The Academy at Old Cockrill: An Examination of At

Transcription

The Academy at Old Cockrill:
An Examination of At-Risk Indicators and Resilient Students
Claire L. Jasper, Emily S. Medlock, and Millie A. Norwood
Under the Direction of Dr. Keith Nikolaus, Professor of Education
Lipscomb University
THE ACADEMY AT OLD COCKRILL
ii
Approval
This Capstone Project, directed and approved by the candidate’s Juried Review
Committee, has been accepted by the Doctor of Education Program of Lipscomb
University’s College of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree.
By
Claire L. Jasper
Emily S. Medlock
Millie A. Norwood
for the degree of
Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)
Juried Review Committee
iii
Authors’ Permission Statement
Claire L. Jasper
Emily S. Medlock
Millie A. Norwood
Program Doctor of Education
Print Reproduction Permission Granted
I understand that I must submit printed copies of my Capstone Project Manuscript
(hereafter referred to as “manuscript”) to the Lipscomb University Library, per current
LU guidelines, for the completion of my degree. I hereby grant to Lipscomb University
and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible my manuscript in
whole or in part in all forms of media in perpetuity. I retain all other ownership rights to
the copyright of the manuscript. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as
articles or books) all or part of this manuscript.
I hereby grant permission to Lipscomb University to reproduce my manuscript in whole
or in part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.
I additionally grant to the Lipscomb University Library the nonexclusive license to
archive and provide electronic access to my manuscript in whole or in part in all forms of
media in perpetuity. I understand that my work, in addition to its bibliographic record
and abstract, will be available to the world-wide community of scholars and researchers
through the LU Library. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the
manuscript. I am aware that Lipscomb University does not require registration of
copyright for the electronic manuscript.
I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached written permission
statements from the owners of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my
manuscript. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my
committee.
iv
Acknowledgements
The Academy at Old Cockrill research team would like to acknowledge the many
people who contributed to the success of this Capstone Project. First, we are greatly
appreciative of the faculty and staff of the Lipscomb University College of Education for
providing us the opportunity to fulfill our lifelong dream of attaining a doctoral degree.
In particular, we appreciate the members of our juried review committee, Dr. Trace
Hebert, Dr. Roger Wiemers, and Dr. Junior High, for their support and their scholarly
advice. Next, we would like to thank the inaugural cohort of which we are a part. The
friendships we have developed, and the support along the journey have been invaluable.
We would like to thank our client, The Academy at Old Cockrill, for allowing us
the opportunity to work with them. Their dedication and contribution to educational
research is valued. A special thanks to Principal Elaine Fahrner for her commitment to
her students, her school, and this research project.
The Academy at Old Cockrill research team would like to express our deepest
regards to our academic advisor, Dr. Keith Nikolaus. We appreciate his insightful and
constructive feedback throughout this process. We cannot express how much your
encouraging words and generosity of time have meant to our team.
It is with the upmost gratitude that we acknowledge our families for their
patience, understanding, and unconditional love. Although we have been absent at times
over the last two years, you have continued to show your unwavering support. It is
through your encouragement that we have successfully completed our doctoral studies.
Finally, we are thankful to our heavenly Father for his wisdom, guidance, and
strength throughout this educational journey. With Him, all things are possible.
v
Abstract
The urgency to meet federal and state guidelines for graduation rates, as set forth by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, resulted in the creation of dropout prevention
programs such as the Academy at Old Cockrill in the Metropolitan Nashville Public
School District. Students at the Academy have characteristics that enhance their
likelihood for success and may possess indicators other than the Balfanz indicators
related to attendance, suspensions, and course failures that could be more useful in
identifying students at-risk for dropping out of high school and for utilization in program
development and implementation. This research study focused on identifying indicators
beyond the Balfanz at-risk indicators of high school dropouts that students at The
Academy at Old Cockrill may possess. The researchers examined the characteristic of
resiliency as it relates to program structure and persistence to graduation. Finally, the
researchers identified the characteristics of the AOC program that make it a successful
intervention for at-risk students. This study revealed that participants exhibited the
Balfanz markers to a statistically significant degree. However, the presence of other
indicators found in the body of research was prevalent and had a greater impact on
student resiliency and the persistence to graduation.
Table of Contents
Approval ...........................................................................................ii
Authors Permission Statement ..........................................................iii
Acknowledgements ...........................................................................iv
Abstract .............................................................................................v
Table of Contents ..............................................................................vi
List of Tables .....................................................................................ix
Introduction .......................................................................................1
Context ..................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ......................................................4
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................4
Significance of the Study .......................................................5
Research Questions and Hypotheses .....................................6
Research Questions ...................................................6
Null Hypotheses ........................................................6
Theoretical Perspective Guiding Research ...........................10
Scope and Bounds ..................................................................16
List of Symbols/Abbreviations/Nomenclature .....................17
Summary ...............................................................................21
Review of Literature ..........................................................................24
The Dropout Crisis .................................................................24
Dropout Factories.......................................................27
The State of Tennessee ..............................................28
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools .....................32
At-Risk Factors ......................................................................33
Individual Related Factors .....................................................34
Poor Academic Performance/Engagement ................34
Grade Retention .........................................................37
Early Adult Responsibilities ......................................38
Bad Attitude/Poor Choices ........................................39
Student Mobility ........................................................40
Future Opportunities ..................................................40
Family Related Factors ..........................................................40
Family Turmoil ..........................................................41
Low Socio-Economic Status ......................................41
Ethnicity .....................................................................42
Lack of Parental Support/Involvement ......................43
School Related Factors ..........................................................43
School Organization...................................................44
Lack of Teacher and Administrator Support .............44
Lack of Relevant and Challenging Curriculum .........45
Discipline Problems at School ...................................46
Resilient Students...................................................................47
vi
`
Prevention and Intervention ...................................................51
Middle School ............................................................52
High School ...............................................................54
An Early Warning System .........................................55
Best Practices of Successful Schools .........................56
Intervention ................................................................57
Summary ................................................................................61
Methodology… ..................................................................................64
Research Design.....................................................................64
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................65
Research Questions ................................................................66
Null Hypotheses .....................................................................66
Population, Research Participants, and Sampling
Procedures Used.....................................................................70
Instrumentation ......................................................................71
Data Collection Procedures....................................................73
Quantitative Data Collection Procedures ...................73
Qualitative Data Collection Procedures .....................74
Variables in the Study ............................................................76
Description of Risk ................................................................77
Data Analysis and Findings ...............................................................78
Demographic Analysis ...........................................................78
Quantitative Analysis .............................................................80
Qualitative Analysis ...............................................................104
Student Experiences Prior to Attending AOC ...........104
Student Experiences While Attending AOC..............106
Student Feelings about the Faculty and
Administration at AOC ..............................................107
Summary ....................................................................107
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................109
Research Question Findings ..................................................109
Research Question 1 ..................................................109
Summary of Findings .............................................................119
Limitations of the Study.........................................................122
Conclusions ............................................................................124
Discussion ..............................................................................126
Recommendations for Further Research ................................133
Implications............................................................................134
vii
Supplementary Pages .........................................................................136
References ..............................................................................136
Appendices .............................................................................146
Appendix A. Participant Informed Consent Letter ....146
Appendix B. Parental Informed Consent Letter ........149
Appendix C. Questionnaire Instructions ....................152
Appendix D. The Resilience ScaleTM ........................153
Appendix E. The Resilience ScaleTM Terms of Use ..154
Appendix F. AOC Questionnaire...............................157
Appendix G. Focus Group Questions ........................159
Appendix H. Client Permission and Access
for Research ...............................................................160
Appendix I. Human Subject Form Certificate
of Completion ............................................................166
Appendix J. IRB Approval ........................................167
Appendix K. Metropolitan Nashville Public School
Approval for Research ...............................................168
Appendix L. Research Questions with Null
Hypotheses .................................................................169
Appendix M. Null Hypotheses Analysis ..................174
Appendix N. Transcript of Focus Group ...................176
Biography and Contribution to the Research Study ..............199
Claire L. Jasper ..........................................................199
Emily S. Medlock ......................................................200
Millie A. Norwood .....................................................201
Contributions to the Research Study..........................202
viii
ix
List of Tables
Table
Page
1. Age of 2010-2011 Cohort ..................................................................79
2. Descriptive Statistics for Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators in
2010-2011 Cohort ..............................................................................80
3. One-Sample Test for Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators and the
Test Value of Zero .............................................................................80
4. Chi-Square Analysis of Status and At-Risk Indicator of
Attendance .........................................................................................81
Suspensions .......................................................................................82
Course Failures ..................................................................................83
7. Chi-Square Analysis of Status and Total of Balfanz
At-Risk Indicators .............................................................................84
8. Chi-Square Analysis of Individual At-Risk Indicator and
Attendance At-Risk Indicator ...........................................................85
Suspensions At-Risk Indicator ..........................................................86
Course Failures At-Risk Indicator ....................................................87
11. Chi-Square Analysis of Family At-Risk Indicator and
14. Chi-Square Analysis of School At-Risk Indicator and
17. Independent T-Test Analysis of Individual At-Risk Indicator
and Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators ...............................................94
18. Independent T-Test Analysis of Family At-Risk Indicator and
Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators ...................................................... 95
19. Independent T-Test Analysis of School At-Risk Indicator and
Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators ......................................................96
20. Descriptive Statistics for Resilience Score in the 2010-2011
Cohort of Students at AOC ................................................................97
21. Scoring the RS-14 Resilience Scale ..................................................97
22. One-Sample Test for Resilience Score and the Test Value of 74 .....98
23. Linear Regression Analysis of Student Resiliency and
Construct of Relationships ................................................................99
Construct of Teacher Effectiveness ..................................................99
Construct of Academics ....................................................................100
Construct of Program Structure ........................................................101
Construct of Program Effectiveness .................................................102
28. Step-Wise Regression Analysis of Status and the AOC
Constructs of Relationships, Teacher Effectiveness, Academics,
Program Structure, and Program Effectiveness ................................103
x
1
Introduction
Context
A silent epidemic faces high schools today. Statistics show a high rate of high
school dropouts all over the United States. Far too many high school students quit school
before their awaited graduation day (Shealy, 2011). In 2010, America’s Promise
Alliance stated that there were approximately 1.3 million high school students that chose
to drop out nationwide each year. This large number has had a great effect on the
American workforce and economy. In society, the need for educated, skilled workers is
at its highest (America’s Promise Alliance, 2010). According to the Alliance for
Excellent Education (2009a), a postsecondary education degree is needed for 90% of the
nation’s highest-paying and fastest-growing jobs.
There are some states and school districts that have raised high school graduation
rates while others continue to struggle. Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore, & Fox (2010)
stated, “A primary purpose of [their work] is to take a critical look at the efforts that have
heralded improvements in graduation rates, and those that have failed to do so, in our
communities”(p. 23). As a result, educators and policymakers can develop interventions
and programs to “drive future success and more accelerated gains” (Balfanz, Bridgeland,
Moore, & Fox, 2010, p. 67).
A critical element in developing interventions and programs that address high
school dropout rates is ascertaining the characteristics of students that are identified as at
risk. To this end, a study of the narratives of resilient students conducted by Canadian
researchers Lessard, Fortin, Marcotte, Potvin, and Royer (2009) posed the following
essential questions: What were the challenges present in the participants’ lives? What
2
made them stay in school? By identifying areas where students experience challenge and
skills/attributes resilient students possess, the researchers provided information for
educators to consider when identifying at-risk students.
At the center of Nashville, Tennessee lies a school district whose mission
statement promises to “provide every student with the foundation of knowledge, skills,
and character necessary to excel in higher education, work, and life” (Metropolitan
Nashville Public Schools, 2011). During the 2004-2005 school year, Metropolitan
Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) reported an enrollment of approximately 6,000 first
time freshmen. These students’ projected graduation date was May 2008. As of May
2009, one year past the cohort’s projected graduation date, 23 percent of those students
had dropped out of school (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2010). Clearly the graduation rate of
MNPS did not meet the goal of the district’s mission statement.
The urgency to meet federal and state guidelines for graduation rates as set forth
by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 resulted in the creation of dropout
prevention programs such as the Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC). The mission at AOC
is to “produce a safe environment in which students are inspired to achieve success
through an individualized plan that leads to graduation. [Their] goal is to develop
productive citizens and celebrate their success” (Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools,
2011). AOC offers a non-traditional approach for students who have dropped out or are
at risk for dropping out of an MNPS school. AOC allows these students to continue on a
pathway to completion of requirements towards a diploma within one year. Since its
inception in 2009, AOC has graduated 492 students.
3
The problem that has occurred with identifying high school dropouts is that
policymakers and educators have commonly viewed dropping out of high school as
predictable based on student demographics and geographic locations or predictable based
on a life-changing experience. The research conducted by Neild, Balfanz, and Herzog
(2007) suggests that students who drop out of high school have shown indicators for
several years. According to Neild et al. (2007), “The U.S. graduation rate crisis is not
fueled by students who lack the potential or desire to graduate, but rather by secondary
schools that are not organized to prevent students from falling off the path to graduation
or to intervene when they do” (p. 33).
The work of Robert Balfanz and his colleagues at John Hopkins University’s
Center for Social Organization of Schools is currently being used by MNPS to identify
students at risk of not graduating. The research conducted by Balfanz and his colleagues
is the leading research currently being used by other states and school districts to identify
potential high school dropouts. The markers identified by Balfanz for at-risk students are
as follows: an attendance rate of less than 85%; a fall GPA of less than 70%; and six or
more days suspension out of school. Students who share these markers are identified as
needing intervention for graduation.
Educators, policymakers, and community leaders have been making great efforts
to address the high school graduation crisis in the United States. The United States must
prepare students for the globally competitive society of the 21st Century. In order to
improve student achievement, graduation rates, and college and career readiness,
programs and interventions need to be created that address the needs of students. As the
research team investigated indicators of failure and success of the students at AOC,
4
researchers collected data and analyzed indicators such as attendance rates, behavior, and
academic performance. The research team gathered and analyzed data on the impact
AOC teachers and programs had on students’ persistence to graduation.
Statement of the Problem
The students in the 2010-2011 cohort at The Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC)
may have indicators of risk to drop out of high school beyond the Balfanz at-risk
indicators currently used by Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools to flag students as atrisk for dropping out of high school. In addition, these students may be identified as
resilient students and there may be a correlation between the students’ resilience, the
structure of the program at AOC, and persistence to graduation. Finally, there may be
characteristics of the AOC program that make it a successful intervention for at-risk
students. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools and the administration at The Academy
at Old Cockrill need to know more about the at-risk indicators that the students possess,
the correlation between resilience and the structure of AOC, and the characteristics of
AOC that make it an effective dropout prevention in order to more effectively identify
students appropriate for the program and to provide information to the district regarding
development and implementation of early intervention for students at risk of dropping out
of school.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify indicators beyond the Balfanz at-risk
indicators of high school dropouts that students at The Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC)
may possess. In addition, the researchers examined the characteristic of resiliency as it
relates to program structure persistence to graduation. Finally, the researchers identified
5
the characteristics of the AOC program that made it a successful intervention for at-risk
students. The dependent variable was graduation from AOC. The independent variables
included the at-risk indicators of absences, out-of-school suspensions, and course
failures. During the course of this study, the research team identified other indicators that
were included within the common themes of individual, family, and school. Intervening
variables included age, gender, socio-economic status, and/or ethnicity. The results of
this study conducted on the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The Academy at Old
Cockrill can be used to assist school administrators and district officials in developing
and planning program and interventions for at-risk students.
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this research was threefold: to identify at-risk indicators other
than the set of indicators utilized by MNPS which impact the lives of the 2010-2011
cohort of AOC students; to examine the characteristic of resiliency as it relates to how
these students evaluate AOC and their persistence to graduation; and to identify the
characteristics reported by this cohort of students that make AOC a successful
intervention. The significance of this work was in the insight gained about the indicators
associated with programming for at-risk students in MNPS in general and AOC in
particular. Equally significant was the attempt to understand the interaction of at-risk
students within their environment and how resiliency correlates with the students’
impressions of The Academy at Old Cockrill and with persistence to graduation.
The research team gained valuable insight into the indicators associated with
programming for at-risk students. This research will impact program development and
implementation at The Academy at Old Cockrill. This study will also be significant to
6
others who develop and implement interventions for dropout prevention. Specifically,
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) will benefit in that the study will provide
information that will enable district administrators to identify students who are more
likely to be successful in programs like AOC. This study will add to the body of
literature on the topic of high school dropout prevention and intervention programming.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research questions. The research questions included:
1. Do the students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC share the Balfanz at-risk
indicators?
2. Do the Balfanz at-risk indicators differ between AOC graduates and dropouts?
3. Do the AOC graduates possess another set of indicators that is more predictive of
persistence to graduation than the Balfanz at-risk indicators?
4. Do the students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC demonstrate the construct of
resilience?
5. Is there a correlation between student resiliency and the response to the five
constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure,
and program effectiveness?
6. What characteristics of AOC do students report which contribute to meeting the
goal of graduation?
Null hypotheses. In the quantitative portion of the study, the null hypotheses
were:
H01: There is no statistically significant difference between the mean Balfanz at-risk
indicators in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC and the test value of zero.
7
H02: There is no statistically significant difference between the students who graduate
from AOC and those who dropped out of AOC (Status) with regard to the at-risk
indicator of attendance.
from AOC and those who dropped out of AOC with regard to the at-risk indicator of
suspensions.
course failures.
from AOC and those who dropped out of AOC with regard to the total of Balfanz at-risk
indicators.
H06: There is no statistically significant difference between the at risk-indicator category
of individual as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the at-risk indicator of
attendance as predictive of persistence to graduation.
H07: There is no statistically significant difference between the at-risk indicator category
suspensions as predictive of persistence to graduation.
of individual as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the at-risk indicator of course
failures as predictive of persistence to graduation.
8
of family as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the at-risk indicator of
of family as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the at-risk indicator of course
of school as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the at-risk indicator of
of school as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the at-risk indicator of course
of individual as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk
indicators as predictive of persistence to graduation.
9
of family as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk
of school as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk
H18: The students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC do not demonstrate the construct of
resilience.
H19: There is no statistically significant correlation between student resiliency and the
response to the construct of relationships as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students
at AOC.
response to the construct of teacher effectiveness as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of
students at AOC.
response to the construct of academics as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at
AOC.
response to the construct of program structure as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of
students at AOC.
response to the construct of program effectiveness as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of
students at AOC.
10
H24: There is no statistically significant correlation between status and the response to the
constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and
program effectiveness as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at AOC.
Theoretical Perspective Guiding Research
Resiliency Theory served as the theoretical framework for this research project.
The major contributors to this body of theory are Garmezy (1973), Werner & Smith
(1971), Rutter (1987), Masten, Best, & Garmezy (1990), and others. There is a long
history of research on the factors that result in adaptive behavior and positive outcomes in
the face of adversity and risk. Garmezy (1973) published the first research findings on
resilience using epidemiology, the study of who gets ill, who does not, and why.
Garmezy’s work was used to identify the protective factors currently used in defining
resilience. Early studies focused on schizophrenic patients and their families and were
concerned primarily with understanding maladaptive behaviors. The patients in these
studies who showed relatively adaptive behaviors were considered atypical and ignored
for the most part in early works. Research from the 1970’s investigated these atypical
cases, identifying a subset of subjects who were characterized as experiencing relative
competence at work, social relations, marriage, and capacity to fulfill responsibilities.
Closely related to this work, studies of the children of schizophrenic mothers played an
important role in the emergence of childhood resilience as a major theoretical topic for
research. Research revealed that many of these children thrive despite their high-risk
status as a result of their parents’ mental illness. These findings led to increased efforts
in understanding the individual’s response to adversity (Luthar, Ciccheti, & Becker,
2000).
11
Following the groundbreaking studies on children of alcoholic and mentally ill
parents in Hawaii, (Werner & Smith, 1971; Werner & Smith, 1977) research expanded to
include other adverse situations such as socioeconomic disadvantage (Rutter, 1987),
parental mental illness (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990), and urban poverty (Luthar,
1999). The main focus of this research was to identify protective forces that
differentiated children with healthy adaptation from those who were less adaptive in
comparison (Luthar et al., 2000). As a result, subsequent research has shifted to focus on
uncovering how some factors may contribute to positive outcomes. This research taught
us that resilient children and youth are characterized by individual, social, and
environmental qualities. This fact, in particular, makes resiliency theory a valid
framework for this research study because the study examines all three of these elements.
According to Bernard (1991), “a phrase occurring often in the literature sums up
the resilient child as one who works well, plays well, loves well, and expects well” (p. 3).
