Running head: DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH

Combatting School Dropout in At-Risk Youth:A Critical Analysis of Strategies for Improving Academic Achievement and Attendance

Brandon FieldMemorial University of Newfoundland

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 2

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Introduction……………………………………………………………….……………………….4

“At-Risk Youth” Defined…………………………………...…………………………………….4

A Critical Problem and a Need for Continued Progress………………………..…………………5

Academic Support Strategies……………………………………….……………………………..6

Tutoring……………..……………………………………………………………………………..7

Pull-Out Support…………………………………………………………………………………..9

Attendance Support Strategies………………………………...…………..……………………..12

Home-School Communication…………………..…...………….……………………………….13

Mentoring…………..……………….……………………………………………………………15

Extra-Curricular Activities…………….……………….………….……………………………..18

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….21

References…………….…………………………………………………………………………23

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 3

Abstract

This paper explores various strategies for improving academic achievement and attendance of at-risk youth as a means by which to reduce school dropout. A literature review determined that tutoring programs and pull-out remediation are effective in improving academic achievement in at-risk youth. Increased home-school communication was shown to improve both academic achievement and attendance. Although further research is required, the evidence suggests that mentorship programs can also be effective in achieving these same goals. Participation in extra-curricular activities was not shown to improve academic achievement or attendance.

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 4

Introduction

Whether a child fails to achieve academic success, lacks motivation, or displays irregular

attendance, teaching at-risk youth can be one of the most challenging aspects of a teacher’s job.

Averill (2008) found that students and teachers alike can experience symptoms of burnout when

success is not achieved, stressing that supporting at-risk youth “require[s] time, money and effort

as well as support for the staff” who work with these students (p. 30). A perceived inability to

help our most vulnerable students can prove to be both stressful and frustrating for teachers.

For many at-risk youth, school dropout is the eventual outcome of years of academic

failure and school disengagement. As such, a great deal of research has been conducted on the

causes of school dropout and the strategies used for combatting the problem. Poor academic

achievement and low attendance have both been shown to be strong predictors of school dropout

(Bowers, 2010; Balfanz, Herzog & MacIver, 2007) and are commonly identified by dropouts as

reasons for having left school (Dalton, Glennie, Ingels & Wert, 2009; Bridgeland, Dilulio &

Burke Morison, 2006). This paper will critically examine tutoring, pull-out support, home-school

communication, mentoring, and extra-curricular activities as potential strategies for improving

academic achievement and attendance in order to reduce school dropout in at-risk youth.

“At-Risk Youth” Defined

The term “at-risk youth” has been described as having “no consistent definition” (Child

Trends, 2006) and being a “blanket term” used as “a substitute for careful examination of

etiology” (Tidwell & Corona Garrett, 1994, p. 445). According to Placier (1993), the term “at-

risk” was first introduced into the common nomenclature following the publication of A Nation

at Risk, a seminal report which described the challenges facing the US education system in the

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 5

early 1980s. The report described the “indicators of risk” displayed by America’s youth, such as

falling scores on international comparisons of student achievement, stagnant standardized testing

scores and lacklustre literacy rates. In the wake of the report, policymakers from nearly every

American state developed new education programs, each with its own definition of “at-risk”

(Placier, 1993).

With the passage of time, the term has been used to describe youth in danger of all

variety of societal woes. Indeed, a search of recent news articles demonstrates that the term is

often used in the media to describe children at risk of drug and alcohol abuse (Times Reporter,

2015), homelessness (CTV News, 2015) and gang involvement (CBC News, 2015), just to name

a few. In a recent publication on youth at risk, the Government of Canada (2014) described the

factors which increase the risk of juvenile delinquency in at-risk youth, including family

structure, income, employment, mental health, victimization, living in alternative care situations

(i.e. foster care, detention centres), substance use and school dropout. As it is a term with no

fixed definition, it is imperative that any discussion of at-risk youth must be prefaced by a

definition. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, “at-risk youth” will refer to a child who

exhibits risk factors that may impede him or her from completing high school due to academic

failure or school dropout.

