Locating the Dropout Crisis Which High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts? Where Are They Located? Who Attends Them? Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters Center for Social Organization of Schools Johns Hopkins University June 2004

Background  CRESPAR  Talent Development High Schools  Markers of Low Performing High Schools  Poor prior preparation  Poor attendance, high mobility  Large, impersonal organization  Massive course failure  Low promotion, high dropout, and low graduation rates

Where Did All The Freshmen Go? th Graders 11 th Graders 10 th Graders 9 th Graders Number of 9 th Graders in 1996/97 = 669 % Fewer 12 th graders in 1999/2000 than 9 th graders 1996/97 = 71%

Promoting Power Twelfth grade enrollment Yr X Ninth grade enrollment Yr X-4  Is it a perfect estimate of dropout/graduation rates?  Is it a good first order indicator of a low performing high school, easily calculable and using readily available data?  Does it address NCLB guidelines?  Harvard Civil Rights Project Forums 2001, 2003

How Many High Schools Have Weak Promoting Power?  900-1,000 High Schools have Promoting Power of 50% or less  About 2,000 High Schools have Promoting Power of 60% or less

 The Number of High Schools with Weak Promoting Power Grew During the 1990’s

 The Gap Between HS’s with Weak Promoting Power and the National Norm is a striking 40 to 60 Percentage Points

 Who Attends High Schools that Produce the Nation’s Dropouts?

High Schools with Weak Promoting Power are Overwhelmingly Majority Minority  A Majority Minority HS is Five Times More Likely to have Weak Promoting Power Than a Majority White School

 50 Years After Brown vs Board of Ed, 46% of African American, 39% of Latino, and 11% of White Students Attend High Schools with Weak Promoting Power (60% or less)

Not All Majority Minority HS’s Have Weak Promoting Power. Two Notable Exceptions Are:  Selective Admission High Schools in Large Cities  Majority Minority HS’s in Affluent Suburbs

 Where Are High Schools with Weak Promoting Power Located?

High Schools with Weak Promoting Power Are Located in a Sub-set of the Nation’s Cities and States  80% of the High Schools that have the lowest levels of promoting power (50% or less) and produce the highest numbers of dropouts are located in just 15 states ArizonaLouisianaNorth Carolina CaliforniaMichiganOhio FloridaMississippiPennsylvania GeorgiaNew MexicoSouth Carolina IllinoisNew YorkTexas

 43% of the High Schools with the lowest levels of promoting power are located in Just 34 Cities

 In Some Cities Students Have Virtually No Other Choice but to Attend a High School with Weak Promoting Power

 There Are Some Notable Regional Differences

 In Northern Industrial States Weak Promoting Power Schools Are Almost Exclusively Attended by Minority Students and Located in Large and Medium Size Cities

 In the South, Weak Promoting Power High Schools Can be Found in High Numbers Throughout the States

Policy Implications 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

Policy Implications Bad News 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

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

Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University