low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) dropouts

Dianne Sandiford
Edge 6101

Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196-203.

Introduction
In the article, Predictors of Categorical At-Risk High School Dropouts, the authors, Suh, Suh, and Houston, conducted a study to find out why students were choosing to drop out of high school instead of graduating. The purpose of the study was to “identify and compare” the different factors responsible for this particular behavior among each of three specific at-risk groups: students of low-socioeconomic status (SES), poor academic achievers, and students frequently suspended from school.
This research and others like it are important because “dropping out” is like an epidemic in the high school population. According to Suh, Suh, & Houston (2007), previous researchers have mulled over the reasoning behind students’ actions and, in so doing, some have focused on academics, behavioral, and attitudinal problems (as cited in Janosz, Blanc, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 2000). However, the authors of this study have viewed the problem through different lenses; they have studied “dropping out” from a different angle. They are going at it from the students’ background and environment. This particular study will fit into previous, present and future researches because it will add new insight to what is already there and put forth reasoning from another perspective for those who have greater vision.
Summary of Method
In their research, the authors used three approaches. First, they looked at the grade point average (GPA) of the suspended and the low-SES students. Second, they looked at different and common factors between the at-risk and not-at risk students. Lastly, they compared the different triggers that culminated in the behavior or mindset of students within each of the three groups. The authors examined about twenty variables to determine which one (s) were responsible. In addition, the authors were cognizant that the period surrounding age 15/grade 8 posed challenges and kept that in mind as they conducted their study. The variables chosen were representative of experiences within the family, in school, with self, and behavioral, and were independently measured. Results were consistent with the findings of other studies done.
Results
Results indicated that one, variables, when measured independently, showed that students at an early age or early in their educational development had entertained the notion of dropping out as an alternative for their lack of coping skills; two, variables were inter-related; and three, that a combination of any of these variables were responsible for student dropouts from any of the three at-risk groups. The foremost conclusion was the need for “multi-faceted” intervention. Findings were consistent with previous researches mentioned earlier in the article. Issues surrounding family, school, and self were major players in students’ decisions to drop out of school. As cited in Chavez, Belkin, Hornback, & Adams, 1991, “Variables that influence school dropout appear to come from various domains, such as, individual, family, and school” Suh, Suh, Houston 2007 (p. 196).
Conclusion
From all that was presented in the study, the findings seemed to justify what was previously presumed. More concentrated thought or vision by the authors towards the problem has urged them to suggest more in-depth interventions that would address the other variables plaguing low-SES at-risk students. For instance, low GPA, a variable of interest, was not the sole independent variable that caused the student’s educational downfall. Factors, such as lateness, absenteeism, threats, fights, behavioral and emotional problems, movement from school to school, optimism about the future, suspension, mother’s permissiveness, low SES and not having money to buy school supplies, level of educational attainment of mother or other family members, peers and their outlook on the need/lack of interest for education, and becoming sexually active too early, all could have contributed to the low grade point average (GPA). Sex was another predictor that the authors singled out. It was a by-product of other factors like behavioral and emotional problems, not being able to communicate with family and, thus, sharing personal problems and seeking advice from inexperienced school friends, lack of optimism about the future, and mother’s permissiveness. Extra reading on the topic brought me upon a couple other studies with similar results which I will briefly describe below. The first is a study in which students shared their thoughts, and the second, another study that was done from yet another but similar perspective.
Contributions
These other researches confirm similar findings. The article, Why Students Drop Out, by Amy M. Azzam, was a study by Civic Enterprises for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This was a study in which the dropouts shared their thoughts and feelings to the questions of why they chose to drop out of school. Azzam (2007) in her abstract stated the top five reasons given by the dropouts. They dropped out because they were bored, unable to catch up due to missed days, influenced by others who were not interested in school, felt rejected because no one cared enough to set rules to their lives, and failed academically.
The other study in the article, Differential Developmental Pathways of High School Dropouts and Graduates, by Hickman, Bartholomew, and Mathwig posed two research questions. They wanted to know if students who dropped out were wired differently to those who did not drop out, and if they did, at what developmental stage did it happen and how did it show itself. Like others studies they looked at GPA, absenteeism, family and demographics. Except for the second study’s extra findings, both studies paralleled themselves with that of the findings for the study by Suh, Suh, & Houston. From my own experience in teaching I have encountered situations where, because of low-SES, students are affected by variables that interfere with their academic performance and which, if not addressed in its early stages, would have resulted in their dropping out of school.
Summary
To an adult educator, these researches/studies are important because they provide information that could assist in understanding the mindset of the individuals they might encounter; and two, knowing how to construct a curriculum to meet their needs. Overall, the study was relevant to my particular field of study. The strength of the study was the manner in which it was carried out. The procedures were presented in a clear logical manner that could easily be followed. The weakness was in the presentation of the statistical data. It required someone versed in such matters to interpret and understand the data listed. Other than that, the research and findings seemed valid and the authors’ suggestions for delivering comprehensive interventions are worth heeding in order to put a halt to this alternative plan of students.





References

Azzam, A. M. (2007). Why students drop out. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 91-93.
Retrieved September 29, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Hickman, G. P., Bartholomew, M., & Mathwig, J. (2008). Differential developmental pathways
of high school dropouts and graduates. The Journal of Educational Research 102 (1), 3-13.
Retrieved September 21, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196-203. Retrieved September 21, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/