A Critical Problem and a Need for Continued Progress

In 2010, only 76.9% of Canadian children old enough to graduate high school did so on

time (Statistics Canada, 2010). In the same year, only 89.5% of Canadian young people aged 20

to 24 had completed high school. Certain Canadian territories are facing an educational crisis. In

the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the on-time graduation rates are 55.7% and 38.1%

respectively. This is not solely a problem for Canada’s northern territories, however. In fact, 10

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 6

of the 13 Canadian provinces and territories have on-time graduation rates of less than 80%

(Statistics Canada, 2013). The prospects of the average Canadian high school dropout are grim.

According to Employment and Social Services Canada (2008), high school dropouts earn 17%

less than high school graduates, 35% less than college graduates and a staggering 56% less than

university graduates. Furthermore, high school dropouts have less earning growth potential over

the course of their careers, fewer savings and assets, and lower income during retirement than

any other segment of the Canadian workforce.

Fortunately, recent statistics have revealed progress towards lowering the dropout rate.

From 1990 to 2010, high school dropout rates declined in every Canadian province and territory

(Statistics Canada, 2010). Locally, Newfoundland and Labrador has shown the most significant

progress, reducing its dropout rate by an impressive 63% during this same time period. In fact, as

of 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador had the second highest on-time graduation rate in the

country. Despite these encouraging improvements in graduation rates, one in ten Canadian youth

still fail to earn a high school diploma. While significant progress has been made, this statistic

underlines the fact that a great deal of work remains in providing effective support to at-risk

youth in this country.

Academic Support Strategies

According to Bowers (2010), academic achievement is “a significant and useful

predictor of student dropout” (p. 203). Numerous other studies have similarly demonstrated the

strong positive correlation which exists between academic failure and school dropout (Suh &

Suh, 2007; Battin-Pearson et al., 2000). Dalton, Glennie, Ingels and Wert (2009) found that

dropouts often cite low academic achievement as a reason for having left school. Bridgeland,

DiIlulio and Burke Morison (2006) reported similar findings, adding that “[t]he most

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 7

academically challenged students were the most likely to report that their schools did not do

enough to help students when they had trouble learning or understanding the material being

taught” (p. 7). As such, academic support is a critical aspect of improving academic achievement

and reducing school dropout in at-risk youth.

Tutoring

Tutoring is a commonly employed strategy for students at risk of academic failure which

can take any number of forms, such as one-on-one, small group, lunchtime or after-school “help

sessions” and even peer tutoring. Friedland and Truscott (2005) reported a wide range of benefits

for at-risk youth who received tutoring for reading skills two to three times a week from

university students. All teachers observed improved reading skills in those students who

participated in the 18-week program. Tutoring can also have indirect benefits for at-risk youth.

Teachers reported an increased willingness to read aloud as well as improved attitudes towards

reading. Furthermore, participants felt that they were making progress. The belief that one is

achieving success is critical for at-risk students who may be accustomed to a lack of academic

success. However, this study does have several limitations. First, students voluntarily partook in

the tutoring sessions. The participants’ enthusiasm likely had a positive effect on their success in

the program. Obviously, at-risk youth may not always display this same willingness to

participate in after-school tutoring. Furthermore, the results of this study were based on the

reports of a small group of students and their teachers rather than other, more reliable research

designs.

Longitudinal research conducted by Burns, Senesac and Silberglitt (2008) corroborated

these findings. The study found that students who scored beneath the 25th percentile on district

reading assessments and had completed a similar tutoring program two years earlier

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 8

“significantly outperformed students in the control group in both reading fluency and

comprehension” on norm-referenced reading tests (p. 27). Moreover, although participants had

not received tutoring in the intervening years, those students demonstrated continued growth in

reading skills, while the control group (also comprised of students who scored beneath the 25th

percentile on district reading assessments) fell even further behind. The authors explain this

phenomena, stating that short-term interventions “could have lasting effects because the

intervention allowed the children to better participate in post-intervention reading instruction”

(p. 35). This finding may be of particular interest to cash-strapped schools and districts as long-

term tutoring intervention may not be necessary to have long-lasting, positive effects on at-risk

youth. The relatively small sample size of 100 students, 53 of whom were members of the

control group, does somewhat limit the generalizability of the research. However, the

longitudinal nature of the study does add validity to the findings.

