High-school Dropout Among Students with

Learning Disabilities & Emotional-Behavioral Disabilities:

Toward An Understanding of the Statistics and Transformative Research & Practice

Anneke Mundel

Drake University

SPED 220 - Summer 2013

Abstract

The high-school dropout rate for students with disabilities is twice that for students without disabilities.

According to commonly cited federal statistics, roughly 26% of students with learning disabilities (LD)

drop out of school, while 44.2% of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) drop out.

This paper explores the disproportionate representation of students with LD and, particularly EBD, in

the dropout population. It begins with a quick look at the question: Why is the phenomenon of

dropouts a concern in special education and otherwise? In particular, what are the individual, societal,

and educational implications of dropouts? The paper then turns to a detailed examination of the

following questions: What are the dropout / high-school completion realities and statistics for students

with LD and EBD, and how might these statistics be explained? The paper then concludes with a brief

discussion of areas for future research and promising practices in the retention and high school

completion of students with LD and EBD.

“The problem of school dropout has become something of a national obsession,” wrote Jeremy

Finn back in 1989 (cited in Reschly & Christenson, 2006, p.276). According to one alarmist

calculation, one in eight American children do not graduate from high school, and one student drops

out of high school every nine seconds (Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair & Christenson, 2003). Researchers and

practitioners in the field of special education are well aware that the dropout statistics for students with

disabilities are even more alarming: Though dropout rates quoted in the literature vary, it is commonly

accepted that students with disabilities are twice as likely to drop out of school than students without

disabilities (Williams Bost & Riccomini, 2006). Furthermore, students with emotional and behavioral

disabilities (EBD) and students with learning disabilities (LD) are disproportionately represented in the

dropout numbers of students with disabilities (Reschly & Christenson, 2006; Sinclair, Christenson &

Thurlow, 2005; Williams Bost & Riccomini, 2006;).

At the same time, the stakes for preventing dropout and promoting high school completion

among all students are high. The negative individual and societal implications of dropping out are well

documented (see, for example, Carter, Trainor, Sun & Owens 2009; Lehr et al., 2003), and now

educational implications are increasingly apparent as well: several legislative mandates require school

and district accountability for dropout and completion rates for all students, including students with

disabilities (Reschly & Christenson, 2006; Sitlington & Neubert, 2004). And yet, among students with

disabilities, “school dropout remains one of the most serious and pervasive problems … nationally”

(Williams Bost & Riccomini, 2006, p.301).

In this paper, then, the spotlight is turned on the dropout issue among students with LD and

EBD. The discussion explores the following questions: (1) Why is the phenomenon of dropouts a

concern in special education and otherwise? In particular, what are the individual, societal, and

educational implications of dropouts? (2) What are the dropout / high-school completion realities and

statistics for students with LD and EBD, and how might these statistics be explained? The paper then

concludes with a brief discussion of areas for future research and promising practices in the retention

and high school completion of students with LD and EBD.

Dropping Out: The Negative Implications

Virtually every research paper on dropouts begins with a recitation of the deleterious effects of

dropping out for individuals and their families, communities, and society at large. Less prevalent are

discussions of the implications for educational systems.

Individual Implications: Individuals who drop out of school frequently have a “generally less

productive adulthood” (Bear, Kortering & Braziel, 2006, p.293): they are unemployed or

underemployed, have entry-level positions, are at greater risk for incarceration, struggle with substance

abuse, and have less opportunities to pursue postsecondary education (Bear et al., 2006; Murray &

Naranjo, 2008; Sinclair et al., 2005). These realities are echoed among dropouts with LD and,

particularly EBD. For example, according to figures from the National Longitudinal Transition Study

2, 52% of students with EBD were unemployed 4 years after high school, only 20% completed any

postsecondary education, and 58% were arrested at some point (Katsiyannis, Zhang & Mackiewicz,

2012). Consequently, these noncompleters’ families experience some level of disruption as well

(Murray & Naranjo, 2008).

Societal Implications: The detrimental outcomes for individuals are echoed, correspondingly,

on a broader level: communities with high numbers of dropouts typically experience higher levels of

crime and bear the costs of prosecution, incarceration, welfare, and so on, while having a smaller tax

base (Lehr et al., 2003; Murray & Naranjo, 2008). Furthermore, society potentially loses in less

measurable ways, such as by having less civic involvement and a more limited knowledge base than

would exist with a more highly educated population (Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006b; Murray

& Naranjo, 2008).

