This sequential, three-phase study used quantitative analyses to examine the characteristics of student dropouts and the characteristics of schools successful and unsuccessful in mediating dropouts. Narrative profiles were created to describe types of students and types of dropouts.
Phase I consisted of three parts, each using the student as the unit of analysis. Part One examined the profile of all Louisiana dropouts. Part Two involved the creation of clusters of dropouts and non-dropouts combined. Part Three focused on the creation of dropout clusters.
In Phase II, the percents of potential dropouts were calculated for 301 schools using the dropout characteristics from Phase I. The purpose of this phase was to classify schools into one of nine cells in a 3 x 3 contingency table that crossed three levels of Percent of Actual Dropouts with three levels of Percent of Potential Dropouts.
In Phase III, a MANOVA was conducted using a 1 x 4 design. The levels of the independent variable were four school categories from the Phase II contingency table: consistently high dropouts schools, consistently low dropouts schools, schools more effective in dropout prevention, and schools less effective dropout prevention.
The cluster analysis results for the non-dropouts and dropouts yielded three clusters: "high achievers," "average achievers," and "low achievers." The cluster analysis for the dropouts also resulted in three clusters: "quiet dropouts," "typical" dropouts, and "high-achieving pushouts."
The MANOVA produced overall significant differences among the set of dependent variables (attendance rate, class size, student achievement, suspension rate, teacher certification, and teacher test scores). The planned contrasts results showed that consistently low dropouts schools had significantly higher student achievement than the less effective schools, while the more effective schools had significantly higher attendance rates and student achievement than the consistently high dropouts schools.
These findings have two major implications for dropout prevention. First, dropout prevention programs should have components that reach all types of potential dropouts. Second, more extensive efforts should be made to obtain the reasons individual students drop out. Students who drop out for like reasons could be studied to develop prevention measures for similar students.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LSU/oai:etd.lsu.edu:etd-0710103-021510 |
| Date | 11 July 2003 |
| Creators | Crain-Dorough, Mindy L. |
| Contributors | Angeletta Gourdine, Christine DiStefano, Eugene Kennedy, Kim MacGregor, Charles Teddlie |
| Publisher | LSU |
| Source Sets | Louisiana State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0710103-021510/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby grant to LSU or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University Libraries in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. |
Page generated in 0.008 seconds