A meta-analysis of studies conducted on the efficacy of out-of-school-time (OST)

programs, including after-school tutoring and summer school, found compelling evidence that

“OST programs that provide one-on-one tutoring for at-risk students have positive effects on

student achievement in reading” (Lauer et al., 2006, p. 308). The authors did, however, conclude

that such programs were “unlikely to close the achievement gap between at-risk and more

advantaged students” (p. 308). With that said, it is important to realize that when providing

support to at-risk children, the goal is not to achieve grade equity with “more advantaged

students,” but to support them in achieving to the maximum of their potential. Although the

authors evaluated only those studies which had a control or comparison group, they had some

significant concerns with the research conducted in the domain of OST programs. Critically, the

authors found that most studies offer only vague descriptions of the programs that they are

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 9

evaluating which, in turn, makes it difficult to determine exactly why the programs were

successful. While the literature suggests that tutoring programs are effective for improving

academic achievement in at-risk youth, it is unclear exactly what mechanisms are at work.

An added benefit of tutoring programs is that they can be a cost-effective means of

improving academic achievement in at-risk youth and do not necessarily require extensive

teacher participation. A meta-analysis conducted by Ritter, Barnett, Denny and Albin (2009)

found that volunteer-led tutoring programs had an overall “positive effect on student

achievement” (p. 3). These findings were echoed by Jung, Molfese and Larson (2011), who

similarly found that volunteer tutors were effective in improving educational outcomes such as

reading and writing skills. The results of these studies illustrate the value of tutoring programs

for at-risk youth. As academic failure is a strong predictor of school dropout, tutoring is highly

recommended as a support strategy for at-risk youth.

Pull-Out Support

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the pull-out model, in which students receive out-of-

class support during instructional time (typically during non-core courses such as Health or

Religion), is often used to provide academic remediation (Newfoundland and Labrador

Department of Education, 2011). While the inclusion model provides for a continuum of support

for students (including small-group and individualized instruction), it is also designed to keep as

many students in the general classroom setting as possible (Newfoundland and Labrador

Department of Education, 2015). In order for students to receive pull-out support in this

province, they must have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) which is designed for students

with identified exceptionalities. Therefore, a student who is at-risk of academic failure but has

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 10

not been previously identified as having an exceptionality would not be eligible for pull-out

support (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, 2011).

In a three-year study of primary and elementary students receiving pull-out reading

remediation, Downing, Williams and Holden (2009) found that “analyses of standard

achievement scores indicated significantly greater change than expected in reading

comprehension, reading fluency and word attack skills” (p. 270). Each day, struggling readers

would attend specialized instruction for approximately one period in a setting other than their

regular classrooms. Of the students who were chosen to participate in the program, 42% were

selected because they were at-risk of failing state-level end-of-grade tests while 22% were

selected because they were at-risk of failing the grade. It is important to note that while the

majority of participants had identified exceptionalities, 21% did not. This study not only

demonstrates that pull-out academic remediation can potentially be an effective method of

improving academic achievement in at-risk youth, but also that students need not have an

identified exceptionality to benefit from such learning opportunities. However, there are some

limitations which restrict the generalizability and validity of the findings of this study. First, the

study had a relatively small sample size of 151 students. With that said, the sample was drawn

from eight different schools and was representative of the racial and ethnic composition of those

schools. Second, the authors did not compare the results of the intervention group with those of a

control group which limits the validity of the findings to a certain degree.

Papadopoulos, Das, Parrila and Kirby (2003) also achieved positive outcomes in a study

which examined the efficacy of a similar pull-out support program. Participants were identified

by their teachers as being at-risk of developing reading difficulties. In this case, however,

students only received 18 20-minute sessions over the course of seven weeks. The authors

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 11

determined that participants displayed short-term improvement in their reading skills. Follow-up

testing revealed that “the positive effects of the intervention, albeit moderate, were still evident

up to ten months later” (p. 357). The authors also noted that participants displayed continued

improvement in their reading skills in the months following the intervention. Unfortunately, the

small sample size of 24 students and the lack of a control group limits the generalizability and

validity of these findings. However, the pre-test/post-test design of the study somewhat mediates

these concerns.

Alawiye and Williams (2005) add further credibility to the possible long-term positive

effects of pull-out reading support. The authors found that African American students who had

received pull-out reading support in grade four demonstrated greater improvement in reading

skills than their peers by the eighth grade. While the authors suggested the results of the study

lent strong support to the value of pull-out programs, they added that “we are by no means

suggesting nor promoting the superiority of pull out programs over school wide programs” (p.

