News Release announcing launch of CDRP (PDF)
Project Summary handout (PDF)

Mission Statement

A series of recent reports suggest that fewer than 75 percent of ninth graders in California graduate from high school, and the percentage in some districts is fewer than 50 percent [1]. The social and economic welfare of the state depends on finding a solution to this educational crisis.

The purpose of this project is to synthesize existing research and undertake new research to inform policymakers and the larger public about the nature of—and potential solutions to—the dropout problem in California.

The project will produce a series of reports and policy briefs addressing four facets of the issue: (1) the measurement and incidence of dropping out; (2) the educational, social, and economic costs of dropouts for individuals and the state; (3) the short-term and long-term causes of dropping out; and (4) proven interventions. Drawing on this information, a policy committee composed of researchers, policymakers, and educators will then draft a state policy agenda to improve California's high school graduation rate.

The project will run for 14 months beginning December 1, 2006 and is directed by Russell W. Rumberger, Professor of Education, UC Santa Barbara and Director of the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

 

Funding

The California Dropout Research Project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation and the Walter S. Johnson Foundation.

 

Overview

Dropouts impose substantial social costs on the state. Dropouts are less likely than high school graduates to find jobs, and the jobs they do find pay substantially lower wages. As a result, dropouts pay lower taxes and are more likely to require public welfare support. Dropouts are also most likely to commit crimes and become incarcerated. More than 80 percent of California's prisoners in 2005 did not graduate from high school [4]. Each inmate costs California taxpayers $35,000 per year [5]. Finally, dropouts have poorer health and are more likely to require public health supports.

Demographic trends could increase the number of dropouts in the future. Latinos are more than twice as likely as Whites to drop out of school [6]. The California Department of Finance estimates that Latino public school enrollment will increase by 18% in the next ten years, while White public school enrollment will decline by 18% [7]. So, without effective efforts to address the dropout problem, California's dropout rate could easily increase in the near future.

This threatens the future economic and social welfare of the state. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that if current trends continue there will be twice as many high school dropouts in the state in the year 2025 than there will be jobs to support them [8].

California must take immediate action to address this large and growing problem [9]. This will require effective and sustained interventions at many California schools and districts, especially the ones with high dropout rates. Finally, it will require timely and ongoing research that can inform practitioners and policymakers about the nature of this problem, and proven strategies to address it, and monitoring

The California Dropout Research Project synthesizes existing research and undertakes new research to inform policymakers and the larger public about the nature of-and effective solutions to-the dropout problem in California.

 

Existing Research

Existing research has addressed four fundamental dimensions of the dropout issue:

• 1. The measurement and incidence of dropping out
  

  One of the most contentious aspects of the dropout issue concerns how to measure dropout and graduation rates. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires states to compute high school graduation rates. Many research and advocacy organizations, such as The Education Trust, the Manhattan Institute, and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard, have published reports with their own calculations of state and district graduation rates. And recently, the National Center for Education Statistics has started reporting high school graduation rates for states. Because these organizations use different data and methods, they often report quite different graduation rates. For example, the California State Department of Education's "official" graduation rate for the high school class of 2002 was 87.0 percent [11], while the National Center for Education Statistics estimated an "averaged freshman" high school graduation rate of 68.8 percent for California, a difference of more than 18 percentage points!

  In order to better address this problem in California, it is imperative to have accurate and consistent measures of dropout and graduation rates at both the state and local levels, and to document trends in dropout and graduation rates.

• 2. Educational, social, and economic consequences of dropouts
  

  Not only are there grave and lasting consequences for dropouts themselves, but also for the larger society. In the fall of 2005, Teachers College, Columbia University held a research symposium, "The Social Costs of Inadequate Education," where 12 leading scholars presented new research findings on the economic and civic costs to the nation from high school dropouts[12]. Researchers estimated the costs due to higher unemployment, lower wages, increased criminal activity, poorer health, more reliance on public assistance, and lower civic engagement.