While this statement provided a snapshot of the resilient child, it fell short of defining
resiliency and identifying the characteristics that resilient children demonstrate. Many
researchers and authors have defined resilience. The various definitions differ somewhat
but have some fundamental elements in common. Richard Sagor (1996) used an analogy
to describe resilience as “an antibody that enables [children] to ward off attackers that
might stop even the most formidable among us” (p. 1). Lifton identified resilience as the
“human capacity of all individuals to transform and change, no matter what their risks.”
He continued that resilience is “an innate self-righting mechanism” (1994, p. 202).
Michael Rutter (1987) defined resilience as a dynamic process involving interaction
between risk and protective processes that exists internal and external to the individual,
12
acting to modify the effects of adverse life events. Resilience was also defined as “the
process of, capacity for or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or
threatening circumstances” (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990, p. 425). The critical
components in these definitions are (1) resilience is an interactive process; (2) there is
presence of risk, threat, or adversity; and (3) modification of outcomes.
There were three models of resilience identified in research. These models compensatory, protective, and challenge, explained how protective factors work to alter
the expected outcomes resulting from exposure to risk (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen,
1984; Rutter, 1985; Zimmer & Arunkumar, 1994). Compensatory factors were identified
as the aspects of an individual or environment that neutralize exposure to risk in the first
place. These factors included faith, a positive disposition towards life, an evoking
personality, and an internal locus of control. Children of poverty often experience poor
academic outcomes. Additional academic supports may compensate for this negative
effect of poverty. The introduction of tutoring programs in schools that serve
economically disadvantaged students would be an example of a compensatory model.
In the protective model of resilience, assets and/or resources act to reduce the
effects of risk on negative outcomes. A protective model is at work if the relationship
between poverty and poor academic performance is reduced for students who experience
high levels of parental support. Protective factors interact with risk factors to reduce the
potential for negative outcomes (Ungar, 2004). Protective factors target specific risks
that are characteristics of individuals and environments, unlike compensatory factors.
They are better thought of as mechanisms or processes. Stable homes, individual coping
13
strategies, positive parenting practices, and safe communities and schools are all
examples of factors that mitigate risk.
Parental support operates as the protective factor because it moderates the effects
of poverty on academic performance. Protective factors may have two different effects.
A stabilizing effect is where the protective factor helps neutralize the effects of risk. A
reactive effect is where the protective factor diminishes, but does not completely remove,
the expected correlation between a risk and an outcome (Luthar et al., 2000).
The third model of resilience identified was the challenge model. This model
suggested that exposure to both low levels and high levels of a risk factor are associated
with negative outcomes. However, moderate levels of risk are related to less negative or
positive outcomes. According to Fergus and Zimmerman (2005), “the idea is that
adolescents exposed to moderate levels of risk are confronted with enough of the risk
factor to learn how to overcome it but not exposed to so much of it that overcoming it is
impossible” (p. 403). Challenge factors are risk factors that function to enhance
resilience and the individual’s adaptive capacity over time. Examples of these factors
may be illness, significant loss, or disruption of family. The individual who adapts to
these types of challenges experiences growth and, as a result, is better prepared to handle
future crises. An example of this model is when a teen parent is placed at risk of
dropping out of school due to the challenges of meeting academic requirements while
caring for a child. As a result, this student adapts and draws on coping skills and/or areas
of competence to persist to graduation. In this example, the risk exposure is not so
overwhelming that it is impossible for the student to stay in school. The challenge of
14
being a teen parent while being a student elicits the coping responses so that the student
learns from the experience.
As a construct, resilience combines the dimensions of exposure to adversity or
risk with positive reactions or adaptations to the exposure. Resilience can be thought of
as competence in the face of significant challenges to achieve and develop. Resilient
students demonstrate competence in the face of challenges that much research has
associated with negative outcomes. Studies on resilience rejected the position of looking
at students through a “deficit lens” that falls short of recognizing the capacities, strengths,
and uniqueness of individuals. Instead, these studies focused on the ways individuals
develop successfully despite risk and adversity; the lack of “predictive power of risk
factors”; and they “articulate the practices and attributes that promote healthy
development and successful learning in students” (Benard, 1997, p. 2). This research
study focused on the resilience of the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The Academy at
Old Cockrill. It was concerned not only with the at-risk indicators of students, a deficit
model, but also lent itself to examining the interaction of characteristics that students
possess and how that interaction impacted persistence to graduation.
Michael Ungar (2004) discussed the factors that foster resilience from both an
ecological model and a constructionist interpretation. This distinction was important
because the constructionist understanding of resilience challenges the more dominant
ecological view. Ecological approaches were informed by Systems Theory and
emphasized a predictable relationship between risk and protective factors. Within this
paradigm, resilience was understood as competence despite adversity (Masten, 2001) and
was “plagued by cultural hegemony” (Ungar, 2004, p. 342). Juxtaposed against this view
15
was the constructionist approach that defined resilience as the outcome of negotiations
between individuals and their environments for the resources to define themselves as
healthy in the midst of adversity. Research on resilience as a social construct found a
“nonsystematic, nonhierarchical relationship between risk and protective factors,
describing the relationship between factors across global cultures and diverse social and
political settings as chaotic, complex, relative, and contextual” (Ungar, 2004, p. 342).
According to the ecological model, resilience factors were compensatory in nature
(neutralizing risk); challenging (acting as stressors that “inoculate” against future
stressors); and/or protective (reducing potential for negative outcomes and predisposing a
person towards normal adaptive outcomes) (Garmezy et al., 1984). From a
constructionist perspective, Ungar (2004) described resilience factors as
“multidimensional, and unique to context”. Interestingly, he identified resilience factors
as the challenges themselves that “build capacity for survival” (p. 344). In essence,
Ungar identified the risk itself as a key component of resilience.
Compensatory factors included the aspects of an individual or environment that
neutralize exposure to risk in the first place. These factors included faith, a positive
disposition towards life, an evoking personality, and an internal locus of control.
Challenge factors were identified as risk factors that function to enhance resilience and
the individual’s adaptive capacity over time. Examples of these factors included illness,
significant loss, or disruption of family. The individual who adapts to these types of
challenges experiences growth and as a result is better prepared to handle future crises.
Researchers know very little about why some people end up with undesirable
outcomes. Unfortunately, researchers know even less about why some people develop
16
into well-functioning individuals even though faced with the same adversity. The
construct of resiliency has helped frame the study of human development using a
strengths based model rather than a problem-oriented approach (Zimmerman &
Arunkumar, 1994). The works of Rutter (1987) and Garmezy (1991) have pointed out
that more than half of the children living in disadvantaged conditions do not repeat the
pattern in their adult lives. This finding alone predicated a need to examine the construct
of resilience and its impact on the outcomes of students at risk for dropping out of school.
As the review of literature indicated, there were many at-risk indicators that can be
predictive of failure to graduate. The concept of resilience has several implications for
dropout intervention and prevention programming. It supports the need for interventions
to focus on developing assets and resources for students at risk for dropping out of
school. This approach emphasizes assets and resources as the focus for change (Fergus
& Zimmerman, 2005).
The research of the 2010-2011 cohort of students at the Academy at Old Cockrill
will examine not only the at-risk indicators that students possess but also resilience and
the interaction of this construct within a supportive environment.
Scope and Bounds
In this research study, the research team collected data about students in the 20102011 cohort at the Academy at Old Cockrill, a non-traditional high school in the
Metropolitan Nashville Public School System. The purpose of the study was to identify
indicators beyond the Balfanz at-risk indicators of high school dropouts that students at
the Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC) may possess. In addition, the researchers examined
the characteristic of resiliency as it was related to program structure and persistence to
17
graduation. Finally, the researchers identified the characteristics of the AOC program
that made it a successful intervention for at-risk students. The results of this study
conducted on the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The Academy at Old Cockrill can be
used to assist school administrators and district officials in developing and planning
programs and interventions for at-risk students.
This research study was limited to the 2010-2011 cohort at The Academy at Old
Cockrill. It did not include a study of all The Academy at Old Cockrill students or
students enrolled in other MNPS high schools.
List of Symbols/Abbreviations/Nomenclature
1. The Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC): The Academy at Old Cockrill is a
nontraditional high school in the Metropolitan Nashville Public School System in
Nashville, Tennessee. AOC is an alternative educational environment for
students who are in need of no more than one year of credits to fulfill graduation
requirements.
2. Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP): Statewide accountability system mandated
by No Child Left Behind (NCLB); requires each state to measure districts and
schools to determine improvements based on annual yearly progress goals.
3. At-Risk Student: A student who has been identified as possessing indicators that
identifies him or her as having the potential for dropping out of school.
4. Attendance (Balfanz Marker): Average daily attendance rate under 85% was
identified as an early warning sign of one’s decision to drop out (Balfanz &
Byrnes, 2010).
18
5. Balfanz: Robert Balfanz is a research scientist at the Center for Social
Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University who works with secondary
schools to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive whole-school
reforms (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011).
6. Balfanz Indicators: Identified by Robert Balfanz, attendance under 85%, fall
GPA under 70%, and suspension from school for six or more days were early
warning indicators for a potential drop in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
(Balfanz & Byrnes, 2010).
7. Chancery: a web-based student information system used in Metropolitan
Nashville Public Schools.
8. Cohort: A group of students that shared a particular time together through school.
9. Comprehensive High School: The most common form of a high school in the
United States that is intended to serve the needs of all students.
10. Course Failures (Balfanz Marker): In MNPS a course failure is a grade lower than
70%.
11. Data Warehouse: “In order for teachers to effectively deliver targeted instruction
to meet the needs of their students, they rely on high-quality, accessible data to
inform them of student progress and challenges. MNPS has developed a worldclass data warehouse, the MNPS Longitudinal Educational Analytics and
Decision Support System (“LEADS”), which provides extensive information for
teachers and administrators to enable them to meet the needs of their students”
(Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 2012).
12. Demographic: Statistical characteristics of a person or population.
19
13. Dropout: “A person who withdraws from and does not complete all requirements
for a high school diploma” (Shealy, 2011, p.26).
14. Dropout Factory: “High schools that routinely have senior classes with 60% fewer
students than their entering freshmen classes” (American Psychological
Association, 2010, pg. 2). The common characteristics of the “dropout factories”
are that they are located in areas of poverty that have high unemployment rates,
high crime rates, and poor health (Achieve, 2011, pg. 2).
15. Early Indicators: “Early indicators are “flags” or “distress signals” that are sent by
a very large percentage of eventual dropouts, years before they actually leave
school. These “distress signals” indicate that a student is having trouble keeping
up with schoolwork or is disengaging from schooling” (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2010,
p. 3).
16. Early Warning System: A system, based on student data, to look for patterns and
help identify and predict with high probability which students are more likely to
drop out of high school (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006).
17. Focus Group: “A technique of data collection that relies on group interaction and
discussion” (Lichtman, 2010, p. 244).
18. Grade Point Average (GPA): For this study, the GPA is the cumulative average
of all grades based on a 4.0 scale.
19. Graduate: “A person who has successfully completed all requirements and
received a high school diploma” (Shealy, 2011, p. 27).
20. Graduation Credits: The cumulative amount of credits necessary to complete
requirements for a regular education diploma.
20
21. High-Stakes Testing: A standardized test that has significant consequences
toward the individual in regards to education; results of these tests are often stated
in AYP reports.
22. Indicators/Risk Factors: “student factors (such as demographic attributes,
academic variables, and status in various groups, such as English Language
Learners or special education) that can contribute to student success or failure;
can be measured and analyzed” (Shealy, 2011, p. 28).
23. Individualized Education Program (IEP): Mandated by the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act; includes a statement of a student’s competencies,
annual instructional objectives, and specific educational services to be provided to
the student in the least restrictive environment; designed to meet the educational
needs of a student (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2007).
24. Interventions: Educational services designed to address the academic needs of at
risk students.
25. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS): Located in Middle Tennessee, a
large, urban public school system in Davidson County. It serves 79,000 students
representing over 120 different countries during the 2011-2012 school year
(Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 2012).
26. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): A federal law that provides funding
to schools for extra educational assistance to improve academic achievement.
27. Non-Traditional High School: A program that provides an approach to making
academic progress in a manner or setting other than a traditional high school
setting.
21
28. Out of School Suspension (OSS) (Balfanz Marker): A student that has been
excluded from the regular school day for disciplinary actions. Six or more school
days constitutes a Balfanz Marker (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2010).
29. Resiliency: “Although some students do leave school before obtaining their
diploma, others, who were equally at risk, do not. They are resilient students;
despite the presence of some form of significant risk or challenge in their lives,
these students have adapted, persevered, and succeeded (Lessard, Fortin,
Marcotte, Potvin, & Royer, 2009).”
30. IBM SPSS Statistics 18: A powerful tool that is capable of conducting just about
any type of data analysis used in the social sciences, the natural sciences, or in the
business world (George & Mallory, 2011).
Summary
Statistics show a high rate of high school dropouts all over the United States.
There are some states and school districts that have raised high school graduation rates
while others continue to struggle. A critical element in developing interventions and
programs that address high school dropout rates is ascertaining the characteristics of
students who are identified as at-risk. The urgency to meet federal and state guidelines
for graduation rates as set forth by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001
resulted in the creation of dropout prevention programs such as the Academy at Old
Cockrill (AOC). The problem that has occurred with identifying high school dropouts is
that policymakers and educators have commonly viewed dropping out of high school as
predictable based on student demographics and geographic locations or predictable based
on a life-changing experience. The work of Robert Balfanz and his colleagues at John
22
Hopkins University’s Center for Social Organization of Schools is currently being used
by MNPS to identify students at risk of not graduating. The research conducted by
Balfanz and his colleagues is the leading research currently being used by other states and
school districts to identify potential high school dropouts.
indicators currently used by Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools to flag students as at
risk for dropping out of high school. In addition, these students may be identified as
of school.
Chapter 2 of this manuscript reviews the relevant literature pertaining to the
dropout crisis in America, the state of Tennessee, and Metropolitan Nashville Public
Schools. In addition, the literature included a review of the at-risk factors related to
individuals, families, and schools that put students at risk of dropping out of high school.
Directly related to the theoretical framework, the literature review contains information
23
about resilient youth and adolescents. Finally, information related to prevention and
intervention programming for students at risk of dropping out of high school is included.
Chapter 3 describes the mixed method approach, combining both quantitative and
qualitative analysis to address the research questions of the study. The quantitative
portion of this study consisted of a causal-comparative research design analyzing
academic, behavioral, and attendance data as well as data collected using questionnaires.
Using a constant comparative approach, the aims of the qualitative portion of the study
were to identify at-risk indicators other than those currently used by MNPS and to
identify characteristics of AOC that support student success. Chapter 4 contains the data
analysis for the quantitative and qualitative portions of the study. In Chapter 5, the
research study includes a summary of the findings. The research team discusses the
results and implications for Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools and The Academy at
Old Cockrill. Finally, the researchers provide recommendations for further research.
24
Review of Literature
The Dropout Crisis
The United States is facing a dropout crisis among the nation’s high school
students. Although high school graduation rates are as high as they have ever been, the
graduation rates for low-income and minority youth continue to be exceedingly low. In
Time magazine, the 2008 U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings,
stated, “For too long we’ve allowed the crisis to be hidden and obscured… Where
graduation rates are low, we must take aggressive action” (Kingsbury, 2008, p. 1).
Policymakers and educators must address the individual needs of students in order to
improve graduation rates.
In light of the recent recession in the United States, the graduation crisis is cause
for great concern. The effects of high school dropouts on American society and the
American economy are enormous. According to Neild, Balfanz, and Herzog (2007), “It
is practically impossible for individuals lacking a high school diploma to earn a living or
participate meaningfully in civic life” (p. 28). In fact, according to the American
Psychological Association (2010), “Dropouts are far more likely to experience reduced
job and income opportunities, chronic unemployment, incarceration, or require
government assistance than the rest of the population” (p. 5). Educators and
policymakers must find ways to identify students at-risk of dropping out of high school
and implement appropriate interventions. The American Psychological Association
(2010) goes on to say, “Education remains the major tool by which people become
empowered and the economic, social, and personal well-being of all citizens in a
pluralistic society increases” (p. 1). In order to transform schools, the Civic Marshall
25
Plan was introduced by President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
in 2009. This comprehensive plan has been adopted to address the graduation crisis.
The goal of the Civic Marshall Plan is to have 90 percent of students graduate
from high school and obtain a minimum of one year of postsecondary training by the year
2020. Balfanz stated that in order for the Civic Marshall Plan to succeed “it will need to
be community based and locally organized, but supported at the state and national levels
with human resources paired with evidence-based strategies guiding research and
accountability structures that propel continuous improvement” (Balfanz, Bridgeland,
Moore, & Fox, 2010, p. 13). The Civic Marshall Plan has established an initial plan to
address the graduation crisis:
x
Set targets for graduation rates in states and school districts.
x
Establish a leadership team of organizations.
x
Target the 1,746 “dropout factories” with a less than 60 percent graduation rate
and the additional 3,000 high schools with graduation rates between 61 and 75
percent.
x
Establish clear benchmarks for improving achievement for all students.
x
Ensure that all students are reading on grade level.
x
Increase focus on the middle grades.
x
Harness the power of non-profits to provide expanded student supports.
x
Conduct research to understand the graduation crisis.
x
Collect data to track early indicators of dropouts.
x
Create a collaborative community-based support system.
x
26
Hold states and school districts accountable for student graduation and
disaggregated data.
x
Develop alternative learning environments.
x
Develop parent engagement strategies.
x
Create open dialogue with all stakeholders involved.
x
Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
x
Build a common data system.
x
Set high expectations and provide a rigorous curriculum.
x
Recruit, train, and support effective teachers.
x
Provide professional training and leadership development for principals.
x
Collaborate with postsecondary institutions to ensure college readiness (Balfanz,
et al., 2010, p. 14-19).
Educators and policymakers must develop methods for identifying early
indicators of students in danger of dropping out of high school. According to Balfanz &
Byrnes (2010), “Early indicators are “flags” or “distress signals” that are sent by a very
large percentage of eventual dropouts years before they actually leave school. These
“distress signals” indicate that a student is having trouble keeping up with schoolwork or
is disengaging from schooling” (p. 3). Identification of early dropout indicators can
allow educators to provide the interventions necessary for students to remain on track and
graduate from high school.
Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore, & Fox (2010) concluded “that while the results of
the past decade have been mixed, with progress in some areas, and limited improvement
in others, these efforts have laid groundwork for more rapid and systematic progress in
27
the next decade” (p. 23). Through collecting and analyzing data from schools, school
systems, and states, educators and policymakers can better understand what the factors
are that contribute to improving graduation rates. Researchers agreed “ending the
dropout crisis will take a concerted effort by leaders and citizens at all levels of our
communities, states, and nation” (Balfanz et al., 2010, p. 20).
Dropout factories. In a study conducted by Neild, Balfanz, and Herzog at the
Philadelphia Education Fund, half of the nation’s dropouts were produced by about 15%
of the nation’s high schools (Balfanz and Legters, 2006). These “dropout factories” were
identified as “high schools that routinely have senior classes with 60% fewer students
than their entering freshmen classes” (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 2).
According to Almeida, Balfanz, and Steinberg (2009), “Tennessee is a ‘big-city
challenge’ state, meaning at least half its low-graduation-rate high schools are in one or
two major cities” (p. 20). Data collected by Achieve (2011), identified 24 “dropout
factories” in Tennessee in 2009. The common characteristics of the “dropout factories”
were that they are located in areas of poverty that have high unemployment rates, high
crime rates, and poor health (Achieve, 2011, p. 2).
Research has shown that the nation’s “dropout factories” were accountable for
half of the nation’s dropouts while another 35 percent of dropouts came from the 3,000
schools that had a graduation rate between 61 and 75 percent (Balfanz et al., 2010, p. 23).
Through data analysis of state graduation rates between 2002 and 2008, 12 states showed
progress in graduation rates, 17 states showed moderate progress, 17 states stayed the
same, and three states showed a decline in graduation rates (Balfanz et al., 2010, p. 26).
The positive news was that there was a 13 percent decline in “dropout factories” since
28
2002. This challenged states to meet the needs of the remaining 1,746 “dropout
factories.”
In recent years, there has been an increase in federal accountability for increasing
graduation rates. In order to address low-performing schools, the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act is increasing incentives to encourage state and local education
reform. According to Almeida et al., research indicated five key factors that addressed
the nation’s dropout factories:
x
The location of low-graduation-rate high schools.
x
Some states are better positioned than others to lead reform.
x
Different strategies are needed in districts with a single high school.
x
School size and staffing ratios matter.
x
Some states are, like the insurance giant AIG, simply too big to fail. (Almeida,
Balfanz, & Steinberg, 2009).