103), particularly in low-SES schools or school districts where pull-out programs may be cost

prohibitive. This study’s small sample size of 20 students puts the validity of the findings into

question. However, the authors utilized a control group in order to mediate this concern to a

certain degree. Unfortunately, because this study focused solely on African American

schoolchildren, the generalizability of the findings to the greater population is reduced.

Although the results of these studies provide a positive indication that pull-out support

can improve academic achievement in at-risk youth, there are several key considerations to keep

in mind. First, pull-out programs generally have a high teacher-to-student ratio. Therefore, such

programs require significant teacher time in order to prove successful for large numbers of

students. As previously indicated, this may not be economically feasible for many schools.

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 12

Furthermore, one must be prudent not to generalize the findings too greatly, as the participants

received a program of instruction unique to each study. As such, one should not assume that

other pull-out support programs would produce similar results. The small sample sizes of these

studies also limit the overall validity of the findings. It should also be noted that the bulk of the

research in the area of pull-out support has been conducted at the primary/elementary level. As

such, it is unclear whether such programs would produce similarly positive results at the

intermediate/secondary level. Given these considerations, any school wishing to implement pull-

out support as a strategy for combatting school dropout should do so with a certain degree of

caution.

Attendance Support Strategies

Numerous studies have demonstrated the relationship which exists between poor

attendance and school dropout. Research conducted by Cabus and DeWitte (2014) found that

truants are 34.7% more likely to drop out of school than those who regularly attend school.

Balfanz, Herzog and MacIver (2007) found that sixth grade students who missed 20% or more of

the school year had at least a three in four chance of not completing high school. This number

increased even more when combined with other predictive risk factors, such as poor academic

performance and behavioural problems. However, it is essential to recognize the fact that these

studies make no claims of causation. Support strategies must address those factors which cause

school dropout, not those which simply predict it.

Dalton, Glennie, Ingels and Wert (2009) found that the number one reason that students

provided for dropping out of school was having missed too many days of school, outranking

other factors such as poor academic achievement, dislike of school, and finding employment. In

a survey conducted by Bridgeland, Dilulio and Burke Morison (2006), having missed too many

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 13

days of school and being unable to catch up was the second most common reason which students

gave for dropping out of school. Clearly, poor school attendance is merely the symptom of any

number of other issues. Nevertheless, when a child misses a significant amount of school,

success becomes more and more unlikely. Therefore, schools should focus on attendance

improvement strategies as a means by which to improve academic achievement and reduce

school dropout.

Home-School Communication

The importance of the family in a child’s education is undeniable. As such, programs

which aim to reduce absenteeism should undoubtedly include students’ families. Research has

shown that programs in which schools collaborate with children and their families can be

effective in improving attendance. While all parents should be actively engaged in their

children’s education, including ensuring that they attend school on a regular basis, this is

unfortunately not always the case. Van Velsor and Orozco (2007) described numerous potential

barriers to the inclusion of parents in the school community, including restrictive work

schedules, parents’ lack of confidence in dealing with teachers or administrators, teachers’

attitudes towards low-income parents, and the fact that schools in low-SES neighbourhoods are

less likely to seek out parental involvement. As such, schools should work to build positive

relationships with families, particularly those of at-risk youth.

Sheldon and Epstein (2004) conducted a two-year study of 39 elementary and secondary

schools in rural, suburban, and urban areas which examined whether schools that used more

home-school communication practices, such as newsletters and parent orientation seminars, had

higher attendance rates. The authors found that schools that employed a high number of

communication practices had fewer absences. The large, diverse sample does contribute to the

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 14

validity and generalizability of the findings. However, this study does have several limitations.

First, the authors relied on the participating schools’ self-reports of communication practices

which is not a highly reliable source of data. Second, while the data does suggest a correlation

between the home-school communication and attendance rates, it does not necessarily indicate a

causal relationship. Therefore, the authors’ conclusion that “communicating with families about

attendance… measurably reduced students’ chronic absenteeism” is not entirely valid (p. 39).

