Salient Predictors of School Dropout among Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify the unique contributions of a comprehensive set of predictors and the most salient predictors of school dropout among a nationally representative sample of students with learning disabilities (LD). A comprehensive set of theoretically and empirically relevant factors was selected for examination. Analyses were conducted to explore the unique contribution and relative importance of these factors in predicting dropout. Results indicated that the most salient predictors of school dropout included a set of malleable individual (grades, and engagement in high‐risk behaviors), family (parent expectations), and school (quality of students’ relationship with teachers and peers) factors. The findings validate multicomponent dropout prevention and intervention models for this population while at the same time illuminating specific key components that appear to be of particular importance in school dropout among students with LD.

Reconnecting Youth: Promoting emotional competence and social support to improve academic achievement

“…It was hypothesized that RY participants, unlike their counterparts in the matched control group, would improve in academic achievement. Moreover, these gains were hypothesized to be partially mediated by improvements in students' emotional competence and social support as these assets were theorized to be relevant ecological and individual predictors of achievement trajectories based on prior research findings (De Witte et al, 2013;Doren et al, 2014;Mega, Ronconi, & De Beni, 2014). Given that this program was initially designed for individuals with low levels of academic achievement, it was hypothesized that those students would benefit most from RY.…”

“…Empirical research supports the saliency of the individual and environmental factors discussed by Rumberger and Rotermund. In a recent review of the literature on school dropout, De Witte, Cabus, Thyssen, Groot, and van den Brink (2013) found evidence that numerous family and school factors have protective effects on the likelihood of students dropping out of high school, including two-parent, biological families; warm, supportive families; schools with ample resources; schools with positive climates; and experienced, supportive, high-quality teachers. Empirical studies consistently show that having positive social connections with teachers and peers at school is linked with a lower propensity for dropout (Doren, Murray, & Gau, 2014;Reschly & Christenson, 2006). In addition, community influences also impact a student's propensity for dropout.…”

Do Research Findings Apply to My Students? Examining Study Samples and Sampling

“…Doren, Murray, and Gau () used the nationally representative National Longitudinal Transition Study‐2 (NLTS2) data set to examine predictors of dropping out among secondary students with LD. The NLTS2 used a complex sampling procedure to generate a nationally representative sample of >11,000 randomly selected secondary students with LD from throughout the United States.…”

“…Finally, with regard to social validity, if teachers or students in the study indicate that they do not like using the intervention or find it difficult to implement, educators should be cautious about adopting the practice in their own classrooms. Doren, Murray, and Gau (2014) used the nationally representative National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) data set to examine predictors of dropping out among secondary students with LD. The NLTS2 used a complex sampling procedure to generate a nationally representative sample of >11,000 randomly selected secondary students with LD from throughout the United States.…”

Social mediators of relationships between childhood reading difficulties, behaviour problems, and secondary school noncompletion

“…At an individual level, these include male sex (Wood, Kiperman, Esch, Leroux, & Truscott, ); academic difficulties in childhood and adolescence (Daniel et al, ); lower cognitive skills (Pagani, Brière, & Janosz, ); disengagement from school (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, ); child/adolescent BPs (Orpinas et al, ); substance use (McCaffrey, Pacula, Han, & Ellickson, ); and mental health problems (Daniel et al, ). Family, peer, and school risk factors include low family socioeconomic status, less effective parenting, poor family attachment among adolescents (Blondal & Adalbjarnadottir, ); being bullied, low attachment to prosocial peers, deviant peer affiliations (Doren, Murray, & Gau, ); and school socioeconomic disadvantage and climate (Jia, Konold, & Cornell, ). Additionally, an accumulation of factors is often found, suggesting that secondary school noncompletion is the culmination of multiple intersecting factors (Duperé et al, ).…”