In order for America to transform the “dropout factories” into successful schools, the
local, state, and federal government must take a lead, or at minimum, a supporting role.
In cities with dropout factories, innovative schools and programs need to be designed to
address student needs and to ensure academic success. Almeida et al. (2009) affirmed,
“Now is the time for a concerted effort to match reforms to the circumstances where they
are most likely to succeed” (para. 16).
The State of Tennessee. There is a high school dropout crisis in the state of
Tennessee. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2011) stated, “Nearly 28,200 students
did not graduate from Tennessee’s high schools in 2010; the lost lifetime earnings in
Tennessee for that class of dropouts total $7.3 billion” (para. 6). Based on data collected
29
by the Alliance for Excellent Education in 2009, Tennessee graduated 66% of its students
as compared to a national average of 69%. It is also important to note that “According to
the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, about 70 percent of all students in
Tennessee graduate from high school with a regular diploma in four years” (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2009b, para. 2). Unfortunately, almost 30 percent of high school
students in Tennessee do not graduate from high school.
According to Achieve (2011), “In Tennessee, the demand for middle- and highskilled workers is outpacing the state’s supply of workers educated and experienced at
that level” (para. 3). While 81% of jobs in Tennessee require postsecondary education or
training, only 32% of the adults in Tennessee have postsecondary education or training.
The number of high school dropouts living in the state of Tennessee exceeds
750,000. The high number of high school dropouts is having an adverse effect on the
financial and social prosperity of the state of Tennessee. In a study conducted by the
Foundation for Educational Choice, D’Andrea (2010) stated, “Dropouts’ lower incomes,
high unemployment rates, increased need for medical care, and higher propensity for
incarceration create a virtual vortex that consumes Tennesseans’ tax dollars at a vicious
rate” (p. 5). D’Andrea found that dropouts cost the state $750 in lost tax revenue each
year, $1,100 in state Medicaid services, and $950 in incarceration services. As a result,
high school dropouts cost the state of Tennessee approximately $2 billion annually.
D’Andrea (2010) concluded, “In this time of economic strife, preventive measures to
ensure state funds can be better appropriated are undoubtedly important. Until then, this
academic failure will continue to be an anchor in a sea of financial problems for
Tennessee” (p. 6).
30
According to the Tennessee Department of Education report card, Tennessee
public schools provided educational services for 934,246 students during the 2010-2011
school year. Of those 934,246 students, there were 513, 346 male students (51.4%) and
484, 877 female students (48.6%). The student population demographics consisted of
241, 651 African American students (24.2%), 19,009 Asian/Pacific Islander students
(1.9%), 62,200 Hispanic students (6.2%), 2,768 Native American/Alaskan students
(.3%), and 672,595 White students (67.4%). The student population was comprised of
38,400 students with limited English proficiency (3.9%), 139, 518 students with
disabilities (14.9%), 563, 048 students who were economically disadvantaged (60.3%),
and 557,684 Title I students (56.7%) (Tennessee Department of Education, 2012).
During the 2010-2011 school year, there was a high school attendance rate of 93.3% in
the state of Tennessee. The high school graduation rate for the state of Tennessee was
85.5%. The graduation rate by subgroup included 88.7% White, 78.3% Black, 78.9 %
Hispanic, 91.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 88.5% Indian. The graduation rate by
gender included 82.7% male students and 88.5% female students. Additionally, the
graduation rate for economically disadvantaged students was 79.8%, for students with
disabilities was 67.4%, and students with limited English proficiency was 70.8%
(Tennessee Department of Education, 2012).
Although high school dropout rates are high, Tennessee has seen improvements in
high school graduation rates. According to Sparks (2010b), Tennessee has seen a 15%
increase in graduation rates from 2001 to 2008. Some of the “best practices” that
Tennessee education and policy makers have used to increase graduation rates include
targeting schools with high dropout rates (as well as their feeder schools), increasing the
31
rigor of academic coursework, and developing methods for early identification of at-risk
students. Tennessee has implemented comprehensive reforms such as providing
“exemplary educators” to high schools, increasing the rigor of content requirements for
graduation, monitoring schools, and implementing improvement plans for struggling high
schools. In 2007, Tennessee implemented the Tennessee Diploma Project. As a part of
the American Diploma Project Network, Tennessee has committed to the following:
x
Align high school standards and assessments with the knowledge and skills
required for success after high school.
x
Require all high school graduates to complete a college- and career-ready
curriculum so that earning a diploma assures a student is prepared for
opportunities after high school.
x
Build assessments into the statewide system that measures students’ readiness for
college and careers.
x
Develop an accountability system that promotes college and career readiness
(http://www.achieve.org/adp-network).
Tennessee has also implemented driver’s license requirements so that students under the
age of 18 must attend school or graduate in order to obtain a license (Sparks, 2010b).
Tennessee is currently improving academic standards by implementing Common Core
State Standards in English language arts and mathematics. According to Achieve (2011),
Tennessee is creating common assessments through participation in the Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. Tennessee continues to lead other
states in implementing innovative and comprehensive education reforms that address the
high school dropout crisis.
32
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. According to the Tennessee
Department of Education report card, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools provided
educational services for 73,117 students during the 2010-2011 school year. Of those
73,117 students, there were 41,345 male students (51.0%) and 39,658 female students
(49.0%). The student population demographics consisted of 37,138 African American
students (45.8%), 3,343 Asian/Pacific Islander students (4.1%), 13,422 Hispanic students
(16.6%), 128 Native American/Alaskan students (.2%), and 28,972 White students
(33.3%). The student population was comprised of 11,010 students with limited English
proficiency (13.6%), 9,001 students with disabilities (12.3%), 55,076 students who were
economically disadvantaged (75.0%) and 65,581 Title I students (81.0%) (Tennessee
Department of Education, 2012). During the 2010-2011 school year, there was a high
school attendance rate of 91.3% in the high schools in the Metropolitan Nashville Public
Schools System. The high school graduation rate for MNPS was 76.2%. The graduation
rate by subgroup included 77.1% White, 76.8% Black, 66.5 % Hispanic, 90.1%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 85.7% Indian. The graduation rate by gender included 70.3%
male students and 82.1% female students. Additionally, the graduation rate for
economically disadvantaged students was 72.0%, for students with disabilities was
55.3%, and students with limited English proficiency was 64.7% (Tennessee Department
of Education, 2012).
The work of Robert Balfanz and his colleagues at John Hopkins University’s
Center for Social Organization of Schools is currently being used by Metropolitan
Nashville Public Schools to identify students at risk of not graduating. In a study with
MNPS conducted in 2010, researchers analyzed data from 6,082 students from the 2004-
33
05 ninth grade class. Data was tracked one year past graduation date (2008-09) to
identify the indicators associated with dropping out of high school. Researchers found
that of the remaining 4,758 students of the original 6,082, 73.3% of the students
graduated, 4% of the students were still enrolled, and 23% of the students had dropped
out. Researchers used a series of logistic regression models to select the three main
indicators for at-risk students. The markers for at-risk students were as follows: an
attendance rate of less than 85%; a fall GPA of less than 70%; and six or more days
suspension out of school. In MNPS, students that shared these markers were identified as
needing intervention for graduation (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2010).
At-Risk Factors
A silent epidemic faces high schools today. Statistics have shown that there is a
high rate of high school dropouts all over the United States. Why do students drop out of
high school? There are many reasons. Researchers all around the world have developed
research studies around the idea of high school dropouts and asked participants research
questions such as, “What are the factors that prevent students from completing high
school?” (Meeker, Edmonson, & Fisher, 2008, p. 40).
According to Christle, Jolivetter, & Nelson (2007), “Dropping out of school is not
an impulsive action, but rather a cumulative process” (p. 334). One must note that there
is not a “typical” dropout. There are a variety of factors that contribute to a person’s
decision to drop out of high school. A black male from a poor urban setting may drop
out of school because he is unmotivated, believes school has nothing to offer for him, and
has the mindset that no matter what, he will always be economically disadvantaged. At
the same time, a middle-class white female from a suburban setting may drop out because
34
she wants to spend more time with her friends, despite her doing well academically in
school and having possibilities for the future. According to the National Dropout
Prevention Center, there is no single factor that can be used to accurately predict who is
at risk of dropping out of school (Hammond, Linton, Smink, & Drew, 2007).
As the literature review revealed, one’s desire and decision to drop out of school
is a gradual process that is closely related to many factors and influences that center
around the individual, family, and school. Individual risk factors included poor academic
performance/engagement, grade retention, early adult responsibilities, bad attitude/poor
choices, student mobility, and future opportunities. At-risk factors associated with the
family included family turmoil, low socio-economic status, ethnicity, and lack of parental
support/involvement. At-risk factors associated with school included the organization of
the school, lack of teacher and administrator support, lack of relevant and challenging
curriculum, and discipline problems at school.
Individual Related Factors
Poor academic performance/engagement. One’s school experiences have been
found to have a large impact on the possibility that one will graduate. School
performance and engagement in school are two of the major experiences. Measured by
grades, test scores, or course failure, having poor academic performance was one of the
most consistent predictors of dropping out (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001). Mac
Iver and Mac Iver (2009) stated,
The process of disengagement generally manifests itself behaviorally in high
absenteeism, behavior problems, and course failure, including the failure both to
35
complete assignments and to pass courses. These three factors—the ABCs—are
the strongest predictors of dropping out and are often interrelated. (p. 5)
These three factors, the ABC’s, if studied as early as elementary and middle school, can
often predict whether one will graduate high school (Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver,
2007).
In 2006, Civic Enterprises led a study for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
to examine the views of youth (ages 16-25) who failed to complete high school. The
study consisted of surveys and focus groups from individuals across 25 large cities in
areas with a significant difference in geographic and demographic variation. From this
population, forty-seven percent of the students said they left school due to boredom and
lack of engagement. Two-thirds of the students said they were not motivated to work
hard, but would have worked harder if higher expectations were placed on them. An
astonishing seventy-percent of the students said they believed they would have graduated
with their diploma if they had tried.
Due to their disengagement, attendance became an issue with these students. The
research stated,
Students described a pattern of refusing to wake up, skipping class, and taking
three hour lunches; each absence made them less willing to go back. These
students had long periods of absences and were sometimes referred to the truant
officer, only to be brought back to the same environment that led them to become
disengaged. (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006, p.iv)
Students who exhibited signs of disengagement from school were likely to drop out.
Poor academic performance and engagement were often related to high rates of
36
absenteeism from school (Bridgeland et al., 2006; Hickman, Bartholomew, Mathwig, &
Heinrich, 2008; Mac Iver & Mac Iver, 2009). These students showed poor attendance
rates and had no desire to participate in extracurricular activities. In fact, in many cases,
issues with attendance were seen as early as kindergarten (Hickman et al., 2008).
High-stakes testing can likewise negatively impact academic performance thus
influencing the decision to drop out of school (Bridgeland et al., 2006). Under the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) goals were defined to close the achievement gap,
raise overall achievement levels, and ensure that all students be proficient in math and
reading by the year 2014. According to Mac Iver & Mac Iver (2009),
One of the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and its
narrow emphasis on test score results was to encourage high schools to quietly
ignore those dropping out—or even actively push out students who would lower
the test scores for which schools were being held accountable. (p. 4)
Unfortunately, more than half of all states required the passing of a standardized test for
high school graduation. This created a problem for many students and often resulted in
dropping out.
Engagement is imitated in students’ attitudes and behaviors with regard to both
the formal aspects of school and the informal ones. Both dimensions of engagement can
influence the decision to withdraw from school. Being disengaged can lead to a student
acting out in the classroom and having poor relationships with their school personnel and
peers. If continued, this spiral can lead one into a downhill phase towards ultimately
dropping out of school (Bridgeland et al., 2006). Three-fourths of the students said that if
they could relive their high school experience, they would have changed their pathway
37
and would have graduated. Eighty-one percent cited a need for “real-world learning” to
take place in their school. The belief that what they are learning in class is leading them
to greater results and eventually a career helps students find relevance in their desired
studies (Bridgeland et al., 2006). One must note that resilient people are able to produce
adaptive outcomes even in time of adversity. Many students regret their decision and
find belief that graduating from high school leads to great success in life.
Grade retention. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization, “Grade repetition extends the age range in a particular grade, and
thus increases the possibility of dropping out (Sabates, Akyeampong, Westbrook, &
Hunt, 2010, p.13). In many cases, students that were overage for their grade level as a
result of previously being retained were excessively represented among high school
dropouts. Through research reviews, Jimerson, Anderson, & Whipple (2002) found
undeniable evidence that grade retention was one of the most dominant predictors of
dropout status. From this, one would note that in many cases, being retained was, at best,
a short-term fix. According to Jimerson et al. (2002), grade retention “influences the
student’s subsequent self-esteem, socio-emotional adjustment, peer relations, school
engagement, and other factors that are highly associated with school withdrawal” (p.
453).
Grade retention in elementary and middle school is a high predictive factor in the
decision to drop out of school. One research study stated that 64% of students in
elementary school and 63% of students in middle school who repeated a grade failed to
graduate on time and produced a high degree of dropping out (Alexander, Entwistle, &
38
Horsey, 1997). For this reason, interventions must be in place as early as elementary
school.
Early adult responsibilities. Students who take on adult roles, such as parenting
or working a considerable number of hours, were more likely to drop out due to their
need to fulfill such responsibilities (Bridgeland et al, 2006; Hammond et.al, 2007; Stearns
& Glennie, 2006). Conducted in 2008, Meeker, Edmonson & Fisher’s study involved
158 participants from a General Education Development (GED) program across the state
of Texas. Among the 158 students, 93 participants were female and 64 were male.
Looking at the ethnicity of the population, 42% were White, 33% were Hispanic, 12%
were African American, 1% was Asian, and the other 12% did not indicate a specific
ethnicity. The participants represented rural, urban, and suburban areas of the entire state
of Texas. An astonishing more than one quarter (41 participants) reported that pregnancy
and parenting a child prevented them from receiving their high school diploma. This was
the most frequently reported reason in the study. One 18 year-old black female
responded, “I had two kids and I had to take care of them. I was trying to juggle being a
student and a parent and it didn’t work out” (Meeker et al., 2008, p. 42). Many of the
participants commented on the lack of support from their family and school in
encouraging them to graduate, despite having a child. As a white 17 year-old stated,
I got pregnant, but even before that it was hard for me to fit in. I just minded my
own business until I got pregnant. Then I got a lot of bad attention. People made
it hard for me. People are so evil, I mean even though I wasn’t the only girl that
was pregnant, all of the bad focus was on me. (Meeker et al., 2008, p.42)
39
One must note that early adult responsibilities such as becoming a parent do have an
impact on one’s decision to stay in school.
Another early adult responsibility that has an impact on one’s choice to drop out
was the need to work. “Students are more likely to leave school because their likelihood
of finding employment is high” (Stearns & Glennie, 2006, p. 3). Several studies over the
years concluded that students that were more apt to work large amounts of hours while in
high school were more likely to drop out. This negative effect appeared with an intensive
work environment, often due to societal expectations. Undoubtedly, some students who
work do not do so voluntarily, but as a result of a family situation and need (Stearns &
Glennie, 2006).
Bad attitude/poor choices. During the years as a high school student, many
factors enter one’s life that affects the choices they make or the paths they choose to
follow. Choices and attitudes toward school impact students’ ability to obtain a high
school diploma. Choices and attitudes can take many directions. Studies have shown that
one poor choice students often make was to skip school. With attendance already being
an issue, students questioned the need to be at school at all. Some students could not find
value in attending and decided to just skip and hope for the best. The longer students
remain disengaged, the more certain the outcome. Unfortunately, the outcome was
dropping out (Meeker et al., 2008).
Having a bad attitude in school can lead students to be lazy and feel that, despite
their grades and performance, they will still pass. These students offer many excuses for
their behaviors and cannot find the motivation and self-esteem to continue like their
college-bound classmates. Such decisions force them to refrain from challenges and
40
accept the path of least resistance. Even if these students wanted to complete their
undertaking, they were clouded by many negative-thinking patterns that block the course
of confidence in their abilities (Menzer & Hampel, 2009).
Student mobility. Student mobility, or transferring schools, can play a large role
in one’s school performance and decision to stay in school. Some students attend
numerous schools over the course of time. The amount of time one is enrolled at a
particular school can vary. Some students change schools voluntarily based on reasons
such as finding a more suitable school program that fit their individual need, while others
transferred due to involuntary reasons from behavior problems or poor grades. In fact,
switching schools was highly associated with dropping out. One study found that the
majority of high school dropouts changed schools at least once, while the majority of
high school graduates did not (Rumberger & Larson, 1998).
Future opportunities. According to Sabates et al., (2010), “As children grow
older, the opportunity cost of education is even larger, hence increasing the pressure for
children to work and earn income for the household as opposed to spending time in
education” (p. 12). For many, making money gave one a feeling of independence and
was an important goal that conflicted with the goal of education. This importance placed
on the future increased with the age and grade of the student at various times (Stearns &
Glennie, 2006).
Family Related Factors
Families contribute significantly to a child’s development over the course of
childhood to later adolescence, impacting development into adulthood. One’s familial
characteristics have been identified as contributing factors to school dropout. Familial
41
characteristics included low socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and lack of parental
support/involvement.
Family turmoil. Families play a vital role in the lives of each individual. It can
be said that family turmoil can influence a decision to drop out of school. Dropouts
presented stories of living with “abusive or neglectful parents, parents who took part in
criminal activities, parents who may have suffered from mental health issues, or parents
who divorced” (Lessard et al., 2008, p. 39). Factors such as these played a large role
when looking at students who were at risk. Having such unrest in a student’s life can
lead to hardships in regards to finances and mobility. Many times students that had
family turmoil were unable to put such problems aside to be able to focus on their role as
a student (Lessard et al, 2008).
Low socio-economic status. According to the American Psychological
Association (2010), “Poverty has the strongest correlation with high dropout rates” (p. 1).
School districts with an excessive percentage of students that received services from the
government free/reduced lunch program had lower graduation rates than districts with a
lower percentage (Swanson, 2004). In 2004, The University of Texas conducted a
research study of high school dropouts in relation to high school restructuring. Through
their research it was stated that students that lived in a low socio-economic neighborhood
were more likely to not receive their high school diploma than students that lived in more
prosperous neighborhoods. According to Blue and Cook (2004), “students from lowincome families drop out at almost twice the rate of middle-income families” (p. 4).
Many believed that this was due to students’ impression that their completion of high
school offered little, if anything, to enhance the quality of life in their neighborhood or
42
present mobility into an improved one. In 2007, it was estimated that dropout rates for
students that came from a low socio-economic background were more than seven times
higher than those from students in the highest family incomes. This dropout rate was
highly dependent on the neighboring poverty of their school location (American
Psychological Association, 2010).
Ethnicity. Research studies have linked leaving school before one’s expected
graduation day to a number of individual factors that put students at greater risk. This
included a number of unchangeable, background characteristics such as ethnicity (BattinPearson et al., 2000; Rumberger, 2001). Consider that nearly half of our nation’s African
American students, almost 40% of Latino students, and a mere 10% of white students
attended high schools in which graduation was the norm for their ethnic background
(Balfanz & Legters, 2004). In 2008, the estimated dropout rates based on race were 4.8%
for Whites, 9.9% for African Americans, and 18.3% for Latinos. Unfortunately, many of
the nation’s African American and Latino students attended high schools in low socioeconomic regions with dropout rates that lingered in the 40-50% range. Researchers
believed that this was due to many factors that dealt with their ethnic background.
One idea linked to the dropout rate for students of a different background was due
to the limited access to high quality early childhood education. Students who came from
different ethnic backgrounds often did not have the same benefits as students who came
from a particular setting that was centered on education. It was also found that many
students, especially African Americans, were disciplined or suspended due to the lack of
classroom management or culturally knowledgeable practices from teachers who do not
understand the culture in which their students were raised. One must realize that given
43
the right opportunities and necessary investment, students from a different ethnicity than
that of oneself can attain success in school and avoid becoming a dropout (American
Psychological Association, 2010).
Lack of parental support/involvement. Parental support is vital in high school
and makes a difference in a student’s decision to stay in school. Research showed that
students that drop out had low parental support and involvement. Parents that placed a
low value on education themselves transferred such low values to their children (Ingram,
n.d.). According to Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Balfanz (2009), 45% of principals and 61%
of teachers found lack of parental support as an at-risk factor in most cases for students
dropping out of school, while 88% of principals and 89% of teachers found it as a factor
in at least some instances. Research conducted by Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison
(2006), found that 68% of dropouts in the study said their parents became first involved
in their education only after they were dropping out. Unfortunately, many students’
parents were not involved in their children’s education until it was too late and the
decision to drop out was already at hand (Bridgeland et al., 2009).
