_______________________________________________
Resources
From your perspective, what resources are necessary for a substantial improvement in the dropout rate?
- Smaller class sizes
- Professionally appropriate student – guidance counselor ratios (UFT)
- Dropout prevention handbook for Principals, parents, teachers and students
- An early warning system designed to identify probable dropout in sixth and ninth grades (research by Gates, Carnegie, 2006)
- Universal pre-K.
Comment
Procedures
What procedures need to be changed in order to significantly impact potential dropouts?
- City and State must align their nomenclature and measurements.
- Schools must develop different ‘exit interviews’ before allowing student to dropout. Exit interview should include family counseling, vocational counseling and referral as well as academic counseling.
Comment
Policies
What policies do you think the school and the government need to adopt to curb the dropout rate?
- Raise the age of the compulsory school law from 16 to 17 or 18 in New York State.
- Establish an office of oversight to monitor dropout rate, school by school and citywide.
- Establish a task force on dropouts under the Center for Economic Opportunity that includes Department of Education, New York State Education Department, DYCD, OCFS, community based organizations and universities to facilitate a coordinated effort to stop the dropout epidemic.
Comment
Training/Professional Development
What professional training is necessary to prepare school personnel to curb the dropput rate and create a climate of mutual respect in the school?
- School-based staff should have professional development in identifying and intervening with potential dropouts. A certificate in dropout prevention might be issued to high school staff upon completion of the training, comparable to child abuse or sexuality and family living certifications.
Comment
1 comment:
One of the resources reccomended by this work group is to "identify early warning signs of s drop out." I submit that there is no other predictor or early warning sign than when a students is referred to one of the fastest growing, underground, stealth operated alternative placements or suspension centers.
Presently the NYC DoE has systemitized and encouraged academic discconects and separation with the implementation of its suspension centers. These centers are located in various school districts, in existing schools hidden away in the far corners of the building or in stand alone programs in their own school buildings. In order for a student to be referred to these sites thay must have committed a serious infraction of the discipline code (another warning sign of becoming a drop out). Then based on their consequence they are either sent to one of the district run sites where they have terms of 6 to 90 days or they are sent to one of the second opportunity sites where they must remain for a term of one year. At these sites they continue their education and allegedly receive support services to address the root causes of their suspending causing behaviors. But in actuality students are warehoused and receive a separate and unequal educational experience in violation of Brown v Board. The students only receive their core studies there is no opportunity to take electives which are needed for graduation and promotion,the facilities usually lack access to a gym and/or library, some reported cases document poor ventilation and other health hazzards. We guarantee students "free and appropriate education" and this arrangement makes a mockery of that federal requirement and legal precedents such as Brown. Those programs are separate and unequal. In various instances due to not being able to attract teachers desiring to work in this setting, teachers are unlicensed or working out of licensed areas. These centers came into existence and are rapidly rising due to the zero tolerance policies enacted due to NCLB. Funding streams are accessed when school districts demonstrate zero tolerance policies. The result is the educational marginalization of an already existing poorly served population and a further increase of the drop out rates. A remedy could be to follow the model of more progressive settings. Instead of using zero tolerance policies that causes academic disconnects and push away situations for students we should explore restorative practices as a theory to use that actually brings the students and family closer to services when they transgress behaviorally. Students that in the past would be identified for suspension should receive services implemented by the Intensive Case Management approach. They (and their families) would receive additional supports based on comprehensive evaulations while remaining in the school setting. This would help the student to practice compliance in the very same setting that he is expected to perform. Another reason that schools choose to suspend is that the behaviorally challenged student also has the lower test scores on standardized testing. This is a way to eliminate a pool of students that may negatively affect that schools overall achievement profile. Which is all tied into revenue. These centers are in partnerships with various cbos that are contracted to provide various support services. They do so without any monitoring or requirement to attain certain benchmarks. There should be external and periodic audits to ensure the provision of services and contract compliance.
I can go on, but I believe thatthe DoE has already begun to identify early warning signs of drop outs. The only challenge is that they are being warehoused instead of receiving interventions that would prevent them from landing in drop out categories. We could immediately positively impact the drop out rates by focusing on this issue. I look forward to working with you.
Wayne Harris
718 812 5927
Post a Comment