and the National Center for
Education Statistics (Table 1), White students have a much greater percentage of graduation rates
than Hispanic students. Documented from 2002-2009, the graduation rate for White students
continuously increases, while the percentage of Hispanic students either remains the same, or
decreases over the years, which initially leads to a higher percentage of dropout rates across the
nation.
Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) 2002-2009. (Table 1)
Year Hispanic WhiteTotal Total
2002-2003 65.9 78.72003-2004 66.7 79.82004-2005 62.2 80.42005-2006 61 80.32006-2007 60.8 80.42007-2008 63.4 812008-2009 67 81.8
5
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
The Condition of Education 2012. (Table 2)
As “The Condition of Education” (Table 2) data above conveys, racial inequality as
especially evident in terms of education and educational success. The national average high
school dropout rate is 7.4 percent. For Caucasians and Asians, this percentage decreases. On the
other hand, for African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, this percentage increases,
and in the case of Hispanics more than doubles.
According to the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics (Table 3), the status dropout rate represents the percentage of 16 through 24-year-olds
who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential, “(either a diploma
or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate).”
Based on data from the Current Population Survey, the status dropout rate decreased from 12
percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2012, with most of the decline occurring after 2000. However,
6
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
there was no measurable difference in the rate between 2011 and 2012. In each year from 1990
to 2012, the status dropout rate was lower for Whites than for Blacks and Hispanics. The rate for
Hispanics declined from 32 to 13 percent. “As a result, the gap between Whites and Hispanics
narrowed from 23 percentage points in 1990 to 8 percentage points in 2012.” However, the
Hispanic rate was significantly higher than both Black and White races.
Status dropout rates of 16 through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 1990-2012 (Table 3)
7
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
While the rates for both Whites and Blacks declined during this period, the gap between
the rates in 1990 was not measurably different from the gap between the rates in 2012. The
White-Black gap did narrow between 2000 and 2012 (from 6 percentage points to 3 percentage
points).
In Houston, Texas, a documentary titled “Dropout Nation,” piqued concern for the
public. Sharpstown High School, a school known for greater than average dropout rates, strained
to maintain a balance between graduating students, and students who are on the path of dropping
out. According to writer and produce Koughan, "Houston appealed to me because it was a place
that historically had a serious dropout problem, but they were taking steps to try and rectify the
concern” (2012). The documentary features several at-risk students who face a troubling journey
that may result in dropping out. Marco, a Hispanic student who rarely attends class, is one of the
few students interviewed. His father was deported two years prior to the documentary airing. In
fear of losing his mother to deportation, he continuously worked 40-hour weeks, in order to
support both him and his remaining family members. School attendance was not a prime concern
for Marco. Other factors influenced him, leaving dropping out as a more favorable solution.
Marco is viewed as a representation of all Hispanic students who are facing a challenging time
graduating. Although, Hispanic dropout rates are the highest among all other ethnicities, Marco
is the only student who was interviewed in the documentary who in essence, graduated high
school. He put in additional effort and time, in order to make his dreams of graduating a reality.
Understanding why Hispanic students drop out of high school is the key to addressing
this major educational issue. Demographic indicators point to a potential increase in dropout
rates among Hispanic students. The amount of students who are generally at a greater risk of
school failure are students from low-income households, racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities.
8
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Unfortunately, the majority of Hispanic students meet all of these criteria. Public schools that are
present in low-income areas, are attempting to come up with a solution to lower the percentage
of dropout rates, in hopes of ultimately accomplishing a 90 percent graduation rate. Public
institutions have pushed for a greater number in school accountability. “That has produced social
promotion, and to institute high school exit exams, which could increase the number of students
who fail to complete high school” (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). The attempt to implement exit
exams for these students is only resulting in academic detriment, which in turn contributes to
dropout rates among Hispanic students.
TOWARD A MULTIDIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK
The multidimensional framework advocated here draws attention to the interaction of
numerous social factors. First, the framework takes up the individual student’s perspective,
which predictably consists in the social attributes of students, such as their values, attitudes,
social (including immigration) status, family income, and routine behaviors. Why is it the case
that these particular attributes contribute to the individual’s decision to quit school?