School Related Factors
In a study conducted by The International Journal on School Disaffection by
Meeker, Edmonson, & Fisher (2008) it was stated that, “These individuals’ choices and
attitudes toward school played a major role in their inability to obtain a high school
diploma” (p. 44). Students who have struggled academically – receiving low grades in
their academic subjects, repeating grades, scoring below proficient on tests, falling
behind on receiving the credits necessary for graduation – are likely to drop out. Many
44
studies showed that the greatest indicators were related to one’s behavior and actions in
the everyday classroom and school (Neild, Balfanz, & Herzog, 2007).
School organization. According to Christle et al. (2007), “For many students,
the school they attend may be the strongest determining factor in their completing versus
dropping out of school” (p. 327). The structure and organization of a school may
determine a student’s decision to stay in school rather than dropping out. A quantitative
study led by Lee & Burkam (2003) surveyed 3,840 students in 10th – 12th grades in 30
large metro areas in the United States. Through this study, researchers found that the
school’s organizational structure does make a difference. Schools must offer a
challenging curriculum while meeting the needs of the students through remedial and
nonacademic courses.
Additionally, a school’s size can influence a student’s decision to stay in school.
All students learn in different ways and in different settings. The classroom size can
make a difference. Schools with the highest dropout rates tended to be large, urban, highpoverty schools (Balfanz & Herzog, 2006; Mac Iver & Mac Iver, 2009). Researchers
found that schools that consisted of a student population of about 1,500 students were
generally more effective in targeting students at risk than larger schools consisting of
2,500+ students. This was largely due to the amount of time that can be put into a
student’s well-being (Lee & Burkam, 2003).
Lack of teacher and administrator support. Students are less likely to drop out
of school when they feel they have a positive relationship with their teachers and
administrators (Lee & Burkam, 2003). Students that come from socially disadvantaged
backgrounds and who have had academic difficulties in the past find guidance and
45
assistance from teachers that make a difference in their future. Giving hope for the future
offers the students a sense of belonging and a need to graduate. Having a support system
at school gives students the assets that they need to help them succeed.
In Social Psychology of Education, researchers noted that “student-teacher
relationships were integral for some participants” (Lessard et al, 2008, p. 37). When
students feel acknowledged and valued from their teachers and administrators they are
more competent in their abilities, thus prolonging the time they stay in school.
Alternatively, a student can feel pressured and pushed away from those they are in
contact with daily at school. For this reason, one must note that conflicts with teachers
and administrators can intensify that and can result in a pivotal moment that might cause
one to dropout (Lessard et al., 2008).
Lack of relevant and challenging curriculum. Allensworth and Easton (2007)
proposed that “The more students see their schoolwork as relevant for the future, the
greater the likelihood that school as a whole will feel worthwhile” (p. 39). Educators
today must see the importance of proposing a relevant and challenging curriculum for
their students. Students who find what they are studying is important will find value
towards their success in the future. Prior research has revealed that “nearly half of
dropouts said they left school because they found it boring and uninteresting and did not
see relevance of school to real life” (Bridgeland et al., 2009, p. 23).
Unfortunately, many of the gifted and talented students are overlooked due to
their needs and feelings not being addressed in the classroom. When a school does not
support the talents and interests of the students, students lose interest and eventually drop
out. Studies have shown that dropping out of high school was a result of students’ failing
46
their coursework, low attendance, getting a job, and negative attitudes toward school.
With this idea, one would note that the majority of these reasons are school-related and
could have been prevented if their needs were met. Once the needs of the students have
been identified, schools can provide an academic curriculum that addresses an
individual’s particular interests and learning styles. This will allow schools to create a
learning culture that is relevant and challenging for the students (Renzulli & Park, 2000).
Discipline problems at school. School discipline has, and continues to be, a
major problem within a school (Stearns & Glennie, 2006). Providing a safe and orderly
learning environment continues to be a hallmark of a successful school. Discipline in
school is continuously reported as a problem facing school systems today that can hinder
students from their expected graduation date. In a study conducted by Meeker et al.
(2008), many of the students reported that, “part of the reason for this was their own
behavior choices” (p. 48). Many students reported that fighting was a major problem that
led to other discipline issues such as gangs, theft, and illegal drugs within their school
(Stearns & Glennie, 2006, Meeker et al., 2008).
This silent epidemic will continue unless ways can be found to help students
realize that education is the key to achieving a successful life. There is no single reason
why students drop out of high school. Schools, educators, students, and all stakeholders
must work together to explore indicators of potential dropouts. In reviewing the reasons
already mentioned for school failure, one can begin to find solutions that offer support to
students and the school system. There must be solutions to help young people stay in
school and receive the education they need and deserve.
47
Resilient Students
Any study that examines the factors linked with high school dropouts would be
incomplete without a discussion of the characteristics of students who experience risk and
yet attain their high school diplomas. These characteristics are integral to the construct of
resiliency and reside within the individual and their environment. It is pertinent at this
juncture to define the construct of resiliency; to briefly explore its history in research in
order to establish a link to current research in education; and to discuss what researchers
call protective factors, as the characteristics of resilient students are synonymous to these
factors.
As is true of the writings on the definition, researchers have provided many
descriptions of the characteristics of resilient children. In education, these characteristics
can include personality traits and individual behaviors, features of the school and
classroom environment, and the home and family environment. Much of resiliency
research draws on the work of Ann Masten and others who have found that many
resiliency traits can be linked to an individual’s sense of self-efficacy and selfdetermination. Simply stated, these students believed that they had the ability to shape
what happened to them and were responsible for their own success (Hupfeld, n.d.).
Studies showed that innate ability does not appear to be correlated with resiliency, but
that resiliency skills can be taught (Waxman, Gray, & Padron, 2003).
According to Fergus & Zimmerman (2005), “Using assets or resources to
overcome risks demonstrates resilience as a process” (p. 400). The factors that can help
youth avoid negative outcomes associated with risk may be either assets or resources.
Assets in this context are defined as those positive factors within the individual.
48
Examples of assets are things such as competence, coping skills, and self-efficacy.
Resources, on the other hand, are external to the individual and focus on the social
environmental influences on development. A focus on resources places resilience theory
in a more ecological context, thereby positing that those external resources can be the
focus for change in efforts to develop interventions.
It is important to note that resilience is sometimes confused with positive
adjustment, competence, or coping. Each of these constructs is related to resilience, but
they are also distinctly different. A positive outcome is an outcome of resilience. Coping
is an adjustment in behavior as a response to the presence of risk and competence is an
asset within the individual.
Ann Masten (2001) determined that resilience can refer to either the state of wellbeing achieved by an individual at-risk or to the characteristics and mechanisms by which
that well-being is achieved. Masten’s short list of resilience factors (characteristics) were
as follows:
x
Positive attachment bonds with caregivers
x
Positive relationships with other nurturing and competent adults
x
Intellectual skills
x
Self-regulation skills
x
Positive self-perceptions, self-efficacy
x
Faith, hope, and a sense of meaning in life
x
Friends or romantic partners who are supportive and pro-social
x
Bonds to effective schools and other prosocial organizations
x
Communities with positive services and supports for families and children
x
49
Cultures that provide positive standards, rituals, relationships, and support
Masten noted that some of these factors were in the family or close relationships, some
were within the community or cultural context, and some were within the child. In a like
manner, when referring to characteristics of resilience other researchers categorized
characteristics or resiliency promoting factors as individual attributes, family qualities
and environment, and external systems such as schools, neighborhoods and communities.
One study found that resilient children displayed four personal characteristics:
social competence, problem-solving skills, autonomy, and a sense of purpose (Benard,
2004). Social competence included the qualities of responsiveness, flexibility, empathy
and caring, communication skills, a sense of humor, and any pro-social behaviors.
Children who were socially competent were more responsive and as a result elicited more
positive responses from others. Problem solving skills included the ability to think
abstractly, reflectively, and flexibly and to have the ability to attempt alternate solutions
to cognitive and social problems. Autonomy was referred to in different terms by
various researchers. An internal locus of control, sense of power, self-esteem, selfefficacy, self-discipline, and a strong sense of independence were all summed up in the
term “autonomy” - a person’s sense of identity and their ability to act independently and
to exert some control over their environment. A sense of purpose and future was closely
related to autonomy. According to researchers, this was the most powerful predictor of
positive outcomes for at-risk individuals.
Another study described six traits that allowed resilient children to overcome
adversity. They were: a sense of self-efficacy; goal-oriented behavior; a sense of
personal responsibility; a sense of optimism; internal expectations; and coping strategies
50
for dealing with personal stress (McMillan & Reed, 1993). A longitudinal study by
Geoffrey Borman (2004) found that regardless of race, students of low-income families
who achieved resilient mathematics outcomes had greater engagement in academic
activities, an internal locus of control, a more positive outlook toward school, and more
positive self-esteem.
The results of all these and many more studies have consistently pointed to
similar qualities of children and environments that are associated with competence and
better psychosocial functioning during and after an adverse experience. The
characteristics of resilient children lie within the individual, the family, and the extrafamilial context. Within the individual, these characteristics included good intellectual
functioning, an easygoing and sociable disposition, self-efficacy, self-confidence, high
self-esteem, talents, and faith. Within the family, these characteristics included close
relationships to caring parent figures, authoritative parenting, warmth and structure, high
expectations, socioeconomic advantage, and connections to extended supportive family
networks. Finally, the extra-familial context included the following characteristics:
bonds to pro-social adults outside of the family, connections to pro-social organizations,
and attending effective schools (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).
In the study of resiliency, “researchers are intrigued with the challenge of
understanding how people overcome risk or adversity to succeed in life” (Masten, 2001,
p. 28). Studies demonstrated both the ways that individuals developed successfully
despite risk and adversity and the lack of the predictive power of risk factors. They
articulated the practices and attitudes that promote healthy development and successful
outcomes for children. The skills set or characteristics of resiliency included the ability
51
to form relationships, to problem solve, to develop a sense of identity, and to plan and
hope for a future. Many programs and approaches are being developed that propose to
teach these skills. However, the strong message of resiliency research is that these
attributes and characteristics are outcomes of resilience and not causes of resilience.
Some of the characteristics of resiliency exist within the individual, and others arise as a
result of relationships with others and the environment. Resilience does not depend on
extraordinary talents or resources. Instead, it depends on fundamental adaptive systems.
The capacity for resilience changes and develops as individuals change and develop.
Similarly, the characteristics of resilience vary widely from individual to individual.
Prevention and Intervention
The United States must prepare students for the globally competitive society of
the 21st century. Educators, policymakers, and community leaders have been making
great efforts to address the high school graduation crisis in the United States. In order to
improve student achievement, graduation rates, and college and career readiness,
programs and interventions need to be created that address the needs of students.
According to the American Psychological Association (2010), “School programs that
focus on social, emotional, and academic learning from kindergarten through high
school have been found to improve school attitudes, behavior, and academic
performance” (p. 3). The American Psychological Association (2010) identified the
approaches that had produced positive outcomes. They included: partnership between
schools and families to encourage learning, safe and orderly school and classroom
environments, caring relationships between students and teachers, cooperative learning
and proactive classroom management, and high academic expectation of youth from
52
both adults and peers.
Middle school. During the middle-grade years, students embark on a large
transition that requires a host of changes. For this reason, researchers chose to conduct
their study with the official starting year in middle school, sixth grade. Neild et al.
(2007) suggested three challenges in devising early intervention strategies: determining
what signals to look for and when to look for them, developing a system for collecting
and reviewing data, and determining the help that students need. Neild et al.(2007)
examined data from several cohorts of students in schools that had implemented Talent
Development High Schools and Middle Grades Programs in Philadelphia. The school
district data that was used included test scores, grades, behavior marks, attendance,
special education status, English language learner status, and demographic categories.
The researchers examined dropout signals in the middle grades as well as signals in ninth
grade high school students. The researchers followed 14,000 students who entered 6th
grade in 1996 for six years to determine dropout status. The research team then examined
data to look for signals that would give students a 75 percent probability of dropping out
of high school.
As a result of their study, Neild et al. (2007) found that middle school students
who exhibited one or more of the following signals had a 75 percent chance of dropping
out of high school:
x
A final grade of F in mathematics.
x
A final grade of F in English.
x
Attendance below 80 percent for the year.
x
A final “unsatisfactory” behavior mark in at least one class (p. 29).
53
The researchers also found that students who exhibited more than one signal had a higher
probability of dropping out of high school (Neild, et al., 2007, p. 29).
Neild et al. also analyzed data for a cohort of 8th grade students. While the
indicators remained the same as that of the 6th grade cohort, it was determined that more
than 50 percent of the students who dropped out of high school exhibited one or more of
the signals as an eighth grade student. According to their research, Neild et al. (2007)
found that “eighty percent of the dropouts studied in Philadelphia had sent a signal in the
middle grades or during the first year of high school” (p. 30).
The significance of this study was that it suggested students in danger of dropping
out of high school could be identified before entering high school. As a result of their
study, Neild et al. (2007) suggested a three-tiered school-based model for prevention and
intervention that focused on attendance, behavior, and academic performance. The top
tier consisted of whole-school preventive measures such as using a system of rewards for
attendance. The second tier consisted of targeted interventions that focus on 10-20
percent of students who need additional support. The third tier consisted of intensive
interventions for 5-10 percent of students who need individual support. It is important
for educators to recognize the signals as early as possible in order to implement
appropriate intervention strategies.
The middle grades are a critical time in a student’s academic career. Educators
must realize there are factors influencing student’s dropping out of high school and can
be identified as early as sixth grade. Schools must have an intervention model serving as
a support for students “identified” at an early age to reach their highest potential.
Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver (2007) stated, “The main goal of this ongoing work is to
54
identify at-risk students early in the middle grades and then to ‘intervene now’, so that
they will graduate later” (p. 224).
High school. There are some states and school districts that are raising high
school graduation rates while others continue to struggle. Balfanz et al. (2010) stated the
importance of taking “a critical look at the efforts that have heralded improvements in
graduation rates, and those that have failed to do so, in our communities” (p. 23). As a
result, educators and policymakers can develop interventions and programs to “drive
future success and more accelerated gains” (Balfanz et al., 2010, p. 67).
Balfanz et al. analyzed student graduation data from 2002 to 2008. The
researchers used two indicators, the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and
promoting power to analyze students’ high school progress. AFGR data and promoting
power are provided by every public school and district in the country to the U.S.
Department of Education through the Common Core of Data (CCD) of the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The AFGR data is the number of diplomas
awarded at the district level and promoting power is calculated from grade-level
enrollment numbers. The combination of AFGR and promoting power allowed
researchers to analyze the progress and challenges of graduation rates at the school,
district, regional, and state levels (Balfanz et al., 2010, p.66).
According to Building a Grad Nation Progress and Challenge in Ending the High
School Dropout Epidemic (2010), four states showed balanced improvement in
graduation rates in four locales: cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Texas and
Tennessee showed improvement in all four of the locales while Alabama and Georgia
showed improvement in three out of the four locales.
55
An early warning system. Educators and policymakers must develop methods
for identifying early indicators of students in danger of dropping out of high school.
According to Balfanz & Byrnes (2010), “Early indicators are “flags” or “distress signals”
that are sent by a very large percentage of eventual dropouts years before they actually
leave school” (p. 3). The first step needed to address the dropout crisis is building an
early warning system. In order to develop successful intervention strategies, student data
should be easily and readily accessible to educators. As Kennelly and Monrad (2007)
stated, “Schools, districts, and states need the data capacity to allow them to prioritize
and calibrate interventions to meet the needs of students, schools, and districts,
respectively” (p. 11).
Through collecting and analyzing data from schools, school systems, and states,
educators and policymakers can better understand what the factors are that contribute to
improving graduation rates. According to new federal regulations and state guidelines set
forth by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, schools, school districts, and
states are required to report graduation rates based on the “four-year adjusted graduation
rate.” The four-year adjusted graduation rate is a common system used by all states to
track students from 9th grade through graduation. However, it is important for schools,
districts, and/or states to develop an early warning system to identify at-risk students
(Sparks, 2010a). According to the American Psychological Association (2010), “dropout
rates particularly correlate with high poverty rates, poor school attendance, grade
retention, and disengagement from school” (pg. 2). As Kennelly and Monrad (2007)
stated, “Understanding the magnitude of the dropout problem and the forces that impacts
the dropout rate is an important preliminary step to developing dropout prevention
56
strategies” (p. 4). Identifying at-risk students as early as possible will allow schools,
districts, and states to develop strategies and interventions to address the needs of
students. In addition, early identification of dropout indicators can allow educators to
provide the interventions necessary for students to remain on track and graduate from
high school.
Best practices of successful schools. Once an early warning system has been
established, intervention strategies can then be identified for individual students. In order
to determine appropriate intervention strategies, educators can identify best practices
from higher performing high schools. Kennelly and Monrad (2007) identified effective
high school best practices as the school climate, academic rigor, effective teachers, and
extended learning time. According to Kennelly and Monrad (2007),
Once a school recognizes that institutional factors matter at least as much, and in
some cases more, than individual factors, the school can undertake to change
those areas in their control in order to exert more of a holding power and to use
data to inform exactly how to go about making adjustments. (p. 11)
Successful schools create a school climate that is conducive to learning. A
positive school climate is created through a safe and secure learning environment, a
rigorous and engaging curriculum, and supportive relationships with peers, teachers, and
administrators. Successful schools engage students in learning through a rigorous and
relevant academic curriculum that is aligned to state standards. Kennelly and Monrad
(2007) stated, “Research indicates that a balance between relevance and rigor will result
in even more students staying in school” (p. 11). In addition, teachers at successful
schools are experienced, effective, and highly qualified. Effective teachers understand
57
subject-area content and curriculum standards. They also understand strategies to address
the needs of individual learners.
Intervention. Developing an early warning system to identify students at risk of
dropping out of high school is important to ending the graduation crisis. However, early
identification will only impact at-risk students if effective interventions are implemented
successfully. According to Balfanz (2011), the indicators that most influenced student
success were attendance, behavior, and course failure. “Approximately 80 percent of
eventual dropouts send distress signals in one or more of these areas during these years
[grades 6th to 9th]. Reducing the number of students exhibiting such indicators would
substantially improve graduation rates” (p. 54).
In Six Pillars of Effective Dropout Prevention and Recovery, Jobs for the Future
(JFF) identified six policy elements based on research on effective dropout prevention
and recovery. The six pillars included: (1) Reinforce the right to a public education; (2)
Count and account for dropouts; (3) Use graduation and on-track rates to trigger
significant and transformative reform; (4) Invent new models; (5) Accelerate preparation
for postsecondary success; and (6) Provide stable funding for systemic reform (Almeida,
Steinberg, Santos, and Le, 2010, p. 2).
There are many characteristics of school improvement programs. The National
High School Center identified key characteristics of research-based high school
improvement programs. These characteristics included:
x Attendance and behavior monitors
x Focus on achievement in core courses
x Tutoring as an academic support
58
x Counseling/Mentoring
x Small learning communities/School within a school
x Catch-up courses
x Homerooms, teams, or looping
x Ninth grade academies or transition programs
x Tiered approach to academic and behavioral support
x Focus on positive effects for diverse students
x Focus on positive effects for students with disabilities
x Career/College awareness
x Family engagement
x Community engagement
x Ensuring partnerships between high schools and feeder middle schools (Kennelly,
& Monrad, 2007, p. 2).
Scherer (2010) stated, “If our interventions are going to work, we will need to bring all
our will and expertise to the cause of educating every student” (para. 9). Implementing
effective programs can be used by schools and school districts to provide intervention
strategies and student support. As a result of effective interventions, the number of high
school dropouts can be reduced.
Response to Intervention (RTI) is one solution that provides additional time and
support to address the individual needs of students. The main objective of RTI is to help
students achieve academic proficiency. Although RTI can be used to identify students
with learning disabilities, it is a system that can provide academic and behavior
intervention that supports all learners. Effective implementation of RTI requires
59
collaboration among administrators, teachers, and parents (Burns, 2008). Duffy (2007)
indicated, “The successful implementation of RTI constructs will require the coordination
and collaboration of educational professionals across the system to identify the most
effective and developmentally appropriate instructional interventions and progress
monitoring tools for high school students” (p. 3).