  Among the findings:

  • • A high school dropout earns about $260,000 less over a lifetime and pays about $60,000 less in taxes than a high school graduate;
  • • America loses $192 billion in combined income and tax revenue for each cohort of students who never complete high school;
  • • Increasing the high school completion rate by just 1 percent for all men ages 20-60 would save the U.S. up to $1.4 billion per year in reduced costs from crime;
  • • High school dropouts have a life expectancy that is 9.2 years shorter than high school graduates [13].
  In order to provide an impetus to address this problem in California, it would be useful to have similar estimates generated for California.
• 3. Short-term and long-term causes
  

  A substantial body of research has been conducted on the causes of high school dropout using two different frameworks. One framework is based on an individual perspective that focuses on the attributes of students-such as their values, attitudes, and behaviors-and how these attributes contribute to their decisions to quit school. The second framework is based on an institutional perspective that focuses on the settings or contexts-families, schools, communities, and peers-that shape students' behaviors and outcomes. Existing research has identified a large number of both individual and institutional factors that appear to influence whether students graduate or drop out of high school [14]. The research has also found some individual factors-such as academic achievement and engagement (e.g., attendance, misbehavior)-in middle school and even in elementary school predicted eventual withdrawal from high school [15].

  Although the existing research is extensive, much of it has focused on students at a national level where demographics differ substantially from the demographics of students in California. In particular, the concentration of Latinos is much higher in California, and the research literature on the causes of dropouts among Latino students is much more limited [16].

• 4. Interventions and policy responses
  

  The incidence and interest in dropouts has led to numerous interventions and policy responses; yet few interventions have been evaluated with scientifically rigorous evaluations, and few of the ones with rigorous evaluations have been found to be effective. For example, the General Accounting Office surveyed more than 1,000 dropout programs in the fall of 1986, but found only 20 rigorous evaluations of the 479 programs that responded to the survey [17]. Dynarski and Gleason reviewed the evaluations of 21 dropout prevention programs funded under the federal School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP) and found only three programs improved dropout or completion rates [18]. Similarly, Slavin and Fashola conducted a literature search of dropout prevention programs with rigorous, experimental evaluations and found only two that were effective [19]. Currently, the federal government's What Works Clearinghouse is conducting evaluations of dropout prevention programs and to date has only identified three programs that have met their standards for scientific evidence and have positive or potentially positive effects [20].

  To guide effective policy responses in California it is important to have up-to-date information on effective, scientifically evaluated prevention programs.

 

Overall, while existing research literature on high school dropouts is extensive, as a research base for formulating effective policy responses in California it suffers from a number of deficiencies: first, in some areas-particularly to do with measurement-there is considerable disagreement; second, in some areas-particularly to do with interventions-there is insufficient evidence on effective, scientifically-evaluated prevention programs; third, little of the existing research has focused on California, which limits its use for formulating policy responses.

In particular, there is little information on the educational, economic, and social costs of dropouts in California. And to the extent that California's school population, with its high concentration of Latinos, differs from other populations of dropouts, then existing research on causes and solutions may be less applicable in California.

 

Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the project is to synthesize existing research and undertake new research about the dropout problem in California, and to use that research to generate a set of policy recommendations to address the problem.

The project is premised on three propositions:

• 1.  Improving the high school graduation rate in California will require improving educational practice;
• 2.  Improving educational practice will require effective state policy;
• 3.  Producing effective state policy will benefit from timely and focused research.

These propositions are grounded in the research literature on public policymaking [21]. In order for policymakers to address an issue, the issue must get on the policy agenda [22]. This can occur when sufficient information exists about the nature of the problem and about potential solutions, and when there is sufficient political interest to act. This project will generate useful and timely information about the nature of-and potential solutions to-the dropout problem in California. It will also help create and sustain political interest in the issue through a public information campaign. And it will also engage a group of scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to craft a set of practical and politically viable policy recommendations to improve educational practice.

The research produced by this project will focus on four fundamental dimensions of the dropout issue:

• 1. The measurement and incidence of dropping out, including new or revised data collection efforts to yield more precise estimates;
• 2. Educational, social, and economic consequences of dropouts-individual costs, social costs;
• 3. Causes, both long term (preschool, elementary) and short-term (behavior issues, failing classes);
• 4. Interventions and state policy responses.

 

Activities

The project consists of three activities undertaken over a 14-month period from December 1, 2006 to January 31, 2008:

• Activity 1: Research Syntheses
• Activity 2: New Research Studies
• Activity 3: Statistical Information, Research Publications, Policy Development, and Dissemination

The third activity will generate additional research information, create a series of policy documents to make the research information accessible to policymakers and educators, generate policy recommendations, and disseminate the information via a project website and the media.