Educational Implications: Carter et al. (2009), states that post-school outcomes of students

with disabilities have long been a “barometer” of special education program quality and effectiveness

(p.74). As such, high dropout rates and correspondingly low rates of post-school “success” may reflect

poorly on schools (teachers, instructional strategies, and so on). In the era of educational

accountability, assessments of overall school effectiveness and the effectiveness of particular programs

now explicitly consider dropout rates: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandates – among other

measures -- that schools report on dropout and graduation rates (Williams Bost & Riccomini, 2006;

Reschly & Christenson, 2006) and that schools show adequate yearly progress (AYP) for students with

disabilities who have Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) or who are covered by Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act (Sitlington & Neubert, 2004). In a similar vein, the Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA)’s 1997 and 2004 amendments stipulate that states must create performance

goals and indicators that expressly focus on reducing the dropout rates of students with disabilities

(Williams Bost & Riccomini 2006). This linking of dropout rates and school and program evaluations

is occurring not only at a federal level: a number of states have established accountability systems

focused specifically on reducing the incidence of dropouts among students with disabilities (Williams

Bost & Riccomini, 2006). It is clear, then, that societal concern with the dropout phenomenon is

matched by increasing legislative pressure on schools to reduce dropout rates, including for students

with disabilities.

The Dropout Realities for Students With LD & EBD: Understanding the Statistics

A. The Numbers:

As noted previously, there is great variability in the statistics cited re: high-school dropouts with

disabilities. This has to do with the varying definitions of “dropout,” and the differing ways in which

schools, states, and federal entities gather and calculate data (Reiman Rothenberger, 2008; see also

Reschly & Christenson, 2006). The variability also may be exacerbated by the fact that the federal

government did not include the dropout and graduation rates of students with disabilities in its national

dropout databases until 2004 (Cobb, Sample, Alwell & Johns, 2006). The statistical shortcomings

notwithstanding, it is clear that students with EBD are at a very high risk of dropping out of school,

while students with LD are at a lower but still elevated risk to drop out compared to the national

averages for students without disabilities (Murray & Naranjo, 2008). Perhaps the most commonly cited

statistics are from the National Longitudinal Transition Study, Wave 2 (2003 cohort). This federal

study found that 26% of students with LD dropped out of school, while 44.2% of students with EBD

dropped out of school. Conversely, this study found that 74% of students with LD completed high

school, while only 55.8% of students with EBD completed high school. Only students classified as

having Multiple Disabilities / Deaf-Blindness dropped out of high-school at a higher rate (49.2%) than

students with EBD (Wagner, Newman, Cameto & Levine, 2005).

Furthermore, students with LD or EBD who are male, people of color, and/or from

economically disadvantaged backgrounds experience even greater rates of high school dropout. For

example, according to Sinclair et al. (2005), only 28% of African American students with EBD

graduate. Similarly, low-income students with disabilities are two to six times more likely to dropout

than middle and upper-income students, according to Murray & Naranjo (2008).

B. An Exploration of the Statistics:

Research on dropout among the entire population (i.e. not distinguishing students with

disabilities) has found that students are more likely to drop out when they are exposed to a great

number of risk factors – at individual, family, and school levels; this is called risk accumulation

(Murray & Naranjo 2008). These risk factors have been described as either status factors (i.e.

inalterable), including factors such as a student’s race, socioeconomic status, household constitution

(eg. single-parent household), or health history, or alterable factors, including such diverse elements as

a student’s preparation for class, a parent’s expectation of their child, and an orderly school

environment (see Reschly & Christenson, 2006; Murray & Naranjo, 2008). Conversely, students are

less likely to drop out when they have a number of protective factors: these could be internal or

external factors that make students resilient in spite of exposure to risks, such as knowing how to ask

for assistance or having a supportive and persistent teacher (Murray & Naranjo, 2008).

While the general research on dropouts provides some insight, the particularly high rates of

high school dropout among students with LD and EBD spark several specific questions: Why do

students with LD and EBD drop out, and why at varying levels? Do these students’ disabilities

specifically contribute to their dropping out? If so, how, and are there ways as educators that we can

intervene, providing necessary support? Unfortunately, though there is a growing base of research on

the dropout phenomenon among the general education population (particularly on risk

factors/predictors of dropout), there is as yet little research on dropouts among students with

disabilities and therefore little exploration of these questions (Bear et al., 2006; Lane & Carter 2006a;

Lehr et al., 2003; Murray & Naranjo, 2008; Reschly & Christenson, 2006; Sinclair et al., 2005).