Response to Intervention uses a tiered approach for providing instruction and
services:
x
Tier 1 uses evidence based instruction, support, and progress monitoring.
x
Tier 2 provides targeted interventions and progress monitoring.
x
Tier 3 includes a comprehensive evaluation to determine eligibility for special
services (Duffy, 2007).
Response to Intervention (RTI) is one solution that provides additional time and support
for the individual student. According to Scherer (2010),
Response to Intervention can address both academic and behavioral issues, apply
general as well as special education, be adapted to specific circumstances, and
look different from school to school. By making an instructional strategy for all,
it may also remove the stigma associated with learning problems and catch
students up before they fall far behind their classmates. (para. 5)
Response to Intervention has typically been an intervention method that has been used in
elementary and middle schools. However, RTI can be implemented at the high school
level. Burns (2008) suggested that in order for RTI to have successful outcomes at the
high school level educators must make data-based decisions, implement small-group
support and instruction, and work collaboratively to analyze problems. Through
60
collaboration, educators can use RTI to implement progress monitoring, support, and
interventions to address the individual needs of students who need additional support and
who may be at risk of dropping out of high school.
The Diplomas Now model is an example of a successful intervention that has been
used by middle schools and high schools in high poverty areas to address the challenges
of low graduation rates. The Diplomas Now model is a collaborative effort of the Talent
Development secondary programs at John Hopkins University, City Year, and
Communities in Schools. The model integrates effective whole-school reform, an early
warning system, strategic deployment of “Near Peers,” and team-based work. The
Diplomas Now model uses whole-school reforms of the Talent Development Middle and
High School model. These whole-school reform strategies include a more personalized
learning environment, research-based instructional programs, professional development,
extra-help courses, school-family partnerships, small learning communities,
interdisciplinary teaming, and looping. The Diplomas Now model allows a teacher
access to a data-on-demand system that tracks student attendance, behavior, and course
grades. Teachers can use current data to determine the support and interventions that
students need on an individualized basis. According to Balfanz (2011), “Teachers use
clear, data-based decision-making rules to determine when a student needs to move from
one level of support to another” (p. 57). Through the strategic deployment of “Near
Peers,” the Diplomas Now model uses City Year teams to work with off-track students by
developing positive relationships through mentoring, tutoring, and homework support.
The Communities in Schools program also provides student and family support services.
Finally, the Diplomas Now model uses team-based work to support teacher collaboration.
61
To accomplish this, teachers and administrators participate in “mission building” to
create a shared purpose, core teachers share common sets of students, and teachers are
provided time to work collaboratively with interdisciplinary teams as well as subject area
teams. The Diplomas Now model has been successful in several pilot schools. Schools
have been able to reduce attendance and behavior issues by 50 percent and course failures
by almost 66 percent (Balfanz, 2011).
The graduation crisis in the United States must continue to be a focus of educators
and policymakers. Educators must learn how to recognize the signals early in a student’s
academic career, especially before entering high school. School systems must provide
the necessary interventions and programs to help students be successful. Ensuring that
students graduate from high school with a strong foundation of academic core knowledge
is the best way to prepare them for life after high school (Achieve, 2011). According to
Kennelly & Monrad (2007), “Interventions that have the capacity to be oriented around
individual student needs, and that work in tandem with school-wide interventions able to
adjust around grade-level needs, hold promise as an effective combination for combating
the nation’s dropout problem” (p. 3). Policymakers must provide legislation and funding
that will address the graduation crisis. As Neild et al. (2007) noted, “the price of not
intervening—in terms of individual lives that do not reach their potential and the broader
social costs of having a class of citizens who lack a basic academic credential—is
incalculably greater” (p. 33).
Summary
The United States is facing a dropout crisis among the nation’s high school
students. In light of the recent recession in the United States, the graduation crisis is
62
cause for great concern. According to the American Psychological Association (2010),
“Dropouts are far more likely to experience reduced job and income opportunities,
chronic unemployment, incarceration, or requiring government assistance than the rest of
the population” (p. 5). Specifically, in the state of Tennessee, 81% of all jobs require
post-secondary education or training. Currently, only 32% of the adults in Tennessee
have post-secondary education or training (Achieve, 2011). As a result, educators and
policy makers must develop methods for identifying early indicators of students in danger
of dropping out of high school.
The work of Robert Balfanz and his colleagues at John Hopkins University Center
for Social Organization of Schools is currently being used by Metropolitan Nashville
Public Schools to identify students at risk of not graduating. The indicators for at-risk
students are as follows: an attendance rate of less than 85%; a fall GPA of less than 70%;
and six or more days suspension out of school. Students that share these indicators are
identified as needing intervention to complete graduation requirements.
In the review of literature, research indicated the dropping out of high school was
a cumulative process (Christle, Jolivetter, & Nelson, 2007). The decision to drop out of
school was related closely to many factors and influences, all centered around the
individual, family, and school. Individual risk factors included poor academic
performance/engagement, grade retention, early adult responsibilities, bad attitude/poor
choices, student mobility, and future opportunities. At-risk factors associated with the
family included family turmoil, low socio-economic status, ethnicity, and lack of parental
support/involvement. At-risk factors associated with school included the organization of
63
the school, lack of teacher and administrator support, lack of relevant and challenging
curriculum, and discipline problems at school.
Any study that examines the factors linked with high school drop-outs would be
incomplete without a discussion of characteristics of students who experience risk yet
obtain their high school diplomas. Some of the characteristics of resiliency included a
sense of self-efficacy, personal responsibility, optimism, self-esteem, self-discipline, and
a strong sense of independence.
In order to improve student achievement, graduation rates, and college and career
readiness, programs and interventions need to be created that address the needs of
students. Interventions include partnership between schools and families to encourage
learning, safe and orderly school and classroom environments, caring relationships
between students and teachers, cooperative learning and proactive classroom
management, and high academic expectation of youth from both adults and peers.
Effective interventions are those that incorporate strategies and have characteristics that
foster resilience. Kennelly and Monrad (2007) concluded, “As schools adopt and adapt
strategies for dropout prevention, districts need to provide parallel initiatives that include
turnaround plans for low-performing schools that are responsive to data-based needs
assessments with success indicators for determining progress” (p. 15). Developing an
early warning system to identify students at risk of dropping out of high school is
important to ending the graduation crisis.
64
Methodology
Research Design
The researchers used a mixed method approach, combining both quantitative and
qualitative analysis. The quantitative portion of this study consisted of a causalcomparative research design analyzing academic, behavioral, and attendance data, as well
as data collected using questionnaires. A comparison of the students who graduated from
AOC and students who dropped out was conducted in order to determine whether or not
the students who successfully completed the program possessed the same indicators as
the students who dropped out of the program. The primary dependent variable was
successful completion of the program (i.e. graduation). The independent variables were
the at-risk indicators of absences, out-of-school suspensions, and course failures. The
aims of the quantitative portion of the study were to determine if all of the students at
AOC exhibit the Balfanz indicators, to determine the resiliency of students, and to
determine the correlation between the indicator set the students possess and their
graduation status.
The research team members were given access to the students’ life stories written
in their own words. In addition, the research team conducted a focus group with research
participants. Using a constant comparative approach, the aims of the qualitative portion
of the study were to identify at-risk indicators other than those currently used by MNPS
and to identify characteristics of AOC that support student success.
65
indicators of high school dropouts that students at The Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC)
may possess. In addition, the researchers examined the characteristic of resiliency as it
relates to program structure persistence to graduation. Finally, the researchers identified
the characteristics of the AOC program that made it a successful intervention for at-risk
students. The dependent variable was graduation from AOC. The independent variables
included the at-risk indicators of absences, out-of-school suspensions, and course
failures. During the course of this study, the research team identified other indicators that
were included within the common themes of individual, family, and school. Intervening
variables included age, gender, socio-economic status, and/or ethnicity. The results of
this study conducted on the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The Academy at Old
Cockrill can then be used to assist school administrators and district officials in
developing and planning program and interventions for at-risk students.
The significance of this work is in the insight gained about the indicators
associated with programming for at-risk students in MNPS in general and AOC in
particular. Equally significant is the attempt to understand the interaction of at-risk
students within their environment and how resiliency correlates with the students’
impressions of The Academy at Old Cockrill and with persistence to graduation. The
research team gained valuable insight into the indicators associated with programming
for at-risk students. This research will impact program development and implementation
at The Academy at Old Cockrill.
66
Research Questions
The research questions included:
1. Do the students in the 2010-2011cohort at AOC share the Balfanz at-risk
indicators?
resilience?
constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure,
and program effectiveness?
6. What characteristics of AOC do students report that contribute to meeting the goal
of graduation?
Null Hypotheses
In the quantitative portion of the study, the null hypotheses are:
67
suspensions.
course failures.
indicators.
68
69
resilience.
at AOC.
students at AOC.
AOC.
students at AOC.
students at AOC.
70
Population, Research Participants, Sampling Procedures Used
The population for the study included students from Metropolitan Nashville
Public Schools. According to the Tennessee Department of Education report card,
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools provided educational services for 73,117 students
during the 2010-2011 school year. Of those 73,117 students, there were 41,345 male
students (51.0%) and 39,658 female students (49.0%). The student population
demographics consisted of 37,138 African American students (45.8%), 3,343
Asian/Pacific Islander students (4.1%), 13,422 Hispanic students (16.6%), 128 Native
American/Alaskan students (.2%), and 28,972 White students (33.3%). The student
population was comprised of 11,010 students with limited English proficiency (13.6%),
9,001 students with disabilities (12.3%), 55,076 students who were economically
disadvantaged (75.0%) and 65,581 Title I students (81.0%) (Tennessee Department of
Education, 2012). During the 2010-2011 school year, there was a high school attendance
rate of 91.3% in the high schools in the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools system.
The high school graduation rate for MNPS was 76.2%. The graduation rate by subgroup
includes 77.1% White, 76.8% Black, 66.5 % Hispanic, 90.1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and
85.7% Indian. The graduation rate by gender included 70.3% male students and 82.1%
female students. Additionally, the graduation rate for economically disadvantaged
students was 72.0%, for students with disabilities was 55.3%, and students with limited
English proficiency was 64.7% (Tennessee Department of Education, 2012).
Within MNPS high schools lies The Academy at Old Cockrill. The population at
The Academy at Old Cockrill consisted of students, ages 17-21, who have dropped out of
high school and were serious about the pursuit of a high school diploma. Many students
71
encountered situations in life that precipitates the need for an individualized plan of
competing requirements for graduation. These students were classified as seniors and
were expected to graduate in one school year. In a typical school year the enrollment at
The Academy at Old Cockrill is between 150-200 students.
The 2010-2011 cohort of students at AOC were the participants in this research
study. The cohort was comprised of 191 students. Of the 191 students, there were 89
male students (46.6%) and 102 female students (53.4%). The student population
demographics consisted of 118 African American students (61.8%), 1 Asian/Pacific
Islander student (0.5%), 10 Hispanic students (5.2%), and 62 White students (32.5%).
The student population was comprised of 9 students with limited English proficiency
(4.7%), 3 students with disabilities (1.6%), and 70 students who were economically
disadvantaged (36.6%). During the 2010-2011 school year, there was an attendance rate
of 89.5% at AOC. Of the 191 students, 136 completed requirements for graduation
(71.2%). The remaining 55 students did not complete graduation requirements during the
2010-2011 academic school year (28.8%).
The research team worked with the client to determine that the 2010-2011 cohort
would be the appropriate participants. This decision was made because data for the
2010-2011 cohort was final and accessible through Chancery and MNPS Data
Warehouse. Another consideration for working with the 2010-2011 cohort was the
feasibility of completing the research within the appropriate timeframe.
Instrumentation
The research team used an existing instrument (Appendix D) to explore the
concept of resiliency. Permission was granted to the research team by Dr. Gail Wagnild
72
(Appendix E). The Resilience Scale™, developed by Dr. Gail Wagnild and Dr. Heather
Young, measures resilience levels based upon five essential characteristics of resilience
(meaningful life purpose, perseverance, self reliance, equanimity, and existential
aloneness). This instrument is available in 10-, 15-, and 25-item versions and allows
participants to respond to verbatim statements made by persons who demonstrate
resilience on a seven-point Likert scale. The author of The Resilience Scale™ used
“Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to estimate the reliability of the instrument based on the
extent on which the items were internally consistent” (Waginald, 2009, p. 34). Minimum
standards for reliability coefficients for group comparisons are 0.70 and 0.90-0.95 for
individual comparison. The overall alpha coefficient for The Resilience Scale™ is 0.80.
The validity of The Resilience Scale™ has been supported in numerous studies. The
correlation between this instrument and other instruments, such as the Health Promoting
Lifestyle Profile, were used to document convergent and discriminant validity of The
Resilience Scale™. According to Dr. Wagnild, differences among diverse groups
completing the same instrument were examined to establish known group validity.
Additionally, Wagnild (2009) stated, “Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlating
the resiliency scale with theoretically relevant constructs” (p. 40).
In adherence with the standards of scoring, the researchers used the RS-14
Resilience Scoring to interpret student responses to the Resilience ScaleTM. The score
was reported as a total of the responses to each question on the instrument. Responses to
the questions range from one to seven. The RS-14 total resilience scores range from 14 –
98 with a score of 14-56 indicating “very low” resilience, 57-64 as “low” resilience, 6573 indicates “on the low end” of resilience, 74-81 is “moderate” range, 82-90 is
73
considered “moderately high” resilience, and 91-98 is “high” resilience. According to the
authors of the instrument, it is considered to be one of the most accurate instruments
currently available to measure resilience. The Resilience ScaleTM is used by counselors,
coaches, educators, and researchers (Wagnild, 2009).
Due to the unique nature of this research study, the research team needed an
instrument that would gather participants’ opinions related to the characteristics of The
Academy at Old Cockrill. Relying on their educational expertise and knowledge, the
researchers identified the five constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness,
academics, program structure, and program effectiveness as key components of
educational program designs. Using a Likert scale, the questionnaire was used to gather
student perspectives about their experiences at AOC with respect to the five constructs
(Appendix F).
Data Collection Procedures
Quantitative data collection procedure. The Academy at Old Cockrill research
team was granted approval from the Lipscomb University Institutional Review Board
(IRB) to conduct research with The Academy at Old Cockrill (Appendix J). Upon
approval from the IRB, the researchers then sought permission from the Metropolitan
Nashville Public Schools Executive Director of Research, Assessment, and Evaluation
(Appendix K). The procedures for quantitative research included the research team
gathering archival data from MNPS Data Warehouse and Chancery. The quantitative
analysis included the six research questions with 24 null hypotheses (Appendix L). The
data were used to create a data set using IBM SPSS 19 software for statistical analysis.
The researchers used descriptive statistics to compare at-risk indicators of students who
74
successfully completed the program at AOC with those students who did not complete
the program. The researchers tested for significance using chi-square, one-sample test,
step-wise regression, linear regression, and independent t-test. Data included students’
demographics, Balfanz at-risk indicators, students’ responses from the Resilience
Scale™, students’ response to the AOC Survey, and a summarization of at-risk indicators
outlined in the literature review which were then identified in the students’ written
stories.
Packets were mailed to the participants in the study that contained the Participant
Informed Consent (Appendix A), instructions for completing the questionnaires
(Appendix C), the AOC Questionnaire (Appendix F), and The Resilience Scale™
(Appendix D). All participants’ contact information was taken from the MNPS database.
In order to ensure that an adequate number of surveys were returned, the research team
used an automated callout system to follow up with students. After a second mail out
failed to yield an adequate percentage of returns, the research team contacted students via
phone to complete the questionnaires. A total of 56 questionnaires (29.3%) were
collected by the research team, 27 were returned by mail and 29 were conducted by
phone.
Qualitative data collection procedures. The research team used random
sampling to select a subset of fifty percent of the students from the data set. From this
subset, the research team contacted students to identify those willing to participate in
interviews and/or focus groups. Of the subset, seven students willingly attended the
focus group held at The Academy at Old Cockrill. Dinner and an honorarium were
provided by the research team to those in attendance. The focus group addressed
75
questions related to the students’ experiences at their previous high school setting, the
students’ perceptions of the word dropout, and their experiences at The Academy at Old
Cockrill (Appendix G). An audio recording was made of the focus group discussion.
The recording was transcribed by an independent contractor to ensure the validity of the
data (Appendix M). The research team used students’ written stories, interview
responses, and survey responses from students to identify characteristics of the AOC
students and program that make it a successful intervention for at-risk students.
A collection of stories written by the AOC graduates was collected and archived
by the administrator at AOC. The research team was provided access to these stories to
read and decode using a constant comparative approach. The researchers developed a
system for decoding students’ written stories by identifying common themes of at-risk
indicators for dropping out of high school. Of the 126 stories, 73 stories contained
information related to students’ individual, family, and school experiences that could be
used in the study. The remaining 53 stories did not contain information pertaining to
dropping out of high school.
As the literature review revealed, one’s decision to drop out of high school is
related to many factors and influences, all centered around the individual, family, and
school. Individual at-risk factors included poor academic performance/engagement,
grade retention, early adult responsibilities, bad attitude/poor choices, student mobility,
and future opportunities. At-risk factors associated with the family include family
turmoil, low socio-economic status, ethnicity, and lack of parental support/involvement.
At-risk factors associated with school include the organization of the school, lack of
76
teacher and administrator support, lack of relevant and challenging curriculum, and
discipline problems at school.
In the qualitative portion of the study, the researchers developed a spreadsheet in
Microsoft Excel as a tool for analyzing and decoding the narrative data. The codes were
derived from categories of dropout indicators that are prevalent in the literature. The
research team read and decoded a sample of the narratives together to ensure accuracy
and continuity of the decoding process. Afterward, the research team decoded the
narratives independently. This method provided for triangulation of findings, thus
enhancing the validity of the research.
Variables in the Study
Participants in the research study were assigned an identification number.
General student demographic data was collected from the MNPS Chancery and MNPS
Data Warehouse. Demographic data included date of birth, age, race, socioeconomic
status, limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and gender. The Balfanz atrisk indicators of attendance, suspensions, and course failures were taken from MNPS
Data Warehouse. A variable was computed to reflect the total number of Balfanz
indicators (0, 1, 2, 3). The variable of student status indicated whether a student
graduated (1) or dropped out (2). Each of the questions in the constructs from the AOC
Questionnaire (Appendix F) was recorded as an individual variable. A mean total
variable was assigned for each construct. Similarly, each item on The Resiliency ScaleTM
was assigned a variable. The total of the items was recorded as the variable resiliency
score in accordance with the author’s instructions. The researchers identified three
categories of at-risk factors from the review of literature that were related to the
77
individual, family, and school. Under each category several specific factors were
identified. The specific at-risk factors and their categories were assigned a variable.
Description of Risk
Participation in this study was voluntary. There are risks involved in all research
studies. This study included minimal risks. During the research process students were
asked questions that may have been uncomfortable for them when bringing up previous
experiences in school. They were not forced to share any information they were not
comfortable in sharing with the research team.
There was no financial cost for participants to participate in this study. Once the
research team received students’ questionnaires, students were then randomly selected to
participate in the focus group. The focus group took approximately one hour of the
students’ time. If selected to participate in the focus group, the students were
compensated for their time with a gift card to a local retail store.
Information gathered in this study was kept confidential. The anonymity of the
participants was protected. Students’ names were removed from the written stories and
replaced with the corresponding student identification number. Three copies of the
stories were made for the researchers to use in the decoding process. The researchers
only shared information from the stories with those actively involved in the research.
The transcribed data from students’ personal stories and interviews were stored in the
researchers’ secure, password-protected database.
78
Data Analysis and Findings
Demographic Analysis
For the purpose of this study, data were collected from the 2010-2011 cohort of
students at The Academy at Old Cockrill. The research team analyzed demographic
information including gender, race, socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency,
students with disabilities, graduation status, and age.
There were 191 students represented in the sample population (n = 191). The
student population at The Academy at Old Cockrill was a diverse population. Based on
gender, there were 102 female students (53.4%) and 89 male students (46.6%). Student
ethnicity consisted of 62 White students (32.5%), 118 Black or African American
students (61.78%), 10 Hispanic or Latino students (5.2%), and 1 Asian student (0.5%).
The categorization of socioeconomic status included 70 (36.63%) students who were
economically disadvantaged and 121 (63.35%) who were not economically
disadvantaged. In the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The Academy at Old Cockrill, 182
(95.29%) students were proficient in the English language and 9 students (4.71%) had
limited English proficiency. There were three students (1.57%) with disabilities.
During the 2010-2011 school year, 191 students were enrolled at The Academy
at Old Cockrill. Of those 191 students, 55 students (28.8%) dropped out of AOC while
136 students (71.2%) graduated from AOC.