Conceptualized through such a framework are two subdivisions of engagement: academic
engagement and social engagement. “Engagement is reflected in students’ attitudes and
behaviors with respect to both the formal aspects of school (e.g., classrooms and school
activities) and the informal ones (e.g., peer and adult relationships” (Rumberger, 1987). Both of
these engagements can influence the decision to withdraw from school. Hispanic students may
drop out of school simply because they are not doing well (academic engagement), or because
they are not getting along with their peers (social engagement). Rumberger argues that either one
of these perspectives is sufficient as a potential cause of school withdrawal. With these factors in
9
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
mind, Hispanic students who either interrupt their schooling by dropping out or by changing
schools, or who have poor academic performances, are less likely to graduate from high school.
Meso-Level Social Factors: School Policies and Immigrant Status
Late retention is an additional indicator of prior school performance. A significant
amount of Hispanic students are held back in school each year. For example, Rumberger, “found
that students who were retained in grades 1 to 8 were four times more likely to drop out between
grades 8 and 10 than students who were not retained” (1995). Virtually all empirical studies to
date suggest that retention significantly increases the likelihood of dropping out of high school.
Some recent studies with more direct measures of family relationships have confirmed that
strong relationships between students and parents also reduce the odds of dropping out of school.
“Empirical studies have found that students whose parents monitor and regulate their activities,
provide emotional support, encourage independent decision making, and are generally more
involved in their schooling are less likely to drop out of school” (Astone & McLanahan, 1991).
With aid from parents, Hispanic students will be less likely to undergo late retention and also
develop a greater relationship with close family members within the home.
The overall influence of school practices, policies, wealth allocation, staff-student
interaction, and broader issues of school culture on Hispanic dropout rates is likewise quite
significant. A study was drawn from a 10th grade dropout sample of 247 urban and suburban high
schools in 1990. “The median dropout rate is 4.2 percent, which means about 4 out of every 100
10th grade students dropped out of the ‘average’ high school in the sample” (Rumberger, 1995).
However, the dropout rate for individual schools varies from less than 2 percent to over 40
percent. At least some of that variability, however, is due to differences in the background
10
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
characteristics of the Hispanic students. The adjusted dropout rates still show widespread
differences among schools. This suggests schools actually do influence dropout rates.
Four types of school characteristics have been linked to student performance: student
composition, resources, structural characteristics, and practices.
“The first three factors are sometimes considered as school inputs by economists and
others who study schools because they refer to the ‘inputs’ into the schooling process that
are largely ‘given’ to a school and therefore not alterable by the school itself”(Hanushek,
1989).
This is in reference to per pupil spending provided on the state level. The practices factor refers
to the school systems actual control over spending, which can ultimately be used to judge a
school’s effectiveness.
Through both retention and school resources provided at the state level, per pupil
spending has a significant impact on high school retention and dropout rates. Studies suggest that
resources do in fact have an influence on high school dropout rates, especially among Hispanic
students. “Two studies found that the pupil/teacher ratio had a positive and significant effect on
high school dropout rates even after controlling for a host of individual and contextual factors
that might also influence dropout rates” (McNeal, 1997). One of those studies concluded that the
higher the quality of the teacher as perceived by the principal, the higher the dropout rate.
Another study found that up to half of the observed differences in dropout rates between
Whites and minorities would be reduced significantly if racial groups attended schools with
similar racial and socioeconomic compositions. In particular, critics of the first approach argue
that it fails to explain why some minority groups with similar socioeconomic backgrounds
11
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
succeed, while other groups do not. “Instead, they argue that sociocultural factors particularly
cultural differences in values, attitudes, and behaviors help explain why some racial and ethnic
minorities are successful in American schools and others are not” (Mayer, 1991).
Socioeconomic and Immigrant Status
Minorities can be classified into two groups: voluntary minorities who came to the
United States by their own choosing, and involuntary minorities who were brought into the
United States against their will, either through immigration or domination (African-Americans
and early Mexican-Americans). Voluntary and involuntary minorities view school success very
differently.
“Voluntary minorities do not perceive learning the attitudes and behaviors required for
school success as threatening their own culture, language, and identities, while
involuntary minorities do not seem to be able or willing to separate attitudes and
behaviors that result in academic success from those that may result in linear
acculturation or replacement of their cultural identity with White American cultural
identity” (Ogbu, 1992, pg. 9-10).