However, the available research does provide some tentative answers.

* Students With LD:

In general, low academic achievement and behavioral problems are among the strongest

predictors of high school dropout (Bear et al., 2006; Reschly & Christenson, 2006). Some research also

suggests that lower cognitive skills (as determined by IQ scores in the low or low-average ranges) are a

strong predictor of dropout (Battin-Pearson cited in Murray & Naranjo, 2008). As students with LD

demonstrate low academic achievement in at least one core area (reading, writing, math) and often in

multiple areas (Williams Bost & Riccomini, 2006), and as the academic content becomes more

difficult through the years, it is perhaps unsurprising that a higher rate of students with LD drop out

than without LD (Bear et al., 2006).

However, to prevent dropout among students with LD, it seems important to understand what

distinguishes those students with LD who complete and those students with LD who drop out. In a

study that examined 76 boys with LD, Bear, Kortering & Braziel (2006) sought to understand precisely

this. They hypothesized that, given these students’ equal academic and intellectual abilities, there must

be a difference in students’ self-concept about their reading, behavior, “global self-worth” (p.294), or

in their relationships with their teachers. Interestingly, their results showed no significant differences in

any of these areas. As a result, the researchers speculate that school completers with LD might be able

to apply their academic skills in ways that non-completers cannot. Williams Bost & Riccomini provide

some indirect support for this hypothesis with their assertion that students with LD experience not only

specific academic deficits, but also deficits in executive functioning (2006).

In contrast, Murray & Naranjo (2008) found that certain protective factors can mediate risk

factors for students with LD and help them complete school. In their smaller-scale study of eleven low-

income African American school completers with LD in Chicago, Murray & Naranjo found that

protective factors in four domains were critical to school completion: individual factors (including the

student’s independence/self-determination, willingness to ask for help, personal valuing of education);

family factors (parent involvement/support of school, parent’s provision of a structured and

“restrictive” environment at home); peer factors (isolating themselves from peers with deviant

behaviors); and teacher factors (supportive special education teachers, teachers who were good

instructors, teachers who had a “powerful presence”-i.e. clear rules and clear dynamics with students).

Murray & Naranjo’s study does not have a comparative group of non-completers, as in Bear et al.’s

study, so it is somewhat difficult to discern which factors were unique to school completers. However,

other research cited by Reschly & Christenson (2006) indicates that there may indeed be distinguishing

factors between students with LD who complete and who drop out: those who drop out cite, among

other factors, having detrimental attitudes, being socially isolated from teachers and peers1, existing

school policies, and having insufficient teacher support.

1 It is interesting to note that in Murray & Naranjo’s urban setting with high-crime, the students’ relative social isolation was what helped them complete, not social contact.

Furthermore, it seems plausible that it is students with concomitant emotional or behavioral

issues -- perhaps sparked by frustrations due to their learning disability, caused by their academic

deficits (see Hagaman, 2012), or related to their environmental risks – who are more likely to drop out.

Indeed, in Scanlon & Mellard’s 2003 study of completers vs. noncompleters with LD and EBD in

high-school and adult education settings, they found that students identified behavior or emotional

disability-related problems as contributing to their dropping out of school much more frequently than

any academic problems. This was in spite of the fact that the majority of these students had diagnosed

LDs (not EBDs specifically).

The research reviewed, then, does not provide a clear answer as to why students with LD drop

out and, particularly, why some students with LD dropout while others complete, though it suggests

that academic processing abilities, protective (and risk) factors, and concomitance of behavioral issues

may be some domains of difference. Thus, additional comparative research of populations with LD

who dropout and who complete, as well as comparative research of dropouts with LD and dropouts

from the general education student body, would be helpful.

* Students with EBD:

How do we understand the very high levels of dropout (44% or higher) among students with

EBD? Undoubtedly, students with EBD are – as the general student body – at risk for dropping out due

to cumulative risk exposure, including risks inherent in their status. In fact, evidence indicates that

students with EBD have disproportionately high risk exposure (Rosenberg, Westling & McLeskey,

2011). For example, Sinclair et al. (2005) document that students with EBD experience very high

levels of mobility; according to the National Education Longitudinal Study, students who moved

schools once or more in high school for “non-promotional” reasons were twice as likely to drop out.

