Dropout Prevention for Youth with Disabilities: Efficacy of a Sustained School Engagement Procedure

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of a sustained dropout prevention procedure that incorporated monitoring and school engagement strategies. Ninety-four students with learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities received interventions in Grades 7 and 8; half of the students (treatment group) continued to receive intervention through Grade 9. Results of this experimental study indicated that, for two of three measures, students in the treatment group were significantly more likely to be engaged in school than were control group students. The overall performance of both treatment and control students, however, points to the need for early and sustained support for students with learning and behavioral disabilities to attain academic and behavioral standards.

Reading and School Completion: Critical Connections and Matthew Effects

“…There is evidence of the efficacy of Check & Connect to reduce truancy, actively engage students and families at school and with learning, and promote school completion. Various studies have consistently yielded positive results: Students who received Check & Connect were more likely to be enrolled in school; to be on track to graduate within 5 years; to access relevant educational services (e.g., alternative programs); to participate in their individualized education program transition planning; to show reduced rates of truancy, out-of-school suspensions, dropout, and course failures; and to show overall increased rates of attendance, persistent attendance, and 5-year school completion (Sinclair, Christenson, Hurley, & Evelo, 1998;Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005;www.ici.umn.edu/checkandconnect).…”

“This is my family outside of my family”: Care-based relating in a model early college high school

“…The PBIS, Office of Special Education Programs, "Tier 2 supports" web page (n.d.) recommends several research-based interventions for students whose behavior is deemed not "responsive to school-wide social behavior expectations." These include Check and Connect ([C&C]; Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998), Check-In and Check-Out ([CICO]; Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008), and Check, Connect, and Expect ([CCE]; Cheney et al, 2009). It is important to note that these interventions focus on students having an adult mentor in the school who provides behavioral feedback daily to students at one or more pre-specified points of the day.…”

“…To be sure, there have been inquiries into the evidence-based practices for creating caring secondary schools for students struggling with behavioral and academic concerns which inform and support the need for relationships to uphold behavior and academic accountability (Cheney et al, 2009;Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998;Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008), however few have been framed around purposeful listening to the voices, lived holistic experiences, and perspectives of EC students and teachers. This holds promise if we, as policy makers, philanthropists, administrators, and educators, are to create innovative school structures attending to and fostering meaningful connections and relationships that can contribute significantly to the educational and life outcomes of individuals.…”

Dépistage du décrochage scolaire à l’aide d’informations administratives ou auto-rapportées.

“…En effet, certains élèves ne répondent pas aux programmes de type universel et ont donc besoin de soutien plus intensif pour favoriser leur réussite (Sugai et Horner, 2009 Deux études américaines respectent les critères rigoureux évoqués plus haut du WWC (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). Les résultats de ces études, utilisant un devis randomisé avec groupe contrôle, démontrent que les jeunes ayant participé au programme décrochent moins de l'école l'année suivante et réussissent plus de crédits scolaires (Sinclair, Christenson, Elevo et Hurley, 1998). Par contre, les résultats n'ont pas démontré de différence significative entre les deux groupes en ce qui concerne le nombre de jeunes ayant terminé leur secondaire, quatre ans après la fin du programme (Sinclair, Christenson et Thurlow, 2005).…”

“…Dans le cadre de ces études, les jeunes étaient choisis par le personnel scolaire, qui devait proposer des candidats en fonction de leurs difficultés d'apprentissage, de gestion d'émotions et/ou de comportement. La majorité des jeunes ainsi choisis étaient d'origine afro-américaine, de sexe masculin et bénéficiaient de programme de repas à prix réduits, attribué aux élèves de familles à faible revenu (Sinclair et al, 1998;Sinclair et al, 2005). Bien que le programme ait démontré une certaine efficacité auprès de ceux qui ont été choisis, il n'est pas clair que tous les jeunes des écoles participantes qui auraient pu bénéficier du programme ont effectivement été inclus.…”