An experimental research design was used to examine the effectiveness of a targeted, long-term intervention to promote school completion and reduce dropout among urban high school students with emotional or behavioral disabilities. African American (67%) males (82%) composed a large portion of the sample. This intervention study was a replication of an empirically supported model referred to as check & connect. Study participants included 144 ninth graders, randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. The majority of youth were followed for 4 years, with a subsample followed for 5 years. Program outcomes included lower rates of dropout and mobility, higher rates of persistent attendance and enrollment status in school, and more comprehensive transition plans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenzM. R.LindstromL.YovanoffP. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.
2.
BlackorbyJ.WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413.
3.
BraswellL.BloomquistM. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for children with attention deficits and hyperactivity: A child, family and school model. New York: Guilford Press.
4.
BronfenbrennerU. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In MoenP.ElderG. H.Jr.LuscherK. (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). Washington, DC: APA Books.
5.
BullisM.MoranT.BenzM. R.TodisB.JohnsonM. D. (2002). Description and evaluation of the ARIES project: Achieving rehabilitation, individualized education, and employment success for adolescents with emotional disturbance. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 41–58.
6.
ChristensonS. L. (1995). Supporting home-school collaboration. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 253–267). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
7.
ChristensonS. L.SinclairM. F.LehrC. A.HurleyC. M. (2000). Promoting successful school completion. In MinkeD.BearG. (Eds.), Preventing school problems—promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 211–257). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
CraneJ., (Ed.) (1998). Social programs that work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
DeStefanoL. (1997). Content analysis of IEP/transition plan goals and objectives. In HasaziS. (Ed.), Final report on state and local efforts to implement the transition requirements of IDEA (pp. 1–53). Burlington: University of Vermont, Center for Transition and Employment.
11.
EliasM. J.ClabbyJ. F. (1992). Building social problem-solving skills: Guidelines from a school-based program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
12.
FinnJ. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (NCES No. 93470)
13.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
14.
LehrC. A.HansenA.SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L. (2003). Moving beyond dropout towards school completion: An integrative review of data-based interventions: School Psychology Review, 32(3), 342–364.
15.
JimersonS. R.EgelandB.SroufeL. A.CarlsonB. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 525–549.
16.
LehrC. A.SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L. (2004). Addressing student engagement and truancy prevention during the elementary school years: A replication study of the check & connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(3), 279–301.
17.
LoganD. (2001). Predicting the high school completion status of students with emotional behavioral disabilities. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Minneapolis.
18.
MastenA. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience process in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.
19.
MastenA. S.CoatsworthJ. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205–220.
20.
NCES. (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2002(NCES No. 2003–060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
21.
OsherD.MorrisonG.BaileyW. (2003). Exploring the relationship between mobility and dropout among students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 79–96.
22.
OsherD. M.OsherT. W. (1996). The national agenda for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance (SED). In NelsonC. M.RutherfordR.B.Jr.WolfordB. I. (Eds.), Comprehensive and collaborative systems that work for troubled youth: A national agenda (pp. 149–164). Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky University, National Juvenile Detention Association.
23.
RumbergerR. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625.
24.
RumbergerR. W.LarsonK. A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school drop out. American Journal of Education, 107, 1–35.
25.
ScanlonD.MellardD. F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school-age dropouts with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 239–258.
26.
SheridanS. (1995). The tough kids social skills book. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
27.
SinclairM.ChristensonS.EveloD.HurleyC. (1998). Dropout prevention for youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65, 7–21.
28.
SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L.LehrC. A.AndersonA. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from check & connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42.
29.
SinclairM. F.KaibelC. (2002, October). Dakota County: Secondary check & connect program. Program evaluation 2002 final summary report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Institute on Community Integration.
30.
SinclairM. F.ThurlowM. L.ChristensonS. L.EveloD. L.LehrC. A.KaibelC. (1997). Check & connect monitoring sheet-revised. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Institute on Community Integration.
31.
ThurlowM.ChristensonS.SinclairM.EveloD.ThorntonH. (1995). Staying in school: Strategies for middle school students with learning & emotional disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Institute on Community Integration.
32.
ThurlowM. L.ChristensonS. L.SinclairM. F.EveloD. L. (1997, Fall). Wanting the unwanted: Keeping those “out of here” kids in school. Beyond Behavior, 10–16.
33.
ThurlowM.L.SinclairM.F.JohnsonD.R. (2002). Issue brief. Students with disabilities who drop out of school—implications for policy and practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, Institute on Community Integration.
34.
U.S. Department of Education (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs.
WagnerM. (1995). Outcomes for youth with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. The Future of Children: Critical Issues for Children and Youth, 5(4), 90–112.