 

Statistical Information

In addition to the research syntheses and studies, the project will produce and distribute a series of statistical briefs on various dimensions of the dropout problem using existing state and federal databases. In the case of federal databases, statistics will be reported separately for California and the U.S. in order to see how the state compares to the nation as a whole. Some possible topics include:

• • Tenth grade dropout rates by demographic characteristics, California and the U.S. based on ELS: 2002 data
• • The reasons students report for dropping out of tenth grade, California and the U.S., based on ELS: 2002 data
• • The distribution of school dropout rates, California and the U.S., based on ELS: 2002 data
• • The distribution of high school graduation rates in California, California Academic Performance Index (API) database

 

Research Documents

The project will produce a number of documents-research reports, research briefs, and statistical briefs-to help make the research information more assessable to a wide audience of researchers, policymakers, educators, and the general public.

First, the project will edit and publish reports based on the research syntheses and studies. Second, it will produce a series of short, research briefs, based on these studies. Third, it will produce a series of statistical briefs. Fourth, it will publish the final report of the Policy Committee.

Key publications, such as the research briefs, will be mailed to all superintendents in the state, as well as key stakeholders. All the documents will be available on the project website. Project publications will be released one at a time over the entire 14-month period of the project in order to generate sustained public interest and engagement in the project.

 

Policy recommendations

As stated earlier, the purpose of the project is to help formulate better policy to address the dropout problem in California. In order to do that, the project has created a Policy Committee to formulate a set of policy recommendations based on the results of the research. The Policy Committee consists of the project director and seven other members: two policymakers, two educators (one county superintendent and one district superintendent), two scholars, and one community activist. The members of the committee consist of knowledgeable and respected members of their professions in order to benefit from their expertise and to give the committee legitimacy among the various education stakeholders.

 

[1] For example, the U.S. Department of Education estimated a nationwide graduation rate of 68.8 percent in 2002-03 and a graduation rate of 38.9 percent for the Los Angeles Unified School District. See NCES Report, Table A-13 at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006329.pdf.

[2] In 2005, there were 499,505 ninth graders enrolled in California public schools. Data retrieved October 29, 2006, from: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

[3] Based on data from the 2005 American Community Survey, Selected Social Characteristics. Data retrieved October 29, 2006, from: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en&_ts=.

[4] Nationwide, 68.1% of state prison inmates in 2003 did not have a high school diploma. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Education and Correctional Populations. Data retrieved October 29, 2006 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ecp.htm.

[5] The average yearly cost for a California inmate in 2005 was $34,150. See California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Second Quarter 2006 Facts and Figures. Data retrieved October 29, 2006 from: http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/DivisionsBoards/AOAP/FactsFigures.html.

[6] Between 2002 and 2004, 10.4% of Latinos dropped out of school, compared to 4.9% of Whites. See EL Facts, October 2006: http://lmri.ucsb.edu/publications/elfacts-7.pdf.

[7] Data provided in personal communication from Linda Von Rotz, September 5, 2006.

[8] See Just the Facts: California’s Future Economy, at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_FutureEconomyJTF.pdf.

[9] The Public Policy Institute projects that the proportion of high school dropouts could increase from 22 in 2000 to 27 percent in 2020 and even if current increases in educational attainment continue, the proportion of high school dropouts will remain at 22 percent in 2020 (Ellen Hanak and Mark Baldassare, California 2025: Taking on the Future. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2005, p. 47).

[10] See, for example, the work of Civic Enterprises and the report, The Silent Epidemic, at: http://www.civicenterprises.net/.

[11] Data retrieved October 30, 2006 from Dataquest: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

[12] See: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/3082_SocialCostsofInadequetEducation.pdf.

[13] Figures from Ibid, p. 2.

[14] For a review, see: Russell W Rumberger, "Why students drop out of school." Pp. 131-155 in Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis, edited by Gary Orfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2004.

[15] Karl L Alexander, Doris R. Entwisle, and Nader S. Kabbini, "The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school." Teachers College Record, 103 (2001): 760-882.

[16] Russell W. Rumberger and Gloria Rodriguez, "Chicano dropouts: An update of research and policy issues." Pp. 114-146 in Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the New Millennium, edited by Richard R. Valencia. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002.

[17] U.S. General Accounting Office. School dropouts: Survey of local programs. GAO/HRD-87-108. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987.

[18] Mark Dynarski and Philip Gleason, How can we help? What we have learned from federal dropout-prevention programs. Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 1998.

[19] Robert E. Slavin and Olatokunbo S. Fashola, Show me the evidence!: Proven and promising programs for America's schools. New York: Corwin, 1998.

[20] See: http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Topic.asp?tid=06&ReturnPage=default.asp .

[21] Steven Kelman, Making Public Policy. New York: Basic, 1987.

[22] John Portz. Problem Definition and Policy Agendas: Shaping the Educational Agenda in Boston. Policy Studies Journal, 24(1996): 371-386.