By Caryn R. London
This issue ofNASET’s Classroom Management series was written by Caryn R. London. As required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), states must submit yearly reports to The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that disclose the state’s collective performance for meeting specific targets that measure the implementation and performance of IDEA requirements, as reported by Local Education Agencies (U. S. Department of Education, 2023, August 21). The dropout rate of students ages 14-21 with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) is one specific target. This target is calculated by examining all six categories for exiting special education and school in general (graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, aged out, and died), and then dividing this number by only the students that dropped out (U. S. Department of Education, 2023, April 16). When this statistic is compared to students without disabilities, it is clear that students with disabilities are at a greater risk for dropping out of school (Stark & Noel, 2015; McFarland et al., 2016). While transition planning within student IEPs and yearly monitoring is required per IDEA, students with disabilities are still more likely to drop out of school compared to their non-disabled peers (MacFarland et al., 2019). Unfortunately research focusing on dropout prevention specifically for students with disabilities is limited.
Evidence-Based Practices for Dropout Prevention for Students with Disabilities
As required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), states must submit yearly reports to The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that disclose the state’s collective performance for meeting specific targets that measure the implementation and performance of IDEA requirements, as reported by Local Education Agencies (U. S. Department of Education, 2023, August 21). The dropout rate of students ages 14-21 with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) is one specific target. This target is calculated by examining all six categories for exiting special education and school in general (graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, aged out, and died), and then dividing this number by only the students that dropped out (U. S. Department of Education, 2023, April 16). When this statistic is compared to students without disabilities, it is clear that students with disabilities are at a greater risk for dropping out of school (Stark & Noel, 2015; McFarland et al., 2016). While transition planning within student IEPs and yearly monitoring is required per IDEA, students with disabilities are still more likely to drop out of school compared to their non-disabled peers (MacFarland et al., 2019). Unfortunately research focusing on dropout prevention specifically for students with disabilities is limited.
In 2008, What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) published the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Practice Guide, Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008-4025),that provided a set of recommendations for school practices and policies to target dropout prevention (Dynarski et al., 2008). With each recommendation the guide cultivates current research for each strategy and determines how effective the evidence-based strategy is. In 2017, WWC published an updated IES Practice Guide, Preventing Dropout in Secondary Schools (NCEE 2017-4028), condensing the current literature into four general recommendations (Rumberger et al., 2017). Both WWC publications include research focusing on students with disabilities, yet it is not a focal point.
In 2014, researchers Wilkins and Huckabee reviewed over 500 journal articles on dropout prevention strategies, but found that only 19 actually focused on students with disabilities (Wilkins & Huckabee, 2014). Sullivan and Sadeh (2016) systematically reviewed experimental or quasi-experimental research designs that focused on emotional disorders and school dropout. Following a comprehensive search across more than fifty online databases spanning the years 1990 to 2014, Sullivan and Sadeh (2016) identified only one study that met the criteria for inclusion. Foreman-Murray et al. (2022) reviewed thirteen studies focused on dropout prevention for students with disabilities, and while it was difficult to compare data, they did find two common factors that support students with disabilities to stay in school.
The existing body of research on dropout prevention specifically for students with disabilities appears to be limited. From the existing literature available, the following interventions are recommended for dropout prevention for students with disabilities.
Build Relationships
When comparing studies focused on dropout prevention for students with disabilities, an aggregated common indicator for students with disabilities to remain in school is student engagement with the school (Foreman-Murray et al., 2022; Wilkins et al., 2014). While this concept may vary with terms, student engagement with the school increases the student’s sense of belonging to the school, and is linked to students with disabilities’ persistence in school (Wang et al., 2017). Student engagement with the school includes student participation in learning activities, interactions with social companions and behavioral engagement (Wang et al., 2017). A common strategy to increase student belonging is to provide mentors to students with disabilities.
Providing mentors to students with disabilities increases the possibility that they will graduate from high school (Sublett & Chang, 2019; Wilkins & Huckabee, 2014). Per Wilkins and Huckabee (2014), increasing mentoring services is the most common intervention amongst the literature that includes students with disabilities. Mentors increase a student’s sense of belonging in school by providing emotional and academic support and encouraging participation in extracurricular activities, as well as monitor attendance, grades and behavior (Wilkins et al., 2014). If a formal mentor program is not available, informal opportunities to build relationships with adults at school are also found to increase the possibility that students with disabilities will graduate from high school (Wilkins et al., 2014). Pairing incoming high school students with current high school students is another mentoring method that can help with the transition to high school and participation in extracurricular activities (Wilkins et al., 2014).
Another way for educators to build relationships with their students to increase student engagement is to directly explain the real-life relevance of the content area and skills. This is enhanced by incorporating the student’s interests into the planned activities and work experience skills (Foreman-Murray et al., 2022; Wilkins et al., 2014). Incorporating choices into lessons and including real work skills are additional ways for students to feel invested in what they are learning (Foreman-Murray et al., 2022).