Aside from this empirical study, sociocultural perspectives suggest differences in attitudes and
behaviors of students, peers, and families, which help explain both racial and ethnic differences
in school achievement.
Despite limited empirical evidence, both socioeconomic and sociocultural perspectives
may help explain racial and ethnic differences in dropout rates by emphasizing varying casual
factors. “Socioeconomic perspectives focus on the fiscal, human, and social resources of
families, school, and communities and their similar influence on the development of students’
12
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
values and cognitive abilities across all racial and ethnic groups” (Rumberger, 1998).
Sociocultural perspectives focus on cultural differences in the attitudes and behaviors among
racial and ethnic groups that influence school success in both the social and academic factors.
Stated in this section on socio-cultural differences, in particular those associated with voluntary
and involuntary immigrant status are of extreme importance for the development of policy and
dropout prevention strategies.
THEORETICAL BASIS OF DROPOUT PREVENTION STRATEGY
As the concluding portion of the preceding section demonstrates, the framework of the
individual perspective provides ways to understand dropping out from individual attitudes and
behaviors, but the institutional perspective shapes these factors as well and thus cannot be
disregarded. Thus, it is important to conceive of a compelling synthesis of these two in
constructing a dropout prevention strategy. A child’s family, school, and community can all
shape the behavior based on the cross-pressures and social expectations that various social
settings or contexts may exert on students. The family is viewed as the most important of the
social factors that increase the risk of delinquency. Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory posits
four subcategories, attachment, belief, commitment, and involvement, all of which play a crucial
role in potential dropout rates among the Hispanic community. The social bond theory addresses
the idea of influence by those who you surround yourself with, and how they leave a detrimental
impact on one’s wellbeing. According to Professor Murphy (2015), “Schools are often viewed as
a source of juvenile delinquency, which conditions educational failure.” English as a second
13
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
language, truancy, and suspension, may all lead to dropping out of school, which in fact, can all
stem from social bond theory.
One’s own family background is widely recognized as the single most important
contributor to success in school. Much of the empirical research has focused on the structural
characteristics of the families, such as socioeconomic status and family structure. “Research has
consistently found that socioeconomic status, most commonly measured by parental education
and income, is a powerful predictor of school achievement and dropout behavior” (Bryk &
Thum, 1989). Research has also demonstrated that Hispanic students from single-parent and step
family homes are more likely to drop out of school than Hispanic students from two-parent
families (Bryk & Thum, 1989).
Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory states that delinquency is a subcultural group solution
to induce stress, by the inability to achieve middle class status, especially in the school context
According to Cloward and Ohlin, “This formulation, school is a source of frustration, primarily
for lower-class youth” (1960). In response to school-induced frustrations, students seek out
solutions. One of these is to commit delinquent acts, another is dropout. Therefore, if one leaves
the school context, strain should be reduced, and delinquency will consequently decrease. In
reference to the social bond theory, the effect of dropout on offending depends on how an
individual values education, the reason for his or her dropping out of school, and how he or she
values the post-school situation in its entirety.
In essence, Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory, states that a youth’s delinquency is
inversely proportional to his or her social bonds. Social bonds in school are characterized by
attachment to teachers, commitment to education, involvement in school-related activities and
14
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
belief in the legitimacy of school rules. Dropout from school entails a loss of all school-related
social connections. To the extent that school-related social bonds are present before dropout,
social bond theory predicts that dropout leads to decreased social bonds and increased
probability of offending.
The potent effects of parental education and income are generally thought to support
human capital theory, which states that, “Parents make choices about how much time and other
resources to invest in their children based on their objectives, resources, and constraints which,
in turn, affects their children’s tastes for education (preferences) and cognitive skills” (Haveman
& Wolfe, 1994). Parental income, for example, allows parents to provide more resources to
support their children’s education, including access to better quality schools, after school and
summer school programs, and more support for learning within the home.
Given the goal of building social capital, the criteria for a successful collaborative would
shift from delivering services more efficiently to success in fostering community. In building
social capital, successful collaborative will change the role of social service institutions. While
this approach may appear worthwhile as a way of more effectively challenging resources and
providing support to the institutions that serve at-risk youth. This approach still requires a
commitment of resources sufficient to substantially improve the lives of children and families.