Beyond these more general explanations, however, the seemingly simplest explanation for the

high dropout rate of students with EBD might be found in the social and behavioral issues that “lie at

the core of ED definitional criteria” (Lane et al., 2006b, p.109; Lane & Carter 2006a) and are often

linked to students’ risk exposure (Rosenberg et al., 2011). In a study of teachers’ perceptions of their

high school students with LD and EBD in academic, behavioral, and social domains, Lane et al.

(2006b) found students with EBD being evaluated as being less social competent and adjusted to

school and exhibiting higher levels of “problem” behaviors (as documented by absences, disciplinary

action, and negative comments in individual student files), as compared to students with LD. Indeed,

according to statistics cited by Katsiyannis et al. (2012), students with EBD experience disciplinary

exclusions (suspensions or expulsions) at three times the rate of other students with disabilities. In

another comparative study of high school students with EBD and LD, Carter et al. (2009) found that

both teachers and parents rated students with EBD as having much less competence in the

nine-“transition” related domains considered as students with LD. (At the same time, the students

appeared to have an unrealistic view of their own capabilities in these domains.) Thus, it seems clear

that the behavioral/emotional and social issues of students with EBD do impact these students’ high

school success. However, as Lane et al. (2006b) contend, there is as yet insufficient research to

ascertain specifically what distinguishes the social and behavioral skills of high-school students with

EBD versus LD and, we might add, non-completers with EBD vs. completers.

In trying to understand the high rates of dropout for students with EBD, we also can look to

academic abilities, a strong predictor of dropout: According to Hagaman (2012), students with EBD

very clearly exhibit a “pattern of academic underachievement” (p.24). This is evident from numerous

statistics, including US Department of Education data from 2002-2009 that indicates 77.1% of students

with EBD have failed one or more courses and students with EBD earned fewer credits (17.8) than

students in any other disability category (Newman et al., 2011). More broadly, research shows students

with EBD in K-12 having sizable academic deficits in reading, writing, and math (Hagaman, 2012;

Katsiyannis et al., 2012). In fact, some research indicates that, compared to students with LD, students

with EBD have even greater academic deficits, and their performance does not improve over time

(Hagaman, 2012; Lane et al., 2006b). As Lane et al. (2006b) point out, the specific kinds of academic

deficits exhibited by student with EBD in high school, and the possible differences in these deficits as

compared to students with LD, are as yet not well understood; the majority of research to date has been

with elementary and middle-school children with EBD and LD.

Nonetheless, the literature reviewed does provide some explanations for this finding of

academic underachievement. First, as with many students with LD, students with EBD often have

academic processing difficulties, including visual processing, working and long-term memory, and

executive functions (Hagaman, 2012). Second, and perhaps more critical in understanding the high

level of dropout, the instruction of students with EBD has often focused on behavioral and related

social issues, rather than on academics (Hagaman, 2012; Lane et al., 2006b). Hagaman (2012) cites a

study that found only 30% of the instruction for students with EBD in self-contained classrooms was

focused on academics. Furthermore, it appears that teachers in special education classrooms often feel

underprepared to teach academic content to their students and, in some cases, have inadequate

instructional resources at their disposal (Hagaman, 2012). As a result, students with EBD often receive

comparatively little content-specific instruction; unsurprisingly, they then struggle academically

(Hagaman, 2012).

Third, it appears that separate instructional settings are not always designed with the needs of

students with EBD in mind. Some research indicates that the more time students with EBD spend in

general education classrooms where their particular needs are not addressed, the more likely they are to

drop out (Simpson & Mundschenk, 2012; Stilington & Neubert, 2004; Williams Bost & Riccomini,

2006). However, other research finds that, because of the stigma associated with behavioral and

emotional disorders, students with EBD are often placed in special education classrooms primarily

intended for students with LD (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002) who may have categorically different

academic needs (Lane et al., 2006b). Thus, the separate setting itself does not necessarily address the

academic needs of students with EBD and promote high school completion (see also Simpson &

Mundschenk, 2012).