Kraft and Rogers (2014) demonstrated that consistent home-school communication was

effective in improving attendance and academic achievement of students enrolled in high school

credit recovery programs. The authors categorized the students as displaying “notably low levels

of academic achievement and engagement in school” (p. 7). The 435 participants were divided

into three groups: those who received communication that described what the student was doing

well; those who received communication that described how the student could improve; and

those who received no communication whatsoever. Depending on the parents’ preference, brief

one-sentence communication was sent by the teacher via phone call, email or text. The results

demonstrated that “teacher-to-parent communication substantially increased the probability

students passed their courses and earned credit towards graduation” (p. 15). In fact, students in

the intervention groups were on average 41% less likely to fail to successfully complete the

program. The results suggested that “improvement” communication was the more effective of

the two. Nevertheless, the authors maintained the importance of positive teacher feedback when

communicating with parents. The authors concluded that “[r]educed student absenteeism appears

to be a key student behavior affected by the messages” (p. 17). Unfortunately, they did not offer

an explanation as to why student attendance improved in the intervention groups. Nevertheless,

the large sample size and the use of a control group validate the authors’ findings.

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 15

A meta-analysis conducted by McConnell and Kubina Jr. (2014) also demonstrated the

potential positive effects of home-school communication on student attendance. Based on the

available literature, the authors concluded that “direct parent and teacher contact has been a

beneficial strategy in improving student attendance” (p. 255). Contrary to Kraft and Roger’s

(2014) findings, the analysis indicated that “positive” phone calls which praised the child’s

attendance were more effective than “negative” phone calls which acknowledged the child’s

absence and suggested the child attend school the following day. Unfortunately, the bulk of the

studies which the authors analyzed dated back several decades. While phone calls are still a

common form of home-school communication, the age of the studies does raise questions of the

validity of the findings in today’s society.

This analysis is based on the limited number of studies which appeared in a search of the

literature. Further research is required to confirm the findings of these studies. Despite the

limited research and a lack of consensus on what form of communication is most effective, these

findings suggest that consistent home-school communication can have a positive impact on

student attendance. As such, home-school communication is recommended as an effective

strategy for reducing dropout in at-risk youth.

Mentoring

Positive adult figures are instrumental in keeping at-risk youth on track. Unfortunately,

children do not always have such role models at their disposal. For this reason, mentorship

programs are an attractive option for schools, particularly those with high numbers of at-risk

youth. These programs connect at-risk youth with positive adult figures in the school and

community. Lampley and Johnson (2010) investigated the efficacy of the LISTEN (Linking

Individual Students to Educational Needs) mentorship program which seeks “to establish

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 16

relationships between identified at-risk students and caring adults” (p. 5). In a unique turn, the

LISTEN program enlists a wide variety of mentors, from teachers and administrators to

custodians and cafeteria workers, in order to encourage positive behaviours in students during

twice-weekly meetings. An impressive 96% of participants showed improved attendance when

compared to the previous school year. What’s more, 94% of participants displayed improved

academic achievement and a reduction in office referrals. This study does have several

limitations, however. First, the generalizability of this research is questionable as the study was

conducted over one school year with a sample size of only 54 students at a single junior high

school. Second, the authors offer little insight into the potential mechanisms at work in the study.

As such, it is difficult to determine the reasons for the success of the program. Therefore,

additional corroborating evidence is necessary to confirm the efficacy of mentoring programs for

at-risk youth.

A study conducted by Holt, Bry and Johnson (2008) offered findings contradictory to

those of Lampley and Johnson (2010). In this study, mentors were instructed to practice and

praise positive behaviours and to monitor attendance, discipline referrals, and grades and discuss

them with mentees for up to four hours each week. Having participated in a five month program

with school-based mentors, the study revealed that “students’ grades and absences did not

change significantly” (p. 312). With that said, the authors did not totally dismiss the value of

mentoring programs for at-risk youth, noting that “significant and positive effects were observed

in the areas of perceived teacher support, school belonging, decision-making, and whether a

student entered into the discipline program” (p. 312). A small sample size of 40 students (only 15

of whom completed the mentorship program) was used. However, the researchers employed a

pre-test/post-test design with the addition of a control group to improve validity.