ANALYSIS
Programmatic and Systemic Approaches
This preceding analysis of why Hispanic students drop out suggests various aspects about
what can be done to design effective dropout intervention strategies. Throughout this research
study it has become evident that dropping out is influenced by both individual and institutional
15
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
factors. Intervention strategies can initially begin to focus on either or both sets of stated
variables. In other words, intervention strategies can focus on addressing the individual values,
attitudes, and behaviors that are associated with dropping out without attempting to alter the
characteristics of families, schools, and Hispanic communities, which may contribute to those
individual factors. Systemic and programmatic strategies can be implemented by the institution,
in order to reduce the risk of higher dropout rates among the Hispanic race.
Many dropout prevention programs pursue such programmatic strategies by providing
potential dropouts with additional resources and supports to encourage them to stay in school.
Alternatively, intervention strategies can focus on attempting to improve the environmental
contexts of potential dropouts by providing resources and supports to strengthen or restructure
the Hispanic student’s families, schools, and communities. Such systemic strategies are often
part of larger efforts to improve the educational and social outcomes of at-risk students more
generally. Since dropping out is associated with both academic and social problems, effective
prevention strategies must focus on both arenas. That is, if dropout prevention strategies are
going to be effective, they must be comprehensive to the student, by providing resources and
support in all areas of the student’s life. Since dropouts leave school for a variety of reasons,
services provided to them must be flexible and tailored to their own individual needs.
One example of a supplemental programmatic approach to dropout prevention is the
“Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success,” or ALAS. ALAS was developed,
implemented and evaluated as a pilot intervention program to serve the most at-risk students in a
poor area in Los Angeles from 1990 to 1995. The program specifically targeted two groups of
high-risk students: special education students and other students, who, because of poor academic
performance, misbehavior, and low income, were at greater risk of school failure.
16
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
ALAS was founded on the premise that the youth, school, family, and community
contexts must be addressed simultaneously for dropout prevention efforts to succeed. According
to Rumberger, “The intervention strategies are designed to increase the effectiveness of actors in
each context as well as increase collaborative between them” (1998). One specific ALAS
intervention consists of remediation of the student’s ineffective problem-solving skills regarding
social interactions and task performance. This program consisted of ten weeks of problem-
solving instruction and two years of follow-up, problem solving, and counseling.
The ALAS dropout prevention program targeted students in middle school, and early
aged high school students who were at risk of dropping out. Although the program was
successful while the students were receiving the intervention, the effects were not sustained for
long after the program ended. According to Rumberger, “By the end of 12th grade, 27 percent of
the comparison students had completed high school” (1998). This suggests that, at the secondary
level, dropout prevention efforts need to be ongoing.
Prevention and Intervention Strategies
Higher dropout rates can influence both the school and the community climate; such
consequences for at-risk students may result in long-term detrimental effects. If a Hispanic
student withdraws from high school, it is easy for more conservative segments of society to fully
blame the student for his or her academic setbacks. In some instances, the student neglects
attendance, which in turn, can result in a student falling behind with assignments. Another
possible facet is the school’s lack of responsiveness to the individual’s educational needs. This
could include substantial frustration among the subpopulation of students with learning
disabilities in relation to which 504 plan teaching and testing accommodations are mostly
17
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
inadequate. Assigning blame for the unsuccessful student does not in fact address the most focal
issue: What strategies can be made to help retain a higher graduation rate for Hispanic students,
or what can be done to encourage these students to return to school?
Secondary level institutions have access to gather data in regards to student performance
and characteristics related to dropping out, in order to identify potential problems early on. This
will allow faculty to refer Hispanic students for specific prevention efforts. Tracking student
attendance, test scores, grades, and behavior referrals, can provide information to identify
students most at risk for potential dropout. According to the National Association of School
Psychologists, prevention activities might include: “Incentives and supports to improve
attendance; programs to encourage parent involvement; early intervention for academic
difficulties (such as peer tutoring programs); community and school-based mentorships; and
partnerships with community business to connect school to work” (1998). Development of high
school alternative programs that provide nontraditional approaches to vocational training and
high school completion will also offer options for students who have not been successful in
meeting the academic or social demands of the typical high school program.