Fourth and similarly, students with EBD who are taught in general education settings have

educators who often feel ill-informed about how to accommodate the needs of students with EBD in

their classrooms (Simpson & Mundschenk, 2012). Fifth, exacerbating these other academic challenges,

many students with EBD exhibit behaviors that make it difficult for them to participate in the academic

“extension” activities which are positively correlated with high school completion, including

enrollment in occupationally-oriented vocational education or paid work experiences (Sitlington &

Neubert, 2004).

It appears, then, that the academic and processing deficits of students with EBD, in

combination with the fact that these deficits are poorly understood by educators, insufficiently

addressed, and lead to potentially problematic exclusions or inclusions, contribute to the high dropout

rates observed. These factors compound the social and behavioral issues and other risk exposure

experienced by students with EBD.

Promoting Retention and High School Completion for Students with LD and EBD: A Brief Discussion of Research Needed and Some Promising Practices

A. Research Needed:

It is clear from the foregoing discussion and from the review of literature that there are many

more questions and hypotheses than concrete answers in the study of dropouts with LD and EBD, in

part because of the dearth of research in this area. In order to increase retention and high school

completion rates, then, there will need to be additional research in the following areas, among others:

* Instructional practices: The literature reviewed indicates that both students with LD and with EBD

experience academic and processing deficits; however, students with LD seem more frequently to

show improvement and have higher rates of school completion. Why is this? Is this simply because

students with EBD are absent so frequently that instruction and intervention efforts do not have a

significant impact (Lane et al., 2006b)? Or is this because students with EBD do not receive as much

content-area instruction? Alternately, are learning disabilities better understood and therefore better

addressed in instruction (Hagaman, 2012; Lane et al., 2006b)? Might the promising instructional

approaches for students with LD (for example: combining direct instruction and strategy instruction)

work for students with EBD (Hagaman, 2012)? Also, is it true, as Bear et al. (2006) suggest that the

difference in completers and non-completers is related more to academic processing than to academic

ability?

* Setting--General education vs. Special education: Under IDEA, students are to be educated in the

least restrictive environment. While some research finds that inclusion in general education classrooms

is oftentimes beneficial to students with LD, particularly if accompanied by appropriate supports (Bear

et al., 2006; Rosenberg, et al., 2011), there is conflicting research on whether inclusion is beneficial for

students with EBD (Hagaman, 2012; Sitlington & Neubert, 2004). As Simpson & Mundschenk (2012)

write, “the topic of inclusion is replete with gaping knowledge and scientifically-based information

holes” (p. 7). So, research that specifically examines the connection between inclusion of students with

LD and EBD and the drop out rate would be useful. Beyond the scope of this paper’s discussion, but

also relevant, is a consideration of alternative schools and adult education programs; the literature

reviewed (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002; Simpson & Mundschenk, 2012), suggests that both settings hold

some apparent promise for increasing high school completion rates of youth with EBD.

* Links between high-stakes educational practices and dropouts: As attention is focused on dropouts,

including those with disabilities, it would be important to explore in what ways this attention is

impacting dropout rates and high school completion rates: i.e. to what extent are students being placed

in alternate streams or literally “pushed out” because of accountability requirements (Sinclair et al.,

2006)? Or is inclusion in school and district-wide assessments positively impacting students’ academic

experiences and school completion, as hypothesized by Sitlington & Neubert (2004)?

* Comprehensive, evidence-based interventions: As scholars in the field point out, there are many

school and district-dropout prevention/intervention programs, thanks to increased legislative and civil

rights focus on dropouts. These programs have been described by educational researchers (Lehr et al.,

2003; William Bost & Riccomini, 2006) and occasionally linked to academic outcomes (Cobb et al.,

2006). Further, educational researchers have undertaken numerous non-experimental, essentially

descriptive studies themselves (Sinclair et al., 2005). However, critically underrepresented in the

literature --as articulated by virtually all the authors reviewed here -- are empirically-solid, original

research studies that could provide insight into what actually works in reducing drop out rates for all

students and, particularly students with disabilities. According to Williams Bost & Riccomini (2006),

the few extant research studies are academic pieces, not written in a way to facilitate use by

practitioners. While more empirically-based research studies are critical, the few existing research

studies do provide hope; among these are the “promising practices” listed briefly in the final section.

B. Some Promising Practices:

* Early intervention: Research is clear that dropping out is not a short-term occurrence but rather the

outcome of a lengthy process of withdrawal, with some risk factors being seen in early elementary

(Bear et al., 2006; Katsiyannis et al., 2012; Reschly & Christenson, 2006). So, it is promising that there

is a growing body of research into effective interventions for elementary and middle school students

with LD and EBD (Hagaman, 2012; Lane et al., 2006b): this may help stem the high rates of dropout.

