Enhancing coping skills of students at high risk of school dropout is critical, particularly when school demands increase. The data-based Check & Connect school engagement model, originally designed to reduce the risk for dropping out among secondary/middle school youth with learning and emotional/behavioural disabilities, is described. Also described in this article are the students' patterns of school engagement over time, for whom national US statistics indicate only 42 per cent to 61 per cent typically complete high school. Results indicate that the levels of school engagement vary and change over time, among these high risk adolescents, supporting the importance of focusing on alterable indicators of risk, rather than status predictor variables. Furthermore, students' risk for disengagement from school was significantly lower for the youth who received sustained intervention throughout grade nine, compared to similar youth who received intervention support throughout grade eight.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraswellL., & BloomquistM. (1991). Cognitive behavioural therapy for children with attention deficits and hyperactivity: A child, family and school model. New York: Guildford Press.
2.
CatterallJ.S. (1987). On the social costs of dropping out of school. High School Journal, 71, 19–30.
3.
ChristensonS. L., ThurlowM. L., & SinclairM. F. (In press). Goal 2: School Completion. In R. Short & R. Talley, Psychology of education reform: Psychological perspectives on improving America's schools. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4.
ColemanJ. (1987 August-September). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 32–38.
5.
EgyedC. J., McintoshD.E., & BullK.S. (1998). School psychologists' perceptions of priorities for dealing with the dropout problem. Psychology in the Schools, 35(2), 153–162.
6.
EkstromR.B., GoertzM.E., PollackJ.M., & RockD.A.(1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87(3), 356–373.
7.
FineM. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high school. In NatrielloG. (Ed.), School dropouts: Patterns and policies, (pp. 70–88). New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
FinnJ.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59 (2), 117–124.
9.
FinnJ.D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Educational Statistics. Buffalo, NY: State University.
10.
FrazerL.H. & WilkinsonL.S. (1990). At-risk students: Do we know which ones will drop out? Office of Research and Evaluation, Austin Independent School District. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
11.
FrydenbergE. (1997). Adolescent coping: Theoretical and research perspectives.New York: Routledge.
12.
GrannisJ.C. (1994). The dropout prevention initiative in New York City: Educational reforms for at-risk students. In RossiR. J. (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change, (pp. 182–206). New York: Teachers College.
13.
LazarusR.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.New York: Oxford University Press.
MarderC. & D'AmicoR. (1992). How well are youth with disabilities really doing? A comparison of youth with disabilities and youth in general. (SRI International Contract 300-87-0054). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
16.
McPartlandJ.M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In RossiR. J. (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change, (pp. 255–276). New York: Teachers College.
17.
National Centre for Education Statistics. (1997). Dropout rates in the United States: 1996 (NCES 98250). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
18.
RoderickM. (1995, December). Grade retention and school dropout: Policy debate and research questions. The Re-search Bulletin, (No. 15). Bloomington, IN: Centre for Evaluation, Development, and Research and Phi Delta Kappa.
19.
RumbergerR.W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625.
20.
SinclairM. F., ChristensonS. L., HurleyC. & EveloD. (1998). Dropout prevention for high-risk youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7–21.
21.
SmithG. A. (1991). Program planning for at-risk students. In WestL.L. (Ed.), Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth, (pp. 43–74). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publications.
22.
SteinbergL. (1996). Beyond the classroom. NY: Simon & Shuster.
23.
WagnerM. (1991). Dropouts with disabili-ties: What do we know? What can we do? A report from the national longitudinal transition study of special education students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
24.
WolmanC., BruininksR.H. & ThurlowM.L. (1989). Dropouts and dropout pro-grams: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 6–20, 50.
25.
YsseldykeJ.E. & ChristensonS.L. (1993). TIES-II: The Instructional Environment System-II.Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.