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 17

Unfortunately, the one-on-one nature of mentorship programs makes large-scale studies

difficult to perform. However, an exception of particular interest is the New York City Success

Mentor Corps, part of a massive initiative to reduce chronic absenteeism in the city. The

program, which targets more than 10,000 at-risk youth, includes “internal” mentors such as

teachers and coaches; “external” mentors, such as social work students and retired professionals;

and “peer” mentors, selected from the schools’ grade 12 students. The expectations of mentors in

this program are high when compared to those described above. According to the program

descriptor,

Mentors begin the day greeting their mentees and expressing enthusiasm to see them in

school, or calling homes as soon as possible if the mentees are not in school, with a

positive statement about how much they are missed. They meet one‐on‐one and in

groups, and are expected from week 1 to identify students’ strengths and celebrate them.

They are also asked to identify the underlying causes of absenteeism, work with the

student to solve those issues within their capacity… and where necessary work with the

school partners to connect the student and family to local supports to address more

significant underlying problems (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2013, p. 12).

The program resulted in wide-spread improvements in attendance. On average, students who had

been identified as chronically absent based on their attendance during the previous school year

improved their attendance by 5%, an increase of about two full weeks of school. Moreover,

participants were 52% more likely to stay in the school the following year than those who did not

have a mentor. Additionally, the vast majority of mentees stated that they enjoyed having a

mentor, and felt that their mentor motivated them to succeed and helped them feel more

confident.

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 18

There are several challenges associated with mentorship programs. Grossman and

Rhodes (2002) warned of the dangers of poorly implemented mentorship programs. Students

who were in mentoring relationships which lasted less than three months “reported drops in self-

worth and perceived scholastic competence” (p. 213). These results suggest that the success of

mentorship programs hinges largely on the long-term dedication, and the careful pairing, of

mentors and mentees. These programs can require a significant amount of time and effort from

mentors, as exhibited by the Success Mentors Corps program. While the effectiveness of

mentorship programs in reducing school dropout is unclear, they do appear to have an overall

positive effect on at-risk youth when programs are well-implemented. However, given the

potential dangers of poorly run programs, schools should proceed with caution when establishing

mentorship programs for at-risk youth.

Extra-Curricular Activities

Extra-curricular activities are an integral part of the schooling experience for many

children. However, a meta-analysis of the literature conducted by Kremer, Maynard, Polanin,

Vaughn, and Sarteschi (2014) “found a lack of evidence of effects of after-school programs on

school attendance and externalizing behaviors for at-risk primary and secondary students”

(p. 633). Furthermore, the authors concluded that research in the domain of extra-curricular

activities was wrought with “methodological flaws and [a] high risk of bias” (p. 633). Similarly,

Shulruf (2010) was unable to identify a causal relationship between participation in extra-

curricular activities and a number of educational outcomes, including academic achievement and

retention. The author also had “major concerns regarding the validity of some of the data and

analyses used in the literature” (p. 609). This concern for the quality of the research raises the

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 19

question of whether or not extra-curricular activities are a useful tool for combatting school

dropout.

Boatwright (2009) compared the grade point averages (GPAs) and dropout rates of

students who participated in extra-curricular activities to those who did not. The author

concluded that students who participated in extra-curricular activities achieved higher GPAs and

were significantly less likely to drop out of school than non-participants. Boatwright made

several recommendations for schools based on the findings, including offering a wide variety of

extra-curricular activities to students and actively encouraging student participation in extra-

curricular activities. These recommendations underscore the concerns of Kremer et al. (2014)

and Shulruf (2010). While the author did identify a correlation between participation in extra-

curricular activities, academic achievement and school dropout rates, the evidence does not

demonstrate a causal relationship. Given the data, Boatwright’s suggestion that wider

participation in extra-curricular activities could result in higher academic achievement and lower

dropout rates is unsound.

Bradley, Keane and Crawford (2013) studied the effect of participation in various school

sports on academic achievement. The authors compared the final exam scores of students who

participated in extra-curricular activities during their final year of high school to those who did

not. The study revealed that, on average, students who participated in school sports received

better grades on their final exams than those who did not participate. The authors conclude that

“participating in extra-curricular school sport… can benefit academic achievement” (p. 12).