* Instructional Practices: While instruction has been what Williams Bost & Riccomini (2006) call an

“inconspicuous strategy for dropout prevention” (article title), it is undoubtedly a critical area of

intervention for all students, and the area in which special and general education teachers are most able

to effect change. In her review of the literature on research-based instructional interventions for

students with EBD, Hagaman (2012) finds that combining general best-practice instructional strategies

with direct instruction, peer-mediated interventions, and specific academic strategy instruction is

effective throughout academic domains.

* Cognitive-behavioral interventions that address student engagement: Dropout prevention and

intervention programs frequently focus on student engagement in academic, behavioral, psychological

and cognitive spheres (Reschly & Christenson, 2006; Sinclair et al., 2005). Indeed, Reschly &

Christenson’s (2006) find that for students with LD and EBD (in contrast with their general education

peers), student engagement was a significant predictor of dropout or, conversely, retention. In their

review of 16 research studies, Cobb et al. (2006) specifically examine the effectiveness of cognitive-

behavioral interventions (CBI) that address student engagement of students with disabilities (EBD, LD,

and ADHD). They found that CBIs are remarkably successful in reducing dropouts. This result also

was found by Sinclair et al. (2005) who implemented the “check and connect” model of CBI with

urban high-school students with EBD: Students who participated in the treatment group were much

less likely to drop out of school after four years than the control group (39% vs. 58%) and exhibited

many positive signs of student engagement. This is clearly an area for further study and

implementation.

*Transition-planning: One final area in which there is promise for increasing high-school completion

rates (as well as overall post-school outcomes) is the transition-planning process mandated by IDEA

for all students 14 and older (Katsiyannis et al., 2012). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA requires

students’ IEPs to include individually-determined activities that improve “the academic and functional

achievement of the child with a disability” (IDEA cited in Katsiyannis et al., 2012, p.166). Recent

evidence indicates that transition planning is inconsistently completed, however; for example, Sinclair

et al. (2005) found less than half of the students in their study with any formal transition assessment in

their IEP (see also Sitlington & Neubert, 2004). Nonetheless, it seems the transition-planning process

could – if consistently and properly implemented – support high-school completion, given its potential

for multi-level assessments (including parental ones), development of goals that would make education

seem relevant to students, enlistment of supportive community services that could address the very real

“risk” factors outside of the purview of schools, opportunities for exercising self-determination skills,

and so on (Carter et al., 2009; Katsiyannis et al., 2012).

Concluding Thoughts

The phenomenon of dropouts among students with high-incident disabilities (LD and EBD) is

now visible, having taken the stage as not simply an educational issue but a civil rights problem. The

consequences of dropping out of school are dire for individuals, families, society, and our educational

institutions. All the same, research seeking to explain and, particularly, prevent dropout and promote

high-school completion for students with LD and EBD is still limited. The existing literature suggests

that for students with LD and EBD, we should move beyond listing status risk factors and making

dropout predictions. To improve educational outcomes, we need to explore specific academic

processing issues, setting issues (location of instruction, etc.), as well as behavioral and social issues

that impede high school completion. Equipped with this understanding, we must develop and

implement dropout intervention/high-school completion programs that are targeted to the specific

academic, behavioral, and social challenges faced by students with LD and EBD: Early intervention

programs, evidence-based instructional strategies, broader cognitive-behavioral interventions, and

thoughtful transition-planning are all areas that provide promising solutions.

References

Bear, G.G., Kortering, L.J., and Braziel, P. (2006) School Completers and Noncompleters With Learning Disabilities: Similarities in Academic Achievement and Perceptions of Self and Teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (5), 293-300.

Carter, E.W., Trainor, A.A., Sun, Y., and Owens, L. (2009) Assessing the Transition-Related Strengths and Needs of Adolescents With High-Incidence Disabilities. Exceptional Children,76 (1), 74-94.