The Academy at Old Cockrill offers a non-traditional approach for students who
have dropped out or are at risk for dropping out of an MNPS school. AOC allows these
students to continue on a pathway to completion of requirements towards a diploma
within one year. Table 1 displays the ages of the students in the 2010-2011 cohort. The
79
range of student ages was 16-23. The average age of students in the 2010-2011 cohort
was 18.63.
Table 1
Age of 2010-2011 Cohort
Age
N
% of Students
16
1
.5
17
21
11.0
18
81
42.4
19
54
28.3
20
19
9.9
21
10
5.2
22
4
2.1
23
1
0.5
Total
191
100.0
80
Quantitative Analysis
In the quantitative portion of the study, the null hypotheses were:
A one-sample test was used to analyze the difference between the mean Balfanz
at-risk indicators in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC and the test value of zero. In Table 2
the descriptive analysis of skewness was outside of the acceptable range of -1 to +1.
Therefore, a non-parametric analysis was performed. Table 3 shows the results of the
one-sample test having a p value of .000. The One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov nonparametric test confirmed the results of the one-sample test. Since p<.05 the null
hypotheses was rejected. Therefore, there was a statistically significant difference
between the mean Balfanz at-risk indicators in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC and the test
value of zero. The mean of .27 was an indicator for the occurrence of each at-risk factor
that was significantly more than zero.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators in 2010-2011 Cohort
Total At-Risk
Indicators
N
191
Mean
.27
Std. Deviation
.510
Variance
.260
Skewness
1.758
Kurtosis
2.269
Table 3
One-Sample Test for Total Balfanz At-Risk Indicators and the Test Value of Zero
Total At-Risk Indicators
*Significant at the .05 level
Df
190
Mean Difference
.267
T
7.238
p-value
.000*
81
Table 4 shows the comparison of two nominal variables used to determine if there
is a statistically significant difference between the students who graduate from AOC and
those who dropped out of AOC with regard to the at-risk indicator of attendance . The
Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A p-value of .083 on the Pearson ChiSquare (>.05) indicated there was no statistically significant difference between the
variables. Therefore the null hypothesis was retained.
Table 4Chi-Square Analysis of Status and At-Risk Indicator of Attendance
Status
Attendance At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Graduate Count
% within Status
% within Attendance
At-Risk Indicator
% of Total
113
83.1%
68.9%
23
16.9%
85.2%
136
100.0%
71.2%
59.2%
12.0%
71.2%
Dropout
Count
% within Status
% within Attendance
At-Risk Indicator
% of Total
51
92.7%
31.1%
4
7.3%
14.8%
55
100.0%
28.8%
26.7%
2.1%
28.8%
Df
1
Value
2.998
p-value
.083
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
82
suspensions.
A comparison of two nominal variables as displayed in Table 5 was used to
determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the students who
graduate from AOC and those who dropped out of AOC (Status) with regard to the atrisk indicator of suspensions. The Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A
p-value of .150 on the Pearson Chi-Square (>.05) indicated there was no statistically
significant difference between the variables. Therefore the null hypothesis was retained.
Table 5
Chi-Square Analysis of Status and At-Risk Indicator of Suspensions
Suspensions At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Status
Graduate
Dropout
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
Count
% within Status
% within Suspension
At-Risk Indicator
% of Total
131
96.3%
70.4%
5
3.7%
100.0%
136
100.0%
71.2%
68.6%
2.6%
71.2%
Count
% within Status
% within Suspension
At-Risk Indicator
% of Total
55
100.0%
29.6%
0
.0%
.0%
55
100.0%
28.8%
28.8%
.0%
28.8%
Df
1
Value
2.076
p-value
.150
83
course failures.
graduate from AOC and those who dropped out of AOC (Status) with regard to the atrisk indicator of course failures. The Chi-Square yielded a p-value of .016 (p<.05),
indicating a statistically significant difference between the variables. Therefore the null
hypothesis was rejected. There was a statistically significant difference between the
students who graduated (90.1 %) and those who did not persist to graduation (9.9%).
Table 6
Chi-Square Analysis of Status and At-Risk Indicator of Course Failures
Course Failures At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Status
Graduate
Dropout
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
Count
% within Status
% within Course Failures
At-Risk Indicator
% of Total
Count
% within Status
% within Course Failures
At-Risk Indicator
% of Total
Df
1
127
93.4%
73.8%
9
6.6%
47.4%
136
100.0%
71.2%
66.5%
45
81.8%
26.2%
4.7%
10
18.2%
52.6%
71.2%
55
100.0%
28.8%
23.6%
5.2%
28.8%
Value
5.846
p-value
.016*
84
indicators.
graduate from AOC and those who dropped out of AOC (Status) with regard to the total
of Balfanz at-risk indicators. The Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A pvalue of .777 on the Pearson Chi-Square (>.05) indicated there was no statistically
Table 7
Chi-Square Analysis of Status and Total of Balfanz At-Risk Indicators
Status
Graduate
Total of Balfanz At-Risk Indicators
0
1
2
Total
104
76.5%
71.2%
27
19.9%
69.2%
5
3.7%
83.3%
136
100.0%
71.2%
54.5%
14.1%
2.6%
71.2%
Count
% within Status
% within Total
Balfanz At-Risk
Indicators
% of Total
42
76.4%
28.8%
12
21.8%
30.8%
1
1.8%
16.7%
55
100.0%
28.8%
22.0%
6.3%
.5%
28.8%
Df
2
Value
.505
Count
% within Status
% within Total
Balfanz At-Risk
Indicators
% of Total
Dropout
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
p-value
.777
85
determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the at-risk indicator
category of individual and the at-risk indicator of attendance as predictors of persistence
to graduation. The Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A p-value of .639
on the Pearson Chi-Square (>.05) indicated there was no statistically significant
difference between the variables. Therefore the null hypothesis was retained.
Table 8
Chi-Square Analysis of Individual At-Risk Indicator and Attendance At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Individual At-Risk Indicator
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
8
2
Yes
54
9
Total
62
84.9%
11
15.1%
Df
1
Value
.220
p-value
.639
10
13.7%
63
86.3%
73
100%
86
category of individual and the at-risk indicator of suspensions as predictors of persistence
Table 9
Chi-Square Analysis of Individual At-Risk Indicator and Suspensions At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
10
0
Yes
61
2
Total
71
97.3%
2
2.7%
Df
1
Value
.326
p-value
.568
10
13.7%
63
86.3%
73
100%
87
category of individual and the at-risk indicator of course failures as predictors of
persistence to graduation. The Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A pvalue of .481 on the Pearson Chi-Square (>.05) indicated there was no statistically
Table 10
Chi-Square Analysis of Individual At-Risk Indicator and Course Failures At-Risk
Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
10
0
Yes
60
3
Total
70
95.9%
3
4.1%
Df
1
Value
.497
p-value
.481
10
13.7%
63
86.3%
73
100%
88
category of family and the at-risk indicator of attendance as predictors of persistence to
graduation. The Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A p-value of .012 on
the Pearson Chi-Square (<.05) indicated there was a statistically significant difference
between the variables. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. There were ten
students who had an attendance at-risk indicator that did not have a family at-risk
indicator. However, one student had both an attendance at-risk indicator and a family atrisk indicator. As a result, there was a statistically significant difference between the atrisk indicator category of family as a predictor of persistence to graduation (43.8%) and
the at-risk indicator of attendance as predictive of persistence to graduation (15.1%).
Table 11
Chi-Square Analysis of Family At-Risk Indicator and Attendance At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Family At-Risk Indicator
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
31
10
Yes
31
1
Total
62
84.9%
11
15.1%
Df
1
Value
6.351
p-value
.012*
41
56.2%
32
43.8%
73
100%
89
category of family and the at-risk indicator of suspensions as predictors of persistence to
the Pearson Chi-Square (>.05) indicated there was no statistically significant difference
between the variables. Therefore the null hypothesis was retained.
Table 12
Chi-Square Analysis of Family At-Risk Indicator and Suspensions At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
39
2
Yes
32
0
Total
71
97.3%
2
2.7%
Df
1
Value
1.605
p-value
.205
41
56.2%
32
43.8%
73
100%
90
category of family and the at-risk indicator of course failures as predictors of persistence
Table 13
Chi-Square Analysis of Family At-Risk Indicator and Course Failures At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
39
2
Yes
31
1
Total
70
95.9%
3
4.1%
Df
1
Value
.140
p-value
.708
Total
41
56.2%
32
43.8%
73
100%
91
category of school and the at-risk indicator of attendance as predictors of persistence to
Table 14
Chi-Square Analysis of School At-Risk Indicator and Attendance At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
School At-Risk Indicator
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
36
7
Yes
26
4
Total
62
84.9%
11
15.1%
Df
1
Value
.120
p-value
.729
43
58.9%
30
41.1%
73
100%
92
category of school and the at-risk indicator of suspensions as predictors of persistence to
Table 15
Chi-Square Analysis of School At-Risk Indicator and Suspensions At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
42
1
Yes
29
1
Total
71
97.3%
2
2.7%
Df
1
Value
.067
p-value
.795
43
58.9%
30
41.1%
73
100%
93
category of school and the at-risk indicator of course failures as predictors of persistence
to graduations. The Chi-Square was the appropriate test of difference. A p-value of .437
Table 16
Chi-Square Analysis of School At-Risk Indicator and Course Failures At-Risk Indicator
No
Yes
Total
Chi-square (Ȥ2)
No
41
2
Yes
29
1
Total
70
95.9%
3
4.1%
Df
1
Value
.078
p-value
.780
43
58.9%
30
41.1%
73
100%
94
A comparison of a nominal and ordinal variable as displayed in Table 17 was
used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the at-risk
indicator category of individual (nominal variable) and the total Balfanz at-risk indicators
(ordinal variable) as predictors of persistence to graduation. An independent t-test was
used to analyze the at-risk indicator category of individual as a predictor of persistence to
graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk indicator as predictive of persistence to
graduation. The results of the independent t-test had a p value of .893. Since p>.05 the
null hypotheses was retained.
Table 17
Independent T-Test Analysis of Individual At-Risk Indicator and Total Balfanz At-Risk
Indicators
Individual At-Risk Indicators
N
Mean
df
T
p-value
Yes
No
63
10
.22
.20
71
.135
.893
95
of family as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk indicator
as predictive of persistence to graduation.
indicator category of family (nominal variable) and the total Balfanz at-risk indicators
used to analyze the at-risk indicator category of family as a predictor of persistence to
graduation. The results of the independent t-test had a p- value of .012. Since p<.05 the
null hypotheses was rejected. The students who do not have the family at risk indicator
(n=41) have a .34 mean of total Balfanz at-risk indicators.
Table 18
Independent T-Test Analysis of Family At-Risk Indicator and Total Balfanz At-Risk
Indicators
Family At-Risk Indicators
N
Mean
df
T
p-value
Yes
32
.06
71
-2.565
.012*
No
41
.34
96
of school as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk indicator
as predictive of persistence to graduation.
indicator category of school (nominal variable) and the total Balfanz at-risk indicators
used to analyze the at-risk indicator category of school as a predictor of persistence to
graduation. The results of the independent t-test had a p value of .777. Since p>.05 the
null hypotheses was retained.
Table 19
Independent T-Test Analysis of School At-Risk Indicator and Total Balfanz At-Risk
Indicators
School At-Risk Indicators
N
Mean
df
T
p-value
Yes
30
.20
71
-.284
.777
No
43
.23
97
resilience.
The researchers used descriptive statistics to analyze the resiliency scores of the
participants as collected from Wagnild’s RS-14 Resilience ScaleTM. As displayed in
Table 20, the results of the analysis indicated a mean resilience score of 90.4643 for the
56 participants who returned the questionnaire. According to Wagnild’s rubric for
scoring the RS-14 Resilience ScaleTM, as displayed in Table 21, the 2010-2011 cohort of
students at AOC scored within the “moderately high” range for resilience. In order to
analyze the resiliency of the students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC, students mean
scores were compared to the test value of 74. According to Wagnild’s rubric, 74 was the
lowest score in the “moderate range” for student resiliency. Using a one-sample test, as
shown in Table 22, the results indicated a p value of .000. Since p<.05 the null
hypotheses was rejected. Therefore, the students demonstrated the construct of resilience
to a statistically significant degree.
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics for Resilience Score in the 2010-2011 Cohort of Students at AOC
Resiliency Score
N
56
Mean
Std. Deviation
90.4643 9.53074
Variance
90.835
Skewness
-2.860
Kurtosis
12.305
Table 21
Scoring the RS-14 Resilience ScaleTM
Scale
Very Low Low
On the Low End Moderate Moderately High High
RS-14 14-56
57-64 65-73
74-81
82-90
91-98
* Adapted from Wagnild, G. M. (2011). The Resilience Scale User's Guide. Worden:
Resilience Center.
98
Table 22
One-Sample Test for Resilience Score and the Test Value of 74
Resilience Score
Df
Mean Difference
T
p-value
55
16.46429
12.927
.000*
at AOC.
Using simple linear regression analysis one can notice that there was a statistically
significant positive correlation between student resiliency and the response to the
construct of relationships as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at AOC. The
results as displayed in Table 23 indicated the positive correlation between student
resiliency and the response to the construct of relationships had a p < .05; therefore, the
null hypothesis was rejected. The regression equation for the predicted value of student
resiliency was y = 42.215 + 7.325x ± 9.14684, where x = student resiliency. As the
students’ response to the construct of relationships rises, the students’ resiliency scores
increase. In addition, the construct of relationships accounted for approximately 9.6% of
the variance in student resiliency scores with a R2 = .096, leaving almost 90% of the
variability unexplained and presumably accounted for by other factors not taken into
account.
99
Table 23
Linear Regression Analysis of Student Resiliency and Construct of Relationships
Variables
N
R
R Square
F
p-value
Student Resiliency/
Construct of Relationships
56
.309
.096
5.714
.020*
students at AOC.
Using simple linear regression analysis one can notice that there was not a
statistically significant correlation between student resiliency and the response to the
construct of teacher effectiveness as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at
AOC. It is important to note that although not statistically significant, there was a
positive correlation between student resiliency and the response to the construct of
teacher effectiveness. The results as displayed in Table 24 indicated the correlation
between student resiliency and the response to the construct of teacher effectiveness had
a p >.05; therefore, the null hypothesis was retained.
Table 24
Linear Regression Analysis of Student Resiliency and Construct of Teacher Effectiveness
Variables
N
R
R Square
F
p-value
Student Resiliency/
Construct of Teacher
Effectiveness
56
.257
.066
3.808
.056
100
AOC.
Using simple linear regression analysis one can notice that there was not a
statistically significant correlation between student resiliency and the response to the
construct of academics as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at AOC. It is
important to note that although not statistically significant, there was a positive
correlation between student resiliency and the response to the construct of academics.
The results as displayed in Table 25 indicated the correlation between student resiliency
and the response to the construct of academics had a p >.05; therefore, the null hypothesis
was retained.
Table 25
Linear Regression Analysis of Student Resiliency and Construct of Academics
Variables
N
R
R Square
F
p-value
Student Resiliency/
Construct of Academic
56
.233
.036
2.925
.093
101
students at AOC.
construct of program structure as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at AOC.
The results as displayed in Table 26 indicated the correlation between student resiliency
and the response to the construct of program structure had a p < .05; therefore, the null
hypothesis was rejected. The regression equation for the predicted value of student
resiliency was y = 47.716 + 6.361x ± 9.02973, where x = student resiliency. As the
students’ response to the construct of program structure rises, the students’ resiliency
scores increase. In addition, the construct of program structure accounted for
approximately 14% of the variance in student resiliency scores with a R2 = .140, leaving
almost 95% of the variability unexplained and presumably accounted for by other factors
not taken into account.
Table 26
Linear Regression Analysis of Student Resiliency and Construct of Program Structure
Variables
N
R
R Square
F
p-value
Student Resiliency/
Construct of Program
Structure
56
.374
.140
8.474
.005*
102
students at AOC.
construct of program effectiveness as reported by the 2010-2011 cohort of students at
AOC. The results as displayed in Table 27 indicated the correlation between student
resiliency and the response to the construct of program effectiveness had a p < .05;
therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The regression equation for the predicted
value of student resiliency was y = 40.892 + 7.558x ± 8.12758, where x = student
resiliency. As the students’ response to the construct of program effectiveness rises, the
students’ resiliency scores increase. In addition, the construct of program effectiveness
accounted for approximately 30.3% of the variance in student resiliency scores with a R2
= .303, leaving almost 70% of the variability unexplained and presumably accounted for
by other factors not taken into account.
Table 27
Linear Regression Analysis of Student Resiliency and Construct of Program Effectiveness
Variables
N
R
R Square
F
p-value
Student Resiliency/
Construct of Program
Effectiveness
56
.551
.303
22.645
.000*
103
Using stepwise regression analysis one can notice that there is a statistically
significant positive correlation between status and the AOC constructs of relationships,
teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program effectiveness. The
results as displayed in Table 28 indicated the correlation between the five AOC
constructs and status had a p < .05; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
One statistically significant model was identified through the stepwise regression
analysis. This model indicated that program effectiveness had the greatest impact on the
persistence to graduation. This resulting model had a R2 = .238; therefore, approximately
24% of the variance of status was explained by the AOC construct of program
effectiveness.
Table 28
Step-Wise Regression Analysis of Status and the AOC Constructs of Relationships,
Teacher Effectiveness, Academics, Program Structure, and Program Effectiveness
AOC Construct Variables
N
R
R Square
F
p-value
Relationships
53
.488
.238
15.916
.014*
Teacher Effectiveness
.009*
Academics
.002*
Program Structure
.006*
Program Effectiveness
.000*
104
Qualitative Analysis
What characteristics of AOC do students report that contribute to meeting the goal
of graduation? To address this question, researchers conducted a single focus group to
better understand the experiences of AOC students and their perceptions of The Academy
at Old Cockrill. An audio recording was made of the focus group discussion. The
recording was transcribed by an independent contractor to ensure the validity of the data
(Appendix M). The transcript of the focus group discussion was read by the researchers
and coded using content analysis. For the purposes of this study, participants in the focus
group were identified using numbers. The seven members of the focus group shared their
experiences at AOC. Each researcher coded the transcript to identify common themes,
providing for triangulation. This process serves to enhance the validity of the findings.
Three major themes emerged as being specifically related to the students’
experiences and the characteristics of AOC that contribute to students meeting the goal of
graduation. These three themes were student experiences prior to attending AOC, student
experiences while attending AOC, and student feelings about the administration at AOC.
Student experiences prior to attending AOC. The focus group questions
(Appendix G) yielded information regarding the theme of student experiences prior to
attending AOC. When asked to tell the research team what comes to mind when you
think about high school, respondent 1 replied, “Drama, definitely drama!” Respondent 2
stated, “I would also say a lack of respect, as well.” “I think it’s stressful,” proclaimed
respondent 7. This respondent went on to indicate that the things that were stressful
about high school were meeting new people, starting over with new friends, peer
impressions, and making good grades.
105
The research team then asked what the students disliked about their
comprehensive high school that contributed to their decision to leave. The majority of
the respondents indicated that teachers were the reason they disliked their high school.
Respondent 1 stated, “They didn’t necessarily look at you as a student; they didn’t really
look at you as a human being almost.” The respondent’s comments indicated that
teachers related to students based on student behavior (i.e. causing disturbance, not
listening, not paying attention). One respondent stated, “One problem I had with my high
school is that even [the teachers] didn’t respect other teachers, [the] principal didn’t
respect teachers.” Another respondent agreed, “Nobody respected anybody inside the
school… it was like the drama inside the student body expelled into the entire staff.”
As the focus group continued, the discussion turned to discipline practices within
their previous school settings. One respondent stated, “Teachers were too busy focusing
on the problem students to even look at the other student.” Respondent 1 indicated that
teachers had to focus on problem students instead of students who wanted to learn and
were trying to graduate. The respondent stated, “They couldn’t learn what they wanted
because everyone was always worried about the problems.”
“One big factor in me leaving my old high school is you’d get nonsense credits so
to say,” stated a respondent. Many members of the focus group agreed with this
respondent. Respondent 4 summed it up by sharing her personal experience:
… the first day of school and they were like, well we had seven class periods, so I
was taking six classes, but I only need two and a half credits to graduate. So I had
six classes and then I was coming home with like two and a half hours of
homework to a newborn child, I was like, yeah, this isn’t gonna work, so that was
106
one thing that made me leave there was cause I had to do a whole bunch of extra
stuff to get my diploma and I already had like a lot going on with a child.
