Student Disengagement

Written by QuiQue on March 17, 2009

“It takes a village to raise a child.” – Ashanti Proverb

“If everyone does a little, nobody has to do a lot.” – Anonymous

Closing the achievement gap almost seems impossible, however, it is  inevitable that one becomes passionate in challenging this notion.  It is possible to increase student achievement and get students to invest in their own learning at a very young age.  Thus, making it more likely that he or she will attain a higher-level degree and ultimately have a more successful career in the long run.  There are many benefits to high student achievement; the obvious ones are more opportunities in almost every category, whether it is career choice, financial, standard of living, and etcetera.  Moreover, the competitive advantage of an education is both priceless and timeless.  Specifically, the knowledge gained though research, study, experience, or lecture cultivates prior knowledge and builds capacity for new innovative ideas to be created and that can be applied to the sciences, mathematics and any other intriguing field of academia. 

The mind is naturally curious; all of us are inherently inquisitive.  We are eager to discover, define, design, develop, and deliver ideas and thoughts that interest us because we instinctively love learning about things that we find “cool”.  The topic of student disengagement is attractive because it encompasses “a bigger picture”, an idea that to keep students on the graduation path, educators or society as a whole must embrace the idea of community and “stepping up their game” to a quality unseen.  More importantly, a community of learners that values high expectations in both academic and discipline is a standard that must be upheld to succeed in preventing student disengagement.  In short, students must be guided and be given opportunities that captivate their academic abilities and skills that may include writing, inquiry, collaboration, and reading. 

Distressed neighborhoods with chaotic beaureaucracies, disorganized support programs, and under-resourced schools face many challenges but a top priority must be student disengagement.  Establishing a culture that encourages active participation and equity is instrumental and are some main elements to creating a successful community of invested learners.  When students fail to graduate high school it is remarkably disappointing because it is a reflection that all vested members of the educational community have not succeeded in making sure that a scholar has attained a benchmark of academic success (H.S. graduation). 

When a student has poor attendance, misbehavior, and course failures it foreshadows the likelihood of them not graduating high school.  I attempt to investigate student disengagement and its impact on high school graduation.  Furthermore, in my conclusion I will give effective suggestions and/or school reforms with regards to attendance, the arts, and other support/intervention programs that keep students involved.  In any case, I am interested in this topic because there are schools with high drop out rates; for example, Roosevelt H.S in the LAUSD system maintains a drop out rate of 60%.  This is astounding and shocking, and presents an immediate concern.

LITERATURE REVIEW

            First of all, after reading many pieces of literature on student engagement it is suggested that a middle or high school students’ decision not to attend school regularly, or misbehave, or to expend low effort are all consequential behavior indicators of a students growing disengagement from school and therefore might be strongly predictive of them dropping out (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007).  Understanding these basics, and knowing that when a student fails a course it increases the likelihood of a young adolescent to perceive their failures as out of their control. 

            The identification of at-risk students is necessary to provide the best services and intervention programs to facilitate a model of success for the scholar.  High school dropouts have been a concern for over the last 50 years, especially for kids living in poverty.  On the contrary, there are many dynamics that are impacting student engagement or in general the diverse student population.  To illustrate, “changes such as more departmentalized staffing, larger class sizes, different assessment, grading, testing, and reporting practices, and more challenging and complex instructional programs…”(p.224 Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007).  There are many push and pull factors that contribute to the disengagement of students that are both academic and social.  These demands are straining and can push students off the graduation path.  Other examples of these push factors are “high degrees of bullying, fighting, teacher turnover, and even teacher vacancies (Balfanz, Ruby, & Mac Iver, 2002; Ruby, 2002; Useem, Offenberg, & Farley, 2007).  In essence, these various factors that students may experience in high-poverty neighborhoods conclude that their time spent in school is not worthwhile because they do not feel protected, included, valued, or basically feel like nothing productive is going on.

Student disengagement is described as a definite concern to educators nationwide because disengaged students lack the psychological investment necessary to master academic knowledge and skills (Pellerin, 2005).   Learning to mastery is the goal of any scholar, however, it is a challenge to accomplish because if a student refuses to participate in his or her own learning it becomes difficult to practice or build any prior or new knowledge.  On the contrary, it should be noted that all educators should never view a scholar as deficient, rather as different and must adapt accordingly.  In other words, deficient implies that one is lacking and cannot do it (counterproductive), whereas, the difference orientation is more positive and encourages practicability and effective solution(s) to keeping the student engaged.  In any case, one of the strongest indicators of student disengagement is the physical withdrawal from school, which includes behaviors like chronic tardiness and ditching. 

According to family researchers four main parental socialization styles have been indentified and will be used as an overlying analogy for schools.  The four socialization styles include the following (Baumrind 1967, 1978, 1991; Maccobyand & Martin 1983):

·      Authoritative – high demandingness (high standards for behavior and maturity, & firm enforcement of rules) and high responsiveness (warmth, open communication, and respect for the developmental needs of the child).

·      Authoritarian – high demandingness and low responsiveness

·      Permissive – low demandingness and high responsiveness

·      Indifferent – minimal effort; low responsiveness and low demands.  Affection may be provided inconsistently or not at all.

It is important grasp the aforementioned concepts; it serves as an analogy or model of thinking to interpret the concept that a school with these general characteristics will impact student achievement/engagement. The goal is to get student to finish what they started, complete what they he or she began, in consequence, being aware of these socialization styles can broaden your insight to student disengagement and the important role of vested members of the educational community.