Policy Flexibility
Flexibility in graduation policies can help improve graduation rates for students with disabilities. Alternative diploma options allow flexibility in graduation options that best meet the needs of the student with disabilities (Wilkins & Huckabee, 2014; Foreman-Murray et al., 2022). Alternative diploma programs should only be recommended if absolutely necessary, as they should be used to retain student engagement and not cause students to feel disconnected from their school (Foreman-Murray et al., 2022). The students academic, social and emotional needs should always be considered. If an IEP team determines that opting for an alternative diploma would enhance the student’s well-being and enable them to remain in school, intentional decisions should be made to improve student engagement and foster a sense of connection to their school (Foreman-Murray et al., 2022).
Alternative diplomas may take many forms and vary between states. If determined the optimal choice for the student, the student may be eligible for a diploma that includes work experience and/or a skills certificate. Policy exemptions for exit exams and graduation requirements are additional options that can help improve graduation rates (Wilkins & Huckabee, 2014).
Flexible Settings
Offering flexibility to learn in a context and setting that suits the students’ individual needs is another evidenced-based recommendation for students with disabilities. Providing flexible options gives students control over when they learn (Sublett & Chang, 2019). Students can plan their learning for an environment they are physically comfortable in and where they feel cognitively and emotionally prepared (Sublett & Chang, 2019). Online learning allows students with disabilities to deviate from a preset schedule and choose to engage in their learning material through various formats that best work for them in a comfortable environment (Sublett & Chang, 2019). Students are also able to move as they need to, liberating physical constraints and allowing breaks as needed (Sublett & Chang, 2019).
Flexible settings also allow a reprieve from situations that may trigger social anxiety and hinder learning (Shah, 2011). Online learners can use the methods of communication they are most comfortable with, as opposed to the traditional classroom that relies on speaking. Dynarski et al. (2008) argue that the flexibility of online learning can actually increase engagement, as students can participate in emails, discussion forums, phone calls, and synchronous and asynchronous video learning.
Conclusion
The identified recommendations emphasize the pivotal role of building relationships, policy flexibility, and flexible learning settings. Mentoring programs, flexible graduation requirements and online learning contribute to increased student engagement and a sense of belonging. In addition to these recommendations, researchers agree that more long-term studies are needed to measure how effective dropout prevention strategies are for students with disabilities. The existing literature provides valuable insight for preventing students with disabilities from dropping out of high school and ample opportunities for future research on evidence-based interventions specifically for students with disabilities. With more effective dropout prevention strategies, educators can exceed the reporting requirements of IDEA to OSEP and reduce the risk for students with disabilities dropping out of school.
References
Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/dp_pg_090308.pdf
Foreman-Murray, L., Krowka, S., & Majeika, C. E. (2022). A systematic review of the literature related to dropout for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 66(3), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2022.2037494
McFarland, J., Cui, J., Holmes, J., & Wang, X. (2019). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2019 (NCES 2020-117). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020117
McFarland, J., Stark, P., & Cui, J. (2016). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2013 (No. NCES 2016-117). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016117rev.pdf
Rumberger, R., Addis, H., Allensworth, E., Balfanz, R., Bruch, J., Dillon, E., Duardo, D., Dynarski, M., Furgeson, J., Jayanthi, M., Newman-Gonchar, R., Place, K., & Tuttle, C. (2017). Preventing dropout in secondary schools (NCEE 2017-4028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_dropout_092617.pdf
Shah, N. (2011). eLearning access for special-needs students. Education Week, 31(1), S2–S4.Sublett, C., & Chang, Y. (2019). Logging in to press on: An examination of high school dropout and completion among students with disabilities in online courses. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(2), 106-119 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418795841
Sullivan, A. L., & Sadeh, S. (2016). Does the empirical literature inform prevention of dropout among students with emotional disturbance? A systematic review and call to action. Exceptionality, 24(4), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196440
Stark, P., & Noel, A. M. (2015). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972–2012 (No. NCES 2015-015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015015.pdf
U. S. Department of Education. (2023, August 16). How the department made determinations – Part B – 2023. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/how-the-department-made-determinations-part-b-2023/
U. S. Department of Education. (2023, August 21). State performance plans/Annual performance reports (SPP/APR). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/spp-apr/#:~:text=State%20Performance%20Plans%2FAnnual%20Performance%20Reports%20(SPP%2FAPR),-Home%20%C2%BB%20State%20Performance&text=The%20SPP%2FAPRs%20include%20indicators,at%20least%20every%20six%20years
Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., & Linn, J. S. (2017). Conceptualization and assessment of adolescents’ engagement and disengagement in school: A multidimensional school engagement scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 592–606. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000431
Wilkins, J., & Huckabee, S. (2014). A literature map of dropout prevention interventions for students with disabilities. Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED571791
Wilkins, J., Ruddle, K., Paitsel, S., Duffield, K., Minch, A., Hesson, C., Baker, S., Harper, S., & Lanai Jennings, R. (2014). Increasing graduation rates for students with disabilities: Success stories from West Virginia. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(3), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051403300302
To Access this Article
To download a PDF file version of this issue of NASET’s Classroom Management Series: Click here