When the discussion turned to students’ thoughts about the word dropout, several
of the respondents expressed the word “lazy” comes to mind. However, a personal
experience that was noteworthy was shared by Respondent 6. “I know I have a different
opinion. I think, I was a dropout but only because I actually ran away from home due to
the fact that I was actually abused and I had came with my boyfriend here to Tennessee.”
This student further explained that she tried several times to enroll herself in high school
and was turned away because she was under the age of eighteen and did not have a parent
signature for her enrollment.
Student experiences while attending AOC. The focus group participants
expressed positive feelings about their experiences while attending AOC. One
respondent shared:
That was one thing about The Academy that I was like as soon as I walked in the
door, just as soon as I walked in the door it was the most friendly environment,
even the students that were in the school, they were just friendly and there’s just a
whole different atmosphere of just people respecting each other.
Another respondent observed:
The people that are coming here [are] coming here to learn, it’s not a matter of, oh
I screwed up, I have to go somewhere, it’s they want to get their diploma, they
want to get out of here and the way that, The Academy at Old Cockrill does it
[…] makes it that much simpler.
Several of the participants shared comments that characterized The Academy at Old
107
Cockrill as a place which focuses on specific goals, has a sense of family, provides
support for individuals, and celebrates successes.
Student feelings about the faculty/administration at AOC. The students’ high
regard for the faculty and administration at The Academy at Old Cockrill was evident
during the focus group. With regard to the faculty, respondent 4 indicated, “They
actually care if you’re here and get your work done and they encourage you to do that.”
Respondent 6 added to the sentiment stating, “Each teacher will see you as an individual,
whenever you have any kind of problems they’re always gonna be there for you.”
The students’ regard for their administrator, Elaine Fahrner, was shared by every
respondent in the focus group. Ms. Fahrner took a special interest in each individual
student. Respondent 4 said, “Miss Fahrner’s like your mother.” The respondent shared
that “she actually called my mom and […] told her when I graduated and I thought that
was pretty cool.” The students shared a celebration that has become a tradition at The
Academy at Old Cockrill. When students finish all of their credits, Ms. Fahrner sounds a
horn that gathers everyone into the hallways, and that student walks down the hallway
while everyone applauds and celebrates the accomplishment of completing the
requirements to graduate. As Respondent 6 indicated, “That was one thing that I like
about this cause I mean you could cheer for other people and you’re gonna be like, that’s
gonna be me later on.”
Summary.
Through qualitative analysis, the researchers identified characteristics of AOC
that contribute to students meeting the goal of graduation. Characteristics centered
around the three themes of student experiences prior to attending AOC, student
108
experiences while attending AOC, and student feelings about the faculty and
administration at AOC. Characteristics included a supportive stress-free environment,
respectful relationships with peers, respectful relationships with faculty and
administration, caring adults that exhibit positive regard for students, fair and equitable
disciplinary practices, and a focused course of study geared toward the goal of
graduation.
109
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
indicators currently used by Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools to flag students as atrisk for dropping out of high school. In addition, these students may be identified as
of school.
Research Question Findings
Research question 1. Do the students in the 2010-2011cohort at AOC share the
Balfanz at-risk indicators?
The researchers used a quantitative analysis to determine the extent to which
students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC were assigned the Balfanz indicators of
attendance, suspensions, and course failures. A one-sample t test was used to analyze the
difference between the mean Balfanz at-risk indicators in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC
and the test value of zero. The results of the test indicate that there was a statistically
110
significant occurrence of each at-risk factor. While a mean of .27 was a statistically
significant occurrence, it is interesting to note that 76.4% of the students in the 20102011 cohort at AOC were not assigned a Balfanz at-risk indicator. Only 20.4% were
assigned 1 Balfanz at-risk indicator while 3.1% were assigned 2 Balfanz at-risk
indicators. None of the 191 students in the cohort had been assigned all 3 Balfanz at-risk
indicators. The review of the literature indicated that MNPS placed value on the research
of Robert Balfanz and his colleagues at John Hopkins University and the use of these
indicators identifying students at risk of dropping out of high school. Since all of the
students at The Academy at Old Cockrill were assumed to be at risk of dropping out, it
would be reasonable to expect that more than 23.5% of the 2010-2011 cohort would be
assigned one or more Balfanz at-risk indicators.
Research question 2. Do the Balfanz at-risk indicators differ between AOC
graduates and dropouts?
The researchers used a quantitative analysis to determine the extent to which
students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC that graduated and those that dropped out were
assigned the Balfanz at-risk indicators of attendance, suspensions, and course failures. A
chi-square was used to see if there was a statistically significant difference between the
two groups of students with regard to the total Balfanz at-risk indicators. Of the 136
graduates, 104 were not assigned a Balfanz at-risk indicator, while 27 were assigned one
at-risk indicator and 5 were assigned two at-risk indicators. Of the 55 dropouts, 42 were
not assigned a Balfanz at-risk indicator, while 12 were assigned one Balfanz at-risk
indicator and 1 was assigned two Balfanz at-risk indicators. There was no statistically
111
significant difference between the graduates and dropouts due to the fact that almost 75%
of the cohort was not assigned a Balfanz at-risk indicator.
The researchers analyzed the difference between the graduates and dropouts with
respect to each at-risk indicator. A chi-square was used to analyze the difference in the
at-risk indicator of attendance between the graduates and dropouts. The results of the test
indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between graduates and
dropouts. Of the 191 students in the cohort, 83.1% of the graduates and 92.7% of the
dropouts were not assigned the at-risk indicator of attendance.
A chi-square was used to analyze the difference in the at-risk indicator of
suspensions between the graduates and dropouts. The results of the test indicated that
there was no statistically significant difference between graduates and dropouts. Of the
191 students in the cohort, 96.3% of the graduates and 100.0% of the dropouts were not
assigned the at-risk indicator of suspensions.
A chi-square was used to analyze the difference in the at-risk indicator of course
failures between the graduates and dropouts. The results of the test indicated that there
was a statistically significant difference between graduates and dropouts. Of the 191
students in the cohort, 93.4% of the graduates and 81.8% of the dropouts were not
assigned the at- risk indicator of course failures.
As the analysis revealed, there was no statistically significant difference between
graduates and dropouts with regard to the Balfanz at-risk indicators of attendance and
suspensions. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the two
groups in regards to the Balfanz at-risk indicator of course failures.
112
According to the National Dropout Prevention Center, there is no single factor
that can be used to accurately predict who is at risk of dropping out of school (Hammond,
Linton, Smink, & Drew, 2007). As the literature review revealed, course failure was an
indication of disengagement from school and disengaged students were likely to drop out
of school (Mac Iver & Mac Iver, 2009; Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006, Hickman,
Bartholomew, Mathwig, & Heinrich et. al, 2008).
Research question 3. Do the AOC graduates possess another set of indicators
that is more predictive of persistence to graduation than the Balfanz at-risk indicators?
The research team was given access to 126 stories written by students in the
cohort. Of those 126 stories, 73 contained information that was used to determine the
presence of individual at-risk indicators, family at-risk indicators, and school at-risk
indicators. These indicators were all identified in the review of literature and are
different than the Balfanz at-risk indicators. These qualitative data were then analyzed
using quantitative measures. The researchers ran a series of nine chi-square tests
comparing the individual at-risk indicator, the family at-risk indicator, and the school atrisk indicator to the three Balfanz indicators individually and collectively.
`
An independent t-test was used to analyze the at-risk indicator category of
individual as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk
indicators as a predictor of persistence to graduation. The occurrence of the at-risk
indicator was recorded as a yes/no to indicate if a student had the at-risk indicator of
individual. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups since the
mean scores for the total Balfanz at-risk indicators were .22 and .20, respectively.
113
An independent t-test was used to analyze the at-risk indicator category of family
as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk indicators as a
predictor of persistence to graduation. The occurrence of the at-risk indicator was
recorded as a yes/no to indicate if a student had the at-risk indicator of family. There was
a statistically significant difference between the groups since the mean scores for the total
Balfanz at-risk indicators are .06 and .34, respectively. 43.8% of the respondents who
have the family at-risk indicator persisted to graduation compared to 15.1 % of
respondents with the attendance at-risk indicator.
An independent t-test was used to analyze the at-risk indicator category of school
as a predictor of persistence to graduation and the total Balfanz at-risk indicators as a
predictor of persistence to graduation. The occurrence of the at-risk indicator was
recorded as a yes/no to indicate if a student had the at-risk indicator of school. There was
no statistically significant difference between the groups since the mean scores for the
total Balfanz at-risk indicators are .20 and .23, respectively.
As a result of the analysis, researchers determined that the at-risk indicator of
family was more predictive of persistence to graduation than the Balfanz at-risk
indicators. As the review of literature indicated, familial characteristics such as low
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and lack of parental support/involvement had a
significant impact on students’ persistence to graduate. In fact, poverty has the strongest
correlation with high school dropout rates (American Psychological Association, 2010).
114
Research question 4. Do the students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC
demonstrate the construct of resilience?
The researchers used descriptive statistics to analyze the resiliency scores of the
participants as collected from Wagnild’s RS-14 Resilience ScaleTM. This instrument,
developed by Dr. Gail Wagnild and Dr. Heather Young, measures resilience levels based
upon five essential characteristics of resilience (meaningful life purpose, perseverance,
self reliance, equanimity, and existential aloneness). It allows participants to respond to
verbatim statements made by persons who demonstrate resilience on a seven-point Likert
scale.
In adherence with the standards of scoring, the researchers used the RS-14
Resilience Scoring to interpret student responses to the Resilience ScaleTM. The score
was reported as a total of the responses to each question on the instrument. Responses to
the questions range from one to seven. The RS-14 total resilience scores range from 14 –
98 with a score of 14-56 indicating “very low” resilience, 57-64 as “low” resilience, 6573 indicates “on the low end” of resilience, 74-81 is “moderate” range, 82-90 is
considered “moderately high” resilience, and 91-98 is “high” resilience. According to
Wagnild’s rubric for scoring the RS-14 Resilience ScaleTM, the 2010-2011 cohort of
students at AOC scored within the “moderately high” range for resilience.
Resiliency is described as “an antibody that enables [children] to ward off
attackers that might stop even the most formidable among us” (Sagor, 1996, p.1). It is a
dynamic process involving the interaction between risks and protective factors within a
student’s environment. Researchers identified this construct as key to success in the face
of adversity (Werner & Smith, 1971; Ruder, 1987; Masten, 2001). As a construct,
115
resilience combines the dimensions of exposure to adversity or risk with positive
reactions or adaptations to the exposure. Resilience can be thought of as competence in
the face of significant challenges to achieve and develop. Resilient students demonstrate
competence in the face of challenges that much research has associated with negative
outcomes. Studies on resilience rejected the position of looking at students through a
“deficit lens” that falls short of recognizing the capacities, strengths, and uniqueness of
individuals. Instead, these studies focused on the ways individuals develop successfully
despite risk and adversity, the lack of “predictive power of risk factors”, and they
“articulate the practices and attributes that promote healthy development and successful
learning in students” (Benard, 1997, p. 2).
Research question 5. Through simple linear regression, researchers analyzed the
positive correlation between student resiliency and the response to the five constructs of
relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program
effectiveness. The research team used an instrument that was developed for the purpose
of gathering participants’ opinions related to the characteristics of The Academy at Old
Cockrill. The five constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program
structure, and program effectiveness were identified by the research team as key
components of educational program designs. Using a Likert scale, the questionnaire
allowed students to report their perspectives about their experiences at AOC with respect
to the five constructs (Appendix F).
The first comparison examined the correlation between student resiliency and the
construct of relationships. There was a statistically significant positive correlation
between student resiliency and the construct of relationships (p = .020). The R2 of .096
116
implies that student resiliency explained approximately 10% of the variation in the
participants’ perception of the construct of relationships.
The next comparisons examined the correlation between student resiliency and
the construct of teacher effectiveness and the correlation between student resiliency and
the construct of academics. There was a positive correlation, however, there was not a
statistically significant correlation between student resiliency and the constructs of
teacher effectiveness (p = .056) and academics (p = .093).
The correlation between student resiliency and the construct of program structure
were then examined. There is a statistically significant positive correlation between
student resiliency and the construct of program structure (p = .005). The R2 of.054
implies that student resiliency explained approximately 5% of the variation in the
participants’ perception of the construct of program structure. Likewise, there is a
statistically significant positive correlation between student resiliency and the construct
of program effectiveness (p = .000). The R2 of .30 implies that student resiliency
explained approximately 30% of the variation in the participants’ perception of the
construct of program effectiveness.
From this analysis, the research team concludes that while there was a positive
correlation between student resiliency and all of the constructs, it is not a statistically
significant correlation. However, there is a positive correlation between student
resiliency and the constructs of relationships, program structure, and program
effectiveness. As the literature revealed, the primary focus of research on resilience was
to identify protective forces that differentiate children with healthy adaptation from those
who were less adaptive in comparison (Luthar, Ciccheti, & Becker, 2000). As a result,
117
subsequent research was shifted to focus on uncovering how some factors contribute to
positive outcomes. Resilient children and youth are characterized by individual, social,
and environmental qualities. This finding is related to the literature review in that
researchers have identified protective factors within students’ environments that fosters
resilience and helps to mitigate risks.
Research question 6. What characteristics of AOC do students report which
contribute to meeting the goal of graduation?
The research team used both quantitative and qualitative approaches to address
this research question. Quantitatively, step-wise regression analysis was used to analyze
the interactions between status and the five AOC constructs of relationships, teacher
effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program effectiveness. Through
analysis, the research team found that there is a statistically significant correlation
between status and the constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics,
program structure, and program effectiveness.
One statistically significant model was identified through the stepwise regression
analysis. This model indicates that program effectiveness has the greatest impact on the
persistence to graduation. Approximately 24% of the variance of status was explained by
the AOC construct of program effectiveness. As the literature revealed, “School
programs that focus on social, emotional, and academic learning from kindergarten
through high school have been found to improve school attitudes, behavior, and academic
performance” (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 3).
Through qualitative analysis, the researchers identified three major themes as
being specifically related to the students’ experiences and the characteristics of AOC that
118
contribute to students’ meeting the goal of graduation. These three themes are student
experiences prior to attending AOC, student experiences while attending AOC, and
student feelings about the faculty and administration at AOC.
The focus group questions yielded information regarding the theme of student
experiences prior to attending AOC. None of the respondents reported what could be
interpreted as a positive experience at their previous high school setting. Respondents
characterized the previous setting with words such as “drama” and “stressful.” Focus
group respondents also indicated that teachers made an impact on their decision to leave.
They went on to discuss the disciplinary practices that they characterized as focusing on
trivial matters and not dealing with the real issues in the classroom. Students also
expressed dissatisfaction with their course of study while at their previous high school.
Many respondents were required to take courses they did not need rather than focusing on
their credits needed for graduation. It is important to note the feelings respondents had in
their previous high school settings because it illustrates the fact that they were at-risk
students. Many studies show that the greatest indicators relate to one’s behavior and
actions in the everyday classroom and school (Neild, Balfanz, & Herzog, 2007).
Conversely, the focus group participants expressed positive feelings about their
experiences while attending AOC. Many respondents characterized the environment as
friendly and supportive. Relationships between students and between students and
faculty were reported as one of mutual respect. The overwhelming response from the
students was while at The Academy at Old Cockrill they were focused on their goal of
achieving a high school diploma. Several of the participants shared comments that
characterized The Academy at Old Cockrill as a place which focuses on specific goals,
119
has a sense of family, provides support for individuals, and celebrates successes. The
American Psychological Association (2010) identifies the approaches that have produced
positive outcomes. They include partnership between schools and families to encourage
learning, safe and orderly school and classroom environments, caring relationships
between students and teachers, cooperative learning and proactive classroom
management, and high academic expectation of youth from both adults and peers.
The students’ high regard for the faculty and administration at The Academy at
Old Cockrill was evident during the focus group. With regard to the faculty, it was noted
that teachers cared about students individually. The students had a high regard for their
administrator, Elaine Fahrner. Analysis of the focus group transcript revealed that this
regard was shared by every respondent in the focus group. Ms. Fahrner took a special
interest in each individual student. Ms. Fahrner recognized the accomplishments of each
individual student by celebrating with the entire student body, thus creating a supportive
family-like atmosphere. Students are less likely to drop out of school when they feel they
have a positive relationship with their teachers and administrators (Lee & Burkam, 2003).
Summary of the Findings
indicators of high school dropouts that students at The Academy at Old Cockrill may
possess. In addition, the researchers examined the characteristic of resiliency as it relates
to program structure and persistence to graduation. Finally, the researchers identified the
students. The results of this study conducted on the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The
120
Academy at Old Cockrill can then be used to assist school administrators and district
officials in developing and planning program and interventions for at-risk students.
The significance of this research project lies in the insight into the indicators
associated with programming for at-risk students in Metropolitan Nashville Public
Schools that it provides. Specifically, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS)
will benefit in that the study will provide information that will enable district
administrators to identify students who are more likely to be successful in programs like
AOC. This study will add to the body of literature on the topic of high school dropouts.
The researchers used a mixed methods approach to analyze the data for this study.
Through quantitative analysis, a variety of statistical findings were reported. In review of
student data, the researchers identified whether students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC
were assigned the Balfanz at-risk indicators of attendance, suspensions, and course
failures. The results indicated there is a statistically significant occurrence of each
Balfanz at-risk indicator. While the test found this to be statistically significant, the
researchers observed that 76.4% of the students in the 2010-2011 cohort were not
assigned a Balfanz at-risk indicator.
In addition, the researchers used quantitative analysis to determine the extent to
which students in the cohort that graduated and those that dropped out were assigned the
Balfanz at-risk indicators. There was a statistically significant difference between the
two groups of students. The analysis indicated that there was a greater occurrence of the
Balfanz at-risk indicators among the students that dropped out of AOC during the 20102011 academic school year. As the analysis reveals, there is no statistically significant
difference between graduates and dropouts with regard to the Balfanz at-risk indicators of
121
attendance and suspensions. However, there is a statistically significant difference
between the two groups in regards to the Balfanz at-risk indicator of course failures.
The researchers identified a set of at-risk indicators that were prevalent in the
review of literature. These at-risk indicators were related to the individual, family, and
school. The research team examined students’ written stories to identify the presence of
those at-risk indicators. These data were then quantitatively analyzed to determine if this
set of indicators were more predictive of persistence to graduation than the Balfanz atrisk indicators. A comparison of individual related at-risk factors to the total number of
Balfanz at-risk indicators that each student was assigned yielded a result of no
statistically significant difference. Likewise, a comparison of school related at-risk
factors to the total number of Balfanz at-risk indicators that each student was assigned
yielded a result of no statistically significant difference. However, a comparison of
family related at-risk factors to the total number of Balfanz at-risk indicators that each
student was assigned yielded a statistically significant difference. As a result of analysis,
researchers determined that family related issues have a greater effect than Balfanz at-risk
indicators on the 2010-2011 cohort’s persistence to graduation.
Using Wagnild’s Resilience ScaleTM, the 2010-2011 cohort of students at AOC
scored within the “moderately high” range for resilience. Through simple linear
regression, researchers analyzed the correlation between student resiliency and the
response to the five AOC constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics,
program structure, and program effectiveness. From this analysis, the research team
concluded that while there is not a statistically significant correlation between student
122
resiliency and all of the AOC constructs, there is a correlation between student resiliency
and the constructs of relationships, program structure, and program effectiveness.
The research team used both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine
the characteristics of AOC that students reported as contributing to meeting the goal of
graduation. Through quantitative analysis, the research team found that there is a
statistically significant correlation between status and the constructs of relationships,
teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program effectiveness. One
statistically significant model indicated that program effectiveness had the greatest affect
on students’ persistence to graduation.
that contribute to students meeting the goal of graduation. Characteristics centered
around the three themes of student experiences prior to attending AOC, student
experiences while attending AOC, and student feelings about the faculty and
administration at AOC. Characteristics included a supportive stress-free environment,
respectful relationships with peers, respectful relationships with faculty and
graduation.
Limitations of the Study
There were limitations to the research study of The Academy at Old Cockrill.
The use of only one cohort of students for the research study may prohibit the ability to
generalize to a larger population. However, this study can lend focus to The Academy at
123
Old Cockrill and Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools as they continue to enhance
services to students who are at risk of dropping out of high school.
A second limitation to the study was the inability to contact many of the
participants in the study. For many of the students, the contact information in Chancery
and Data Warehouse was not current and incorrect at the time of the study. This was a
limitation because researchers were hindered in their ability to gain vital information
from the questionnaire for these students. In addition, these students were not provided
an opportunity to participate in the focus group.
