Dropout Prevention in the Middle Grades Jennifer Dounay Education Commission of the States 37 th Annual New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, Inc. Caucus Weekend Albany, NY February 16, 2008

Education Commission of the States About ECS 50-state education compact est’d 1965 Nonpartisan, nonprofit State fees, grants, corporate giving Serves all state-level education policymakers and their staffs: Governors Legislators State board members State superintendents SHEEOs and higher education boards

Education Commission of the States About the study “Preventing Student Disengagement in Middle Schools” (Johns Hopkins, Philadelphia Ed. Fund, 2007) Philadelphia – high-poverty schools How early in MG can students be ID’d? Can students be ID’d reliably/easily by –Teachers? –Administrators?

Education Commission of the States Four grade 6 indicators ID’d 60% of students who dropped out –Failing English –Failing math –Attendance = 80% or less –Final behavior marks (or suspension) Behavior + failing = increased odds of DO 52% = 0, 29% = 1, 11% = 2, 5% = 3

Education Commission of the States Motivation/achievement Diff. factors affect diff. student outcomes “Academic press” ► student behavior Utility ► effort Parent involvement ► effort/attendance –PI = Parents feel welcome/help w/ homework Intrinsic interest ► effort/attendance

Education Commission of the States What’s the answer? Comprehensive vs. piecemeal approach –Research-based curriculum –Intensive teacher PD and support (in class) –Focused student help in math, reading –Org. changes improve school community Combo of small LC, teacher teams, looping

Education Commission of the States Three-tiered approach (from Table 12, Balfanz, Herzog, MacIver, 2007) Focus of intervention Type of intervention AttendanceBehaviorCourse Failures Tier I: Schoolwide (all students) Every absence brings a response Create culture that says attending every day matters Positive social incentives for good attendance Data tracking at teacher team level Teach, model, expect good behavior Positive social incentives, recognition for good behavior Advisory Research based instructional programs In-classroom implementation support to enable active and engaging pedagogies

Education Commission of the States Three-tiered approach (from Table 12, Balfanz, Herzog, MacIver, 2007) Focus of intervention Type of intervention AttendanceBehaviorCourse Failures Tier II: Targeted (15-20% of students) 2 or more unexcused absences/month brings brief daily check by an adult Attendance team investigates and problem solves, why isn’t student attending (teacher, counselor, administrator, parent) 2 or more referrals brings involvement of behavior team Simple behavior checklist brought from class to class checked each day by an adult Mentor assigned Elective replacement extra help courses – tightly linked to core curriculum, preview upcoming lessons, fill in knowledge gaps Targeted reduced class size for students whose failure is rooted in social/emotional issues

Education Commission of the States Three-tiered approach (from Table 12, Balfanz, Herzog, MacIver, 2007) Focus of intervention Type of intervention AttendanceBehaviorCourse Failures Intensive (5- 10% of students) Sustained one-on- one attention and problem solving Bring in appropriate social service or community supports In-depth behavioral assessment – why is student misbehaving Behavior contracts with family involvement Bring in appropriate social service or community supports One-on-one tutoring

Education Commission of the States “On-demand, classroom-level data program” (Educational Leadership, Oct. 2007) Teachers track individual students daily –Quickly ID those needing more intensive help –ID students who have responded to intensive help –Very successful so far Philly will make available thru districtwide data management system

Education Commission of the States Policy options Pilot comprehensive model –Competitive grant –ID districts in advance Incorporate info re: MG early warning indicators in teacher, admin. prep./PD