            Schools are an institution and absolutely are agents of socialization.  School is a place where it could be alienating or engaging, strict or lax, have high standards or low.  In addition, schools are complex organizations and they become more advanced as one moves up though the grades (k-12).  Another significant factor is school climate that includes the teacher-student relationship, for instance, a positive student teacher climate would resemble an interpersonal relationship that values trust personal attention, academic press, and student attachment to the school (Pellerin, 2005).    These qualities follow guidelines described/outlined by the authoritative socialization style; particularly having high expectations for both academics and discipline will enrich student success and increase the likelihood of staying on the graduation path.  In short, when a student is exposed to conditions that adhere to an authoritative style, the opportunity of success is more probable when compared to a student learning in a school climate that is authoritarian, permissive and indifferent in styles.

HYPOTHESIS

People of the lower class (low SES) are more likely to be disengaged and stay off the graduation path, receiving a level of education less than high school.

This hypothesis is a reflection of the perception that underserved communities lack the access to the technologies or the services to complete with the resources that are available to the middle class / upper class.

Higher expectations in both academics and discipline are equally valued in all social classes.  On the contrary the quality or equity is distinct throughout the classes.  Moreover, the disengagement of students is affected by the quality of schooling, teacher-student climate, and other counterproductive factors that contribute to staying on the graduation path. 

METHODS

To begin with, the data for this research was collected from the General Social Survey Database (GSS 1998), which contains the nation’s longest running surveys of cultural, social, and political indicators. 

The sample consisted of 38,836 participants pulled from the GSS.  The respondents were asked to share the highest level of education they received, varying from less than high school, high school, * postsecondary education.  The demographics of the study included 20,003 women and 16,833 men who were grouped into four social classes, which included lower class, working class, middle class, and upper class.

To maximize the GSS resource it was imperative that a more simplistic table was created.  At first, the data was presented as set of data that consisted of an explicit list of levels of education.  Therefore, to contextualize the information and connect it back to the topic of investigation, the data was manipulated to show levels of education as y and social classes as x. 

One variable is DEGREE, the description of the variable is, “If finished 9^th-12^th grade: Did you ever get a high school diploma or a GED certificate?” (GSS, 1972-2006).  The possible responses were these labels; LT High School, high school, junior college, bachelor, graduate, don’t know and non applicable.  On the contrary, the data was organized to illustrate both social classes and levels of education. 

RESULTS

In order to create the cross-tabulation of data, the label DEGREE was entered as the independent variable and the label DEGREE1 was entered as the dependent variable in the row.  When the data was entered the data was cross-tabulated creating tables 1 and 2. 

TABLE  1

Cross-Tabulation. Relationship between Level of Education and Achievement by Social Class.

Social Class

Level of Education

Lower Class

Working Class

Middle Class

Upper Class

LT High School

82.8

81.2

53.3

29.1

High School

7.6

6.8

6.0

3.6

College/Degree

9.6

12.0

40.8

67.4

Totals

100.0

(484)

100.0

(7,290)

100.0

(8,421)

100.0

(639)

TABLE 2

Cross Tabulation with a control Variable. Relationship between Respondent’s Gender, level of education, and Achievement by Social Class

Sex 

Males

Females

Social Class

Social Class

Level Of Education

Lower Class

Working Class

Middle Class

Upper Class

Lower Class

Working Class

Middle Class

Upper Class

LT High School

82.8

81.2

53.3

29.1

88.7

80.2

62.2

47.1

High School

7.6

6.8

6.0

3.6

6.1

7.3

6.9

5.9

College

/Degree

9.6

12.0

40.8

67.4

5.2

12.5

31.0

47.0

Totals

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

(484)

(7,290)

(8,421)

(639)

(708)

(8,825)

(9,822)

(647)

DISCSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results did support my hypotheses, the poor class had a higher percentage of people attaining a lower than a High School level of education.  Even when looking at the percentages for the working class, they are significantly high in the category of LT HIGH SCHOOL. 

Three main assumptions are being made in support of the hypotheses, they are the following:

-Students of the lower SES (i.e. poor & working class) will attend schools that are not authoritative.

-Students of the lower SES are economically disadvantaged and challenged to stay on the graduation path due to push and pull factors (as described in Literature Review).

-Students of the higher SES are more likely to stay on the graduation path and continue to postsecondary education.

According to a study researched by Johns Hopkins University, “one clear finding from prior work on dropout predictors is that, although different students begin their disengagement from school for different reasons, two clear paths emerge: one rooted primarily in academic struggle and failure another grounded more in behavioral reactions to the school environment (misbehavior in school or a demonstrated aversion to attending school] (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007).  And by examining the predictive indicators that include poor attendance, misbehavior and course failures, it can be used to identify at-risk students.  Again, an at-risk student is one described as not graduating from high school.  Perhaps, these indicators do not account for all students who do not stay on the graduation path (k-12), but they are essential because the data illustrates substantive circumstances.  Determining if a scholar will graduate is influenced by a variety of push and pull factors.

The implications of this research is daunting, to the extent that impoverished communities will continue to underperform and maintain the cycle of poverty.  In other words, the percentage of people of low SES shows a majority not completing high school.  With that finding, it endorses other research that higher levels of education will increase your salary/pay.  Studies have shown that a person receiving a college degree will on average make a million dollars more over their lifetime when compared to a high school dropout.  Therefore, when the lower social classes continue to maintain status quo, which in this case is defined by not finishing high school, it prevents them from improving their standard of living.

Lastly, schools must embrace and continue to build a community of learners where values reflect an authoritative style.  It is most effective because it encourages high expectations and gets scholars to rise to the occasion and meet the challenging standards being set forth.  It establishes a high quality of guidelines for students to learn and master, then continue its tradition of ‘high demandingness and high responsiveness’.  Urban school or underserved communities need to professionally develop and integrate the ideals of an authoritative style because it will more likely get students to invest in their learning, stay on the graduation path, and even go on to postsecondary education.