An insufficient number of questionnaires were returned to the research team from
students that dropped out in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC. This was a limitation because
researchers were not able to fully examine the relationships between dropouts and
graduates as they relate to student resiliency and their opinions about the five AOC
program effectiveness as they relate to AOC. This may be related to the researchers’
inability to contact a sufficient number of students due to inaccurate contact information.
Another limitation to the study was that the AOC questionnaire developed by the
research team was not piloted prior to the study. As a result, no test of validity or
reliability was available for this instrument.
Finally, the archival data of student written stories did not include a story for
every participant. Also, many of the stories failed to yield any useful information. As a
result, the research team could only identify at-risk indicators other than the Balfanz atrisk indicators for those participants with a story.
124
Conclusions
American high schools are faced with the challenge of addressing the dropout
crisis. In the United States, far too many high school students fail to persist to graduate.
A critical element in developing interventions and programs that address high school
dropout rates is in understanding of the characteristics of students who are identified atrisk.
The urgency to meet federal and state guidelines for graduation rates, as set forth
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, resulted in the creation of dropout prevention
programs such as The Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC) located in Metropolitan Nashville
Public School district. The mission at AOC is to “produce a safe environment in which
students are inspired to achieve success through an individualized plan that leads to
graduation. [Their] goal is to develop productive citizens and celebrate their success”
(Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 2011). AOC offers a non-traditional approach
for students who have dropped out or are at risk for dropping out of an MNPS school.
In the study of the 2010-2011 cohort of students at The Academy at Old Cockrill,
the researchers have identified other indicators that would have been more useful in
identifying the participants in the study as being at risk for dropping out of high school.
Although some students in the cohort have been assigned the Balfanz at-risk indicators
related to attendance, suspensions, and academics, the research team identified other atrisk indicators related to the individual, family, and school. Further, a comparison of
family related at-risk factors to the total number of Balfanz at-risk indicators that each
student was assigned yielded a statistically-significant difference. This indicated that
family related issues have an effect on the 2010-2011 cohort’s persistence to graduation.
125
As a result, the researchers conclude that for this cohort of students, the indicators related
to the individual, family, and school are useful because of their predictive nature. The
Balfanz at-risk indicators appear to be a result of the presence of the other indicators.
The research team identified the students in the 2010-2011 cohort as being
resilient based on the analysis of the Resilience ScaleTM. The researchers analyzed the
correlation between student resiliency and the response to the five AOC constructs of
relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program
effectiveness. From this analysis, the research team concludes that while there is not a
statistically-significant correlation between student resiliency and all of the AOC
constructs, there is a correlation between student resiliency and the constructs of
relationships, program structure, and program effectiveness.
Finally, the research identified the characteristics of AOC that students reported
as contributing to meeting the goal of graduation. Through quantitative analysis, the
research team found that there is a statistically-significant correlation between status and
the constructs of relationships, teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and
program effectiveness.
that encompassed the three themes of student experiences prior to attending AOC,
student experiences while attending AOC, and student feelings about the faculty and
administration at AOC. Students reported characteristics of AOC such as a supportive
stress-free environment, respectful relationships with peers, respectful relationships with
faculty and administration, caring adults that exhibit positive regard for students, fair and
126
equitable disciplinary practices, and a focused course of study geared toward the goal of
graduation.
Discussion
The purpose of this research is threefold: to identify at-risk indicators other than
the set of indicators utilized by MNPS that impact the lives of the 2010-2011 cohort of
AOC students; to examine the characteristic of resiliency as it relates to how these
students evaluate AOC and their persistence to graduation; and to identify the
characteristics this cohort of students report that makes AOC a successful intervention.
The significance of this work is in the insight gained about the indicators associated with
programming for at-risk students in MNPS in general and AOC in particular. Equally
significant is the attempt to understand the interaction of at-risk students within their
environment and how resiliency correlates with the students’ impressions of The
Academy at Old Cockrill and with persistence to graduation.
Currently, MNPS relies on the work of Robert Balfanz and colleagues to identify
students at-risk for dropping out of high school. The indicators utilized are an attendance
rate of less than 85%; a fall GPA of less than 70%; and six or more days of suspension
out of school. Students enrolled in MNPS high schools that share these markers are
identified as needing interventions for graduation such as The Academy at Old Cockrill.
Current research supports the practice of using early indicators to identify students who
are disengaged from school. In fact, this research study has revealed that the 2010-2011
cohort of students at AOC have a statistically-significant occurrence of these markers.
Analysis of the data indicates that the 191 students who comprise the 2010-2011 cohort at
AOC have on average .27 Balfanz indicators each. While a mean total of .27 is
127
considered statistically more significant than zero, this finding is misleading. 76.5% of
the graduates in the cohort have no Balfanz at-risk indicators at all. Even more revealing
is the fact that 76.4% of the dropouts also have no Balfanz at-risk indicators at all. The
main goal of Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver (2007), “is to identify at-risk students early in
the middle grades and then to ‘intervene now’, so that they will graduate later” (p. 224).
This finding predicates a need to consider other “red flags” as indicators of risk for these
students. In fact, policymakers and educators view dropping out of high school as
predictable based on many factors including demographics, geographical location, and
life-changing experiences.
Demographics and geographical location allow educators and policymakers to
hone in on specific groups likely to be at-risk for dropping out of school. Life-changing
experiences, on the other hand, require an individualized approach to identifying risk.
Educators must have an understanding of the challenges that are present in the lives of
individual students. The research team’s examination of the 73 personal stories, provided
by the graduates within the cohort, revealed another set of at-risk indicators that include
individual, family, and school related at-risk factors. These factors are discussed in depth
in the literature review. A significant percentage (43.8) of the graduates in the 2010-2011
cohort at AOC have significant family related factors which contribute to their at-risk
status. These factors include family turmoil such as deaths, domestic violence, and
divorce; low family socio-economic status, and lack of parental support. Factors related
to individual choices/situations and schools are also critical elements that put these
students at-risk. Individual factors include poor choices of friends, drug and alcohol use,
personal responsibilities such as parenthood, and the need to work. One student told of
128
the death of a parent in Mexico that resulted in his moving to America on his own as a
teenager. This student told of his experience finding a job and struggling to survive.
Although attaining a high school diploma was a goal for this student, he could not
successfully manage the challenges of a traditional high school coupled with the
challenge of working full-time for self-support. Another student related the challenges
she faced as a teenage mother trying to parent her newborn child while handling the
demanding course work of an academic magnet school. She was unable to recover the
credits she needed after she returned to school.
School related factors include the curriculum requirements, school organization,
and lack of teacher and administrator support. Students’ stories included accounts of
students who only needed a few specific classes to complete their course of study only to
be required to take what they characterized as “nonsense courses” to fill their class
schedule. Other students moved to MNPS from other states and districts only to find that
the courses on their transcripts did not align with requirements in their new schools.
Students also related feeling frustrated by the lack of respect between peers and between
students and adults in their high schools. All of these experiences resulted in students
who were disengaged from learning within their traditional high school setting.
These indicators cannot be discovered during a perusal of student records. They
can only be uncovered and addressed when educators take the time to know and
understand the challenges students are facing in their lives. With the exception of family
related indicators, the difference between the occurrence of these indicators and the
Balfanz at-risk indicators is not statistically significant according to the analysis in this
study. Nevertheless, they certainly are important to consider. When the researchers sat
129
down for a focus group discussion with seven members of the cohort, these were the
factors that they talked about. They discussed the impact of being a teen parent on their
goal of graduation. They talked about how domestic violence and family turmoil
impacted their choices in school and threatened to stop them from persisting to
graduation. They discussed at length how the structure and relationships in their previous
school settings put them at risk.
Interactions with students from the 2010-2011 cohort at The Academy at Old
Cockrill, allowed researchers gather valuable information. Through dialogue and
personal interactions with the students, the researchers were able to gain a better
understanding of students’ perspectives and feelings about their high school experiences.
The students’ heartfelt responses enabled the research team to feel the students’ sense of
belonging, value of relationships, and sense of accomplishment at The Academy at Old
Cockrill.
Dropping out of school is not an act of impulse but more the outcome of
cumulative events. There is no typical dropout and, in fact, there are a variety of factors
that contribute to a person’s decision to drop out of school. Not only must educators
understand the challenges that are present in the lives of students; they must also
understand what makes students stay in school.
Researchers have identified protective factors within a students’ environment that
can mitigate risk. Ecological approaches to resilience emphasize a predictable
relationship between risk and protective factors. Within this paradigm, resilience is
understood as competence despite adversity (Masten, 2011). On the other hand, a
constructionist approach defines resilience as the outcome from negotiations between
130
individuals and their environments for resources to define themselves as healthy in the
midst of adversity (Ungar, 2004). If either of these views is true, the burden of
understanding the challenges and adversity at-risk students face and the impact on school
environment is increased. The environment of the school has the potential to either
increase a student’s risk or protect them from the consequences and negative outcomes of
risk. Research on school size associates smaller schools with being more protective.
Absenteeism, dropping out, poor academic performance, and lack of engagement have all
been linked to drug and alcohol use (Zimmerman & Arunkamar, 1994). Supportive
school environments can not only mitigate risk but also enhance student lives.
As is noted in this research, the interaction of the constructs of relationships,
teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program effectiveness had a
remarkable correlation to graduation status. This fact speaks to the effectiveness of The
Academy at Old Cockrill as a successful intervention. In order to determine appropriate
intervention strategies, educators must first be able to identify best practices from higher
performing high schools. According to Kennelly & Monrad (2007), creating a positive
school climate is a best practice. All of the constructs identified in this model are key
elements in creating a positive school climate. Just as the environment of a school has
the potential to enhance a students’ resilience, it also can increase the likelihood of
persistence to graduation. One can infer from this finding that the students in the 20102011 cohort at AOC who graduated did so because of the effectiveness and impact of the
program itself.
At this juncture, it is important to note that 72.2% of the 2010-2011 cohort at
AOC graduated. The state of Tennessee reported a graduation rate of 85.5% and MNPS
131
reported a graduation rate of 76.2% (Tennessee Department of Education, 2012). One
might consider this an unfavorable comparison and determine that AOC is not an
effective intervention from this fact. Elaine Fahrner, principal at The Academy at Old
Cockrill stated,
Our graduation rate was never intended to be subject to the same scrutiny as
traditional high schools. Roughly 95% of our students were not on track to
graduate or had already dropped out. ANY student graduating with us is to be
celebrated. Our first year, we were at 50%. This year, we were over 70%. This
is HUGE because most of those students would have never graduated. (E.Fahrner,
personal communication, July 17, 2012)
The students in the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC characterized this program as
providing a supportive stress-free environment. The relationships between peers were
distinguished as respectful. Likewise, the faculty and administration typified the belief
that respect is given and not earned. Caring adults that exhibit positive regard for
students and understand the necessity for fair and equitable disciplinary practices sets an
environment that is ripe with the protective factors necessary for fostering resilience. The
provision of a focused course of study with attention to the needs of the individual learner
enhanced the likelihood of persistence to graduation.
As a result of this research study, the research team makes the following
recommendations to MNPS and the client at The Academy at Old Cockrill:
x
Policymakers and educators must address individual needs of students in order to
improve graduation rates. The research team recommends that the at-risk
132
indicators related to the individual, family, and school be used in conjunction with
the Balfanz at-risk indicators within the high school setting;
x
There are three elements in the Civic Marshall Plan that support the continuing
efforts of the MNPS district and AOC. They are to continue to collect data to
track early indicators of dropouts, to continue to create collaborative, communitybased support systems, and to continue the development of alternative learning
environments. The researchers recommend that MNPS and AOC continue to
focus on efforts in these three areas listed above;
x
Match reforms to areas where they are most likely to succeed. Research indicates
that the Balfanz at-risk indicators are better suited for development of intervention
toward students in the middle grades; and
x
AOC continues to develop a positive school culture centered on relationships,
teacher effectiveness, academics, program structure, and program effectiveness.
America is facing a silent epidemic. The State of Tennessee is considered a ‘big-
city challenge state’, meaning that at least half of its low-graduation-rate high schools are
in one or two major cities” (Almeida, Balfanz, & Steinberg, 2009, p. 2). According to the
Tennessee Department of Education (2012), during the 2010-2011 school year, the high
school graduation rate for Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools was 76.2%. The lost
lifetime earnings for students who failed to graduate in Tennessee in the year 2010
totaled 7.3 billion dollars (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011). The good news is
that Tennessee is among four states that show balanced improvement in graduation rates
(Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore, & Fox, 2010).
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools established The Academy at Old Cockrill
133
in 2009 to address the needs of students within the district who were at-risk of dropping
out of high school. AOC has met this challenge by engaging students who were
disengaged in their traditional high school setting, providing a supportive family
atmosphere, and relying on a highly individualized focus and approach. Together these
elements make it possible for at-risk students to persist to graduation.
Recommendations for Further Research
Future research should extend from this study and would be beneficial to the body
of evidence available. The research team makes the following recommendations for
future research studies:
x
Study a cohort that is actively enrolled at AOC, following the cohort to gather
data on graduates as well as those who drop out in real time. This will make it
possible for researchers to have immediate access to all participants on an ongoing basis. By taking this approach, the researchers will be able to explore the
experiences of those students which drop out of AOC in greater detail.
x
Conduct an in-depth study focusing on the characteristics of individual students
that persist to graduate from AOC. While this study focused on the concept of
resilience in a general way, valuable information may be gained about what the
individual characteristics of students do to enhance the likelihood of persistence
to graduation.
x
Study at-risk students in a comprehensive high school to compare/verify
experiences and other at-risk indicators. Some of the experiences related to the
participants in this study lead the research team to wonder to what degree students
in the traditional high school setting share these experiences. This research might
134
shed light on how to address concerns before students reach a critical at-risk
status.
x
Follow up with the 2010-2011 cohort to assess long-term outcomes/impact on
career and college readiness. A follow up project would not only provide
information about the on-going successes and/or failures of the participants, but
would allow researchers to examine whether or not resilience continued to play a
part in the lives of the participants.
Implications
This research study has many implications for The Academy at Old Cockrill.
Students from the 2010-2011 cohort at AOC possessed other at-risk indicators than the
Balfanz at-risk indicators. These at-risk indicators were categorized as individual,
family, and school related. This implies that educators need to develop relationships with
students in order to understand the impact of the challenges they face on persistence to
graduation.
Graduates of the 2010-2011 cohort possess characteristics of resiliency. The
implication for educators is to ensure that schools and programs implement strategies that
enhance the likelihood that students will respond positively in the face of adversity.
There is a correlation between student resiliency and the constructs of
relationships, program structure, and program effectiveness as it relates to student
experiences at The Academy at Old Cockrill. The Academy at Old Cockrill contributes
to meeting students’ goals of graduation because of the supportive stress-free
environment, respectful relationships with peers, respectful relationships with faculty and
135
graduation. The implication for The Academy at Old Cockrill is to continue developing
programs and coursework centering on the needs of the individual student.
The research team will make available the results of this study to the
administrator of The Academy at Old Cockrill. As a result of this study, research findings
can be used to assist administrators and educators in program development and
implementation at the Academy at Old Cockrill.
While the results of this study are limited to the 2010-2011 cohort of students at
The Academy at Old Cockrill, the results of this study are significant to educators and
policymakers who develop and implement interventions for dropout prevention. The
results of this study provide valuable insight into the indicators associated with
programming and intervention for at-risk students. In general, educators and
policymakers can look at The Academy at Old Cockrill for its program effectiveness as
an intervention for high school students. Specifically, Metropolitan Nashville Public
Schools (MNPS) will benefit in that the study may provide information that will enable
them to identify students who are more likely to be successful in programs like The
Academy at Old Cockrill.
136
REFERENCES
Achieve. (2011). Tennessee’s College and Career Ready Commitment. Retrieved from
http://www.achieve.org/files/Tennessee-CCRFactSheet-July2011.pdf
Alexander, K.L., Entwistle, D.R., & Horsey, C. (1997). From first grade forward: Early
foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87-107.
Alexander, K. L., Entwistle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life
course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College
Record, 103(5), 760-822. Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Allensworth, E.M. & Easton, J.Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and
graduating in Chicago Public Schools: A close look at course grades, failures,
and attendance in the freshman year. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago,
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/07%20What%20Matters%20Final.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). Accelerating the college and career readiness
of Tennessee’s students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/Tennessee_cs.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (2009a). The high cost of high school dropouts:
What the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009b). Understanding high school graduation rates
in Tennessee. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/Tennessee_wc.pdf
137
Almeida, C., Balfanz, R., & Steinberg, A. (2009). Dropout factories: New strategies
states can use. Education Week. 29 (15), 20-22. Retrieved from Education Full
Text database.
Almeida, C., Steinberg, A., Santos, J., and Le, C. (2010). Six pillars of effective dropout
prevention and recovery: An assessment of current state policy and how to
improve it. Jobs For the Future. Retrieved from
http://www.jff.org/publications/education/six-pillars-effective-dropoutprevention/1125
American Psychological Association (2010). Facing the school dropout dilemma.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/school-dropout-prevention.aspx
America’s Promise Alliance (2010). Retrieved from http://americaspromise.org
Balfanz, R. (2011). Back on track to graduate. Educational Leadership, 68 (7), 54-58.
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J.M., Moore, L.A., & Fox, J.H. (2010). Building a
grad nation: progress and challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic.
Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED513447.pdf
Balfanz, R. & Byrnes, V. (2010). Untapped Potential: Early Indicator Analysis for Metro
Nashville Public Schools. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Center for Social
Organization of Schools.
Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & McIver, D.J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and
keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early
identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223-235.
138
Balfanz, R. & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which high schools
produce the nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them?
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. John Hopkins
University. Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report70.pdf
Balfanz, R. and Legters, N. (2006). The graduation rate crisis we know and what can be
done about it. Education Week Commentary.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., &
Hawkins, J.D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five
theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 568-582.
Benard, B. (1997). Turning it around for all youth: From risk to resilience.
Retrieved January 23, 2012, from ERIC Digest Clearinghouse on Urban
Education: http://resilnet.uiuc.edu/library.html
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: what we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd.
Borman, G. (2004). Academic resiliency in mathematics and the center for research on
the education of students placed at risk. Elementary School Journal, 177-195.
Bridgeland, J., Dilulio, J., & Balfanz, R. (2009). The High School Dropout Problem:
Perspectives of Teachers and Principals. The Education Digest, 75(3), 20-6.
Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Bridgeland, J., Dilulio J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives
of high school dropouts. Civic Enterprises. Retrieved from
http://www.civicenterprises.net/reports/the_silent_epidemic.pdf.
139
Blue, D. & Cook, J.E. (2004). High school dropouts: Can we reverse the stagnation in
school graduation? Study of High School Restructuring Issue Brief, 1(2), 1-11.
Retrieved from http://www.edb.utexas.edu/hsns/HSNSbrief2.pdf.
Burns, M. (2008). Response to intervention at the secondary level. Principal
Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.nysrti.org/docs/RTI_at_the_Secondary_Level_Part_II_March_NASS
P.pdf
Christle, C.A., Jolivetter, K., & Nelson, M. (2007). School characteristics related to high
school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 325-339.
D’Andrea, C. (2010). Tennessee’s high school dropouts examining the fiscal
consequences. The Foundation for Educational Choice. Retrieved from
http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/Tennessee-s-High-School-Dropouts--Examining-the-Fiscal-Consequences.aspx.
Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school:
A look at approaches to tiered intervention. National High School Center.
Retrieved from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_RTIBrief_08-0207.pdf.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for
understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public
Health, 399-419.
Garmezy, N. (1973). Competence and adaptation in adult schizophrenic patients and
children at risk. In Dean, S.R. (Ed.), Schizophrenia: The first ten Dean Award
Lectures. New York: MSS Information Corp., 163-204.
140
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes
associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 416-430.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence
in children: A building block for developmental psychology. Child Development,
97-111.
George, D. & Maller, P. (2011). SPSS for Windows: Step By Step (18.0 Update).
Boston: Allyn & Bason.
Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout risk factors and
exemplary programs. National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities In
Schools, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.dropoutprevention.org/sites/default/files/uploads/major_reports/
DropoutRiskFactorsaDropoutRiskFactorsandExe5-16-07.pdf
Hickman, G.P., Bartholomew, M., Mathwig, J., & Heinrich, R.S. (2008). Differential
development pathways of high school dropouts and graduates. The Journal of
Educational Research, 102, 3-14. Retrieved from
http://dropouts101.com/downloads/Differential%20Developmental%20Pathways
%20of%20High%20School%20Dropouts%20and%20Graduates%20%20Journal%20of%20Educational%20Research.pdf