RECOMMENDATION FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMING
The High School Graduation Initiative awards discretionary grants to State educational
agencies and local educational agencies to support the implementation of effective, sustainable,
and coordinated dropout prevention and re-entry programs in high schools, with annual dropout
rates that exceed their state average annual dropout rate. According to the U.S. Department of
Education, “Grants are awarded for up to 60 months to state education agencies and local
18
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
education agencies to support school dropout prevention and reentry efforts” (2014). These funds
may be used for such activities as:
“The early and continued identification of students at risk of not graduating; providing at-
risk students with services designed to keep them in school; identifying and encouraging
youth who have left school without graduating to reenter and graduate; implementing
other comprehensive approaches; and implementing transition programs that help
students successfully transition from middle school to high school” (2014).
Such implementations are necessary in order to solely focus on the dropout prevention and
recovery strategies for at-risk Hispanic students.
CONCLUSION
Understanding the leading causes as to why Hispanic students are considered the highest
risk of high school dropout is a challenging task to measure, because, as with other forms of
educational achievement, dropout is influenced by an array of individual and institutional factors.
Expressed through both theoretical and empirical literature, there is a yielding insight into the
nature of this leading concern. Dropping out is not simply a result of academic failure, but rather
often results from both social and academic problems within the school. These problems are
influenced by a lack of support and resources in families, schools, and communities.
Without eliminating disparities in the resources of families, schools, and communities, it
seems as though our nation is unlikely to ever remove inequalities in dropout rates among racial
and ethnic groups. “And those disparities may be more difficult to eliminate in the face of
increasing racial and ethnic segregation of America’s schools” (Orfield, Bachmeier, James, &
Eitle, 1997). This can be a result of the National Education Goals Panel, 1990, which monitors
19
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
the intergovernmental body of federal and state officials to assess and report state and national
progress toward achieving the National Education Goals. However, this does not monitor the
nation’s progress in eliminating the gap in graduation rates between minority and non-minority
high school students.
Works Cited
Astone, N.M. & McLanahan, S.S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school
completion. American Sociological Review, 56. 309-320.
Bryk, A.S. & Thum, Y.M. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: An
exploratory investigation. American Educational Research Journal. 26. 353-383.
Cameron, S.V. & Heckman, J.J. (1993). The nonequivalence of high school equivalents. Journal
of Labor Economics, 11. 1-47.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94. S95-S120.
Hanushek, E.A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Researcher, 18. 45-51, 62.
Haveman, R. & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding generations: On the effects of investments in
children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Heubert, J.P. & Hauser, R.M., Eds. (1999). High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and
Graduation. Washing D.C.:National Academy Press.
Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings.
American Psychologist, 48. 117-126.
Kaufman, P., Kwon, J.Y., Klein,S., & Chapman, C.D. (1999). Dropout Rates in the United
20
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
States: 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Klerman, J.A. & Karloy, L.A. (1994). Young men and transition to stable employment. Monthly
Labor Review, 117. 31-48.
Mayers, S. (1991). How much does a high school’s racial and socioeconomic mix affect
graduation and teenage fertility rates? The Urban Underclass (pp.321-341). Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution.
McNeal, R.B. (1997a). Are students being pulled out of high school? The effect of adolescent
employment on dropping out. Sociology of Education, 70. 206-220.
McNeal, R.B. (1997b). High school dropouts: A closer examination of school effects. Social
Science Quarterly, 78. 209-222.
Murphy, D. (2015). Juvenile Delinquency Course. Lynchburg College.
National Center for Education Statistics, (2014). Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year
olds, by race/ethnicity: 1990 through 2012. Fast Facts.
National Research Council, Panel on High-Risk Youth. (1993). Losing generations: Adolescents
in high-risk settings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21. 5
14.
Riehl, C. (1999). Labeling and letting go: An Organizational analysis of how high school
students are discharged as dropouts. In A.M. Pallas (Ed). Research in Sociology of
Education and Socialization. (pp.231-268). New York: JAI Press.
Roderick, M. (1993). The Path to Dropping Out. Westport, CN: Auburn House.
Rumberger, R.W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of
Educational Research, 57. 101-121.
Rumberger, R.W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of students and
21
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32. 583-625.
Rumberger, R.W. & Thomas, S.L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among
urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73. 39-67.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Workers with low earnings. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Goals 2000: Reforming Education to Improve Student
Achievement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of
Educational Statistics, 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Averaged
Freshman Graduation Rates (AFGR) by race/ethnicity. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
22
HISPANIC DROPOUT RATES: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS 23