Again, the data merely demonstrates a positive correlation between participating in school sports

and academic achievement, and in no way indicates a causal relationship between the two

factors. The authors do offer some insight to the possible mechanisms at work, surmising that

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 20

“participating in individual sports confers a further benefit to academic results because of the

enhanced positive personality characteristics of conscientiousness and autonomy associated with

these sports” (p. 12). Nevertheless, there is no evidence in this study that shows that participating

in school sports improves academic achievement. Once more, this study demonstrates serious

flaws in the research on the educational benefits of extra-curricular activities.

An analysis of these studies suggests that the concerns of Kremer et al. (2014) and

Shulruf (2010) on the quality of the research in this domain were well-founded. It appears that

much of the evidence used to support the use of extra-curricular activities in order to improve

educational outcomes only demonstrates a correlational, rather than causal, relationship. There

are a myriad of possible explanations for this correlation, such as those described above by

Bradley, Keane and Crawford (2013). Fredricks and Eccles (2005) rightly ask “whether activity

participation leads to beneficial outcomes or whether psychological assets and school belonging

predict involvement in extracurricular activities” (p. 516). This question should be at the centre

of any research which seeks to demonstrate a causal relationship between extra-curricular

involvement and educational outcomes. This study revealed that students who participated in

extra-curricular activities were more likely to have academic and prosocial friends. The authors

offer this result as a possible explanation for the positive outcomes often associated with

participation in extra-curricular activities. While there is no doubt that extra-curricular activities

can offer an array of benefits to children, there is unfortunately little evidence to suggest that

they can improve academic achievement or attendance, or reduce dropout rates. As such, extra-

curricular activities are not recommended as a strategy for reducing school dropout in at-risk

youth.

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 21

Conclusion

This paper examines a number of commonly employed strategies for improving academic

achievement and reducing school dropout in at-risk youth. Research has demonstrated that

academic failure often leads to school dropout. Poor attendance has similarly been shown to have

a causal relationship with academic failure. Based on the research, schools should focus on

improving academic achievement and attendance in order to reduce school dropout.

A review of the literature revealed that both tutoring programs and pull-out support are

effective in improving academic achievement. While tutoring programs can make use of

volunteers, pull-out support requires significant teacher time and may be limited by a school’s

teacher allocation. Improved home-school communication was shown to improve attendance in

at-risk youth based on a limited number of recent studies. There is some conflicting data on the

efficacy of mentorship programs. Overall, the evidence does seem to suggest that mentorship

programs can be effective in improving attendance of at-risk youth. Significant flaws have been

identified in the research conducted on the relationship between extra-curricular activities and

educational outcomes such as academic achievement and attendance rates. An analysis of several

studies corroborated these concerns. No evidence was found in the literature to suggest that

participation in extra-curricular activities improves academic achievement or attendance, or

reduces dropout rates.

There is no simple solution to the complex issue of school dropout. Significant effort is

required on the part of educators to address school dropout in this country. Schools must take a

multi-faceted approach to improving academic achievement and attendance in order to reduce

school dropout. Based on the findings, I offer a number of recommendations. Schools should

develop tutoring programs and promote improved home-school communication. These strategies

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 22

have been shown to be effective and cost-efficient. Schools may also implement pull-out support

and mentoring programs, keeping in mind that significant teacher participation may be required

in order to be successful. Despite their many positive attributes, extra-curricular activities are not

recommended as a strategy for improving academic achievement and attendance as a means by

which to reduce school dropout. The exact course of action which a school chooses must be

congruent with the human and monetary resources available to them. In the end, the success of

any initiative depends on the dedication of stakeholders, including the students themselves, in

making positive, long-term change.

References

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 23

Alawiye, O. & Williams, H. S. (2005). A comparative reading gains of African American students in a chapter 1 pull out program. Reading Improvement, 42(2).

Averill, M. J. (2008). Effective teacher practices for working with at-risk inner city youth: How trauma affects learning. University of Alberta, Canada.

Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & MacIver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grade schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4).

Battin-Pearson, S., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D. & Newcomb, M. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Educational Psychology, 92(3).

Boatwright, C. J. (2009). Comparison of grade point averages and dropout rates of students who participate in extracurricular activities and students who do not participate. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAP 3372319)

Bowers, A. J. (2010). Grades and graduation: A longitudinal risk perspective to identify student dropouts. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3).

Bradley, J., Keane, F., & Crawford, S. (2013). School sport and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 83(1).

Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Burke Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Burns, M. K., Senesac, B. J., & Silberglitt, B. (2008). Longitudinal effect of a volunteer tutoring program on reading skills of students identified as at-risk for reading failure: A two-year follow-up study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(1).

Cabus, S. J. & De Witte K. (2014). Does unauthorized school absenteeism accelerate the dropout decision? Evidence from a Bayesian duration model. Child Psychology Review, 22(4).

Child Trends. (2006). Defining the term “at-risk”. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/DefiningAtRisk1.pdf

Dalton, B., Glennie, E., Ingels, S. J., & Wirt, J. (2009). Late high school dropouts: Characteristics, experiences, and changes across cohorts. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009307.pdf

Downing, J., Williams, J., & Holden, E. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a reading remediation program in a public school setting. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25(3).

Employment and Social Services Canada. (2008). What difference does learning make to financial security? Retrieved from http://well-being.esdc.gc.ca/misme-iowb/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=54

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 24

Fredricks, J. A. & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Developmental benefits of extra-curricular involvement: Do peer characteristics mediate the link between activities and youth outcomes? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6).

Friedland, E. S. & Truscott, D. M. (2005). Building awareness and commitment of middle school students through literacy tutoring. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(7).

Grossman, J. B. & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2).

Holt, L. J., Bry, B. H., & Johnson, V. L. (2008). Enhancing school engagement in at-risk, urban minority adolescents through a school-based, adult mentoring intervention. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 30(4).

Jung, E., Molfese, V. J., & Larson, A. E. (2011). More than good intentioned help: Volunteer tutoring and elementary readers. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(3).

Kraft, M. A. & Rogers, T. (2014). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: Evidence from a field experiment. Economics of Education Review. Forthcoming.

Kremer, K. P., Maynard, B. R., Polanin, J. R. Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2015). Effects of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 44(3).

La Rose, L. (2015, June 16). Street photo project helps homeless, at-risk youth share stories through lens. CTV News. Retrieved from http://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/street-

photo- project-helps-homeless-at-risk-youth-share-stories-through-lens-1.2425447

Lampley, J. H. & Johnson, K. C. (2010). Mentoring at-risk youth: Improving academic achievement in middle school students. Nonpartisan Education Review, 6(1).

Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow. D. & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2).

McConnell, B. M. & Kubina Jr., R. M. (2014). Connecting with families to improve students’ school attendance: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 58(4).

Millea, M. (2015, May 17). Mentors help at-risk youth avoid addiction. The Times-Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.timesreporter.com/article/20150517/NEWS/150519377

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2011). Service delivery model for students with exceptionalities. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/publications/sdm_document

.pdf

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2015). Inclusive schools. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html

DROPOUT IN AT-RISK YOUTH 25

No author. (2015, April 30). Surrey gang shootings show Somali youth need better support, says outreach worker. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-

columbia/surrey-gang-shootings-show-somali-youth-need-better-support-says- outreach-worker-1.3055917

Papadopoulos, T. C., Das, J. P., Parrila, R. K., & Kirby, J. R. (2003). Children at risk for developing reading difficulties: A remediation study. School Psychology International, 24(3).

Placier, M. L. (1993). The semantics of state policy making: The case of “at risk”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4).

Ritter, G.W., Barnett, J. H., Denny, G. S., & Albin, G. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Education Research, 79(1).

Sheldon S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family and community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School Community Journal, 14(2).

Shulruf, B. (2010). Do extra-curricular activities in schools improve educational outcomes: A critical review and meta-analysis of the literature. International Review of

Education, 56(5/6).

Statistics Canada. (2010). A note on high school graduation and school attendance, by age and province, 2009/2010. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010004/article/11360-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2013). Graduation rate, Canada, provinces and territories, 2005/2006 and 2009/2010. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2011095/tbl/tbla.11-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2010). Trends in dropout rates and the labour market outcomes of young people. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-

x/2010004/article/11339-eng.htm#a

Suh, S. & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional School Counselling, 10(3).

Tidwell, R. & Corona Garrett, S. (1994). Youth at risk: In search of a definition. Journal of Counselling & Development, 72(4).

United States Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

Van Velsor, P. & Orozco, G. L. (2007). Involving low-income parents in the schools: Community-centric strategies for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11(1).