Cobb, B., Sample, P.L., Alwell, M., and Johns, N.R. (2006) Cognitive Behavioral Interventions,Dropout, and Youth With Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (5), 259-275

Hagaman, Jessica L. (2012) Academic Instruction and Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. In A.F. Rotatori, F.E. Obiakor & J.P. Bakken, (Eds). Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD. (pp. 23-41) Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., and Moore Mackiewicz, S. (2012) Promoting Practices for Effective Transition for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. In A.F. Rotatori, F.E. Obiakor & J.P. Bakken, (Eds). Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with

EBD. (pp. 157-178) Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

Lane, K.L. and Carter, W. (2006a) Supporting Transition-Age Youth With and At Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders at the Secondary Level: A Need for Further Inquiry. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14 (2), 66-70.

Lane, K.L., Carter, E.W., Pierson, M.R., and Glaeser, B.C. (2006b) Academic, Social, and Behavioral Characteristics of High School Students With Emotional Disturbances or Learning Disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14 (2), 108-117.

Lehr, C.A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M.F., and Christenson, S.L. (2003) Moving Beyond Dropout Towards School Completion: An Integrative Review of Data-Based Interventions. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 342-364.

Murray, C., and Naranjo, J. (2008) Poor, Black, Learning Disabled, and Graduating: An Investigation of Factors and Processes Associated With School Completion Among High-Risk Urban Youth. Remedial and Special Education, 29 (3), 145-160.

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Huang, T., Shaver, D., Knokey, A.-M., Yu, J., Contreras, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S., Nagle, K., and Cameto, R. (2011). Secondary School Programs and Performance of Students With Disabilities. A Special Topic Report of Findings From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012-3000). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.

Reiman Rothenberger, L.K. (2008) Students with Disabilities and High School Completion: Systemic Analysis of One Four-year Cohort of Special Education Students in a Large, Urban-Fringe School District. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI Number: 3328513)

Reschly, A.L, and Chistenson S.L. (2006) Prediction of Dropout Among Students With Mild Disabilities: A Case For the Inclusion of Student Engagement Variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (5), 276-292.

Rosenberg, M.S., Westling, D.L., and McLeskey J. (2011) Special Education for Today’s Teachers: An Introduction (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Scanlon, D., and Mellard, D.F. (2002) Academic and Participation Profiles of School-Age Dropouts With and Without Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68 (2), 239-258.

Simpson, R., and Mundschenk, N.A. (2012) Inclusion and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. In A.F. Rotatori, F.E. Obiakor & J.P. Bakken, (Eds). Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD. (pp. 1-22) Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.

Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., and Thurlow M.L. (2005) Promoting School Completion of Urban Secondary Youth With Emotional or Behavioral Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71 (4), 465-482.

Sitlington, P.L., and Neubert D. A. (2004) Preparing Youths with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders for Transition to Adult Life: Can It Be Done Within the Standards-Based Reform Movement? Behavioral Disorders, 29 (3), 279-288.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P. (2005) Changes Over Time In The Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth With Disabilities: A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.

Williams Bost, L., and Riccomini, P.J. (2006) Effective Instruction: An Inconspicuous Strategy for Dropout Prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (5), 301-311.

Research-Related Lesson PlansStudent Teacher’s Name: Anneke Mundel

Date: February 9 & 11, 2016

Lesson Title: Drop-Out Prevention (#1 & 2)

Subject: SPED Social Skills

Instruction time: 15-20 minutes each mini-lesson

Student’s level by grade: 8th/ 9th grade

Standard(s) to be addressed:  21st Century Employability Skills Standards 21.9–12.ES.1Essential Concept and/or Skill: Communicate and work productively with others, incorporating different perspectives and cross cultural understanding, to increase innovation and the quality of work.

21.9–12.ES.2Essential Concept and/or Skill: Adapt to various roles and responsibilities and work flexibly in climates of ambiguity and changing priorities.

21.9–12.ES.3Essential Concept and/or Skill: Demonstrate leadership skills, integrity, ethical behavior, and social responsibility while collaborating to achieve common goals

21.9–12.ES.4Essential Concept and/or Skill: Demonstrate initiative and self–direction through high achievement and lifelong learning while exploring the ways individual talents and skills can be used for productive outcomes in personal and professional life.

21.9–12.ES.5Essential Concept and/or Skill: Demonstrate productivity and accountability by meeting high expectations.

Enduring Understandings/Essential Questions targeted in this lesson (for units created using the Understanding By Design framework only)Dropping out of school has many negative consequences for individuals and society.

Identified student needs and plans for differentiation: 

This lesson was designed with the needs of these particular students in mind. As per Iowa Code section 257.39: “Definition of Potential and Returning Dropouts [….]2. "Potential dropouts" are resident pupils who are enrolled in a public or nonpublic school who demonstrate poor school adjustment as indicated by two or more of the following:a. High rate of absenteeism, truancy, or frequent tardiness.b. Limited or no extracurricular participation or lack of identification with school, including but not limited to, expressed feelings of not belonging.c. Poor grades, including but not limited to, failing in one or more school subjects or grade levels.d. Low achievement scores in reading or mathematics which reflect achievement at least two years or more below grade level.e. Children in grades kindergarten through three who meet the definition of at-risk children adopted by the department of education.” (Note: the majority of the students served in this classroom demonstrate two or more indicators of poor school adjustment, as listed in a, b, c, or d.)

The students served by these lessons all benefit from one-on-one or small group instruction, frequent checks for understanding, visuals, note-taking supports (outlines, skeletal notes, sentence frames, etc.), and verbal responses in some cases. As such, these lessons are taught individually or to groups of 2 students, involve frequent questioning and discussion (checks-for-understanding), include a PowerPoint with key concepts, and involve note-taking supports (i.e. the provision of a “Predictions” worksheet with a few blanks and a Fact Sheet with key information). Furthermore, students with writing challenges may respond verbally rather than in writing to the review/assessment questions.

Day 1: Drop-Out Prevention #1 (The Reasons, The Risks)

Learning Objectives for this lesson (Written using verbs from Bloom’s Taxonomy): 

Students will be able to list at least 4 reasons that students drop out of school and the prevalence of students with disabilities who drop out.

Students will be able to cite at least 2 key features of the high-school equivalency tests.

Specific resources needed for this lesson:      Instructor PPT “Your Predictions” worksheet (pre-assessment) - teacher created “HiSET Fact Sheet” – teacher created

Instructional method(s) used in this lesson:

Direct instruction, small group work and discussion.

Lesson Sequence:

Hook: Share personal experiences and photos of my work as a long-time instructor of high-school “drop-outs”

(through adult literacy and high-school equivalency program). Provide students with the opportunity to ask questions.

Instruction: Distribute “Your Predictions” worksheet. Ask students to guess some of the statistics on drop-outs

(note: these stats will be covered in the PowerPoint). Ask students for their thoughts on why students drop-out; write down responses on a common

“brainstorming” sheet. Provide a list of other reasons for drop-out. Review national statistics on drop-out, asking students to compare their predictions with the actual

numbers and correct their answers where needed. Ask students why few students return to complete their high-school equivalency diplomas. Discuss. Share HiSET Fact Sheet. Have students highlight or checkmark any information that is suprising.

Discuss.

Closure / Informal Assessment: Ask students to say aloud and/or write on an index card at least 4 reasons for drop-out and the

prevalence of students with disabilities dropping out. Preview next class: an examination of consequences of drop out.

Day 2: Drop-Out Prevention #2 (The Consequences)

Learning Objectives for this lesson (Written using verbs from Bloom’s Taxonomy): 

Students will be able to cite at least 3 common outcomes of high-school non-completion.

Specific resources needed for this lesson:      Instructor PPT “Your Predictions (Day 2)” worksheet (pre-assessment) - teacher created Instructor-created PSA (iMovie clip): “Stay in School”

Instructional method(s) used in this lesson:

Direct instruction, small group work and discussion.

Lesson Sequence:

Hook (How will you get students excited about learning/Introduce students to your objectives?): Discuss Ladson-Billings’ quote: “Although possessing a high school diploma is no guarantee of success

in U.S. society, not having one spells certain economic and social failure” (2008, p.466-467). What does she mean? Do students agree/disagree?

Instruction: Ask students what they think life looks like without a diploma. If they need a jump-start, ask them what

kind of work high-school drop-outs typically have, wage rate, etc. Have students fill out the “Your Predictions (Day 2)” worksheet. Review PPT slides on outcomes, prompting students to compare their predictions on outcomes for

students with BDs / EBDs to actual stats.

Closure / Informal Assessment: Ask students to say aloud and/or write on an index card at least 3 common outcomes of high-school

non-completion. Extension Activity - Time-permitting/Depending on ability: Show students my little “Public Service

Announcement” (created on iMovie). Then have students write a mini “ad” on why kids should stay in school and then share this ad with the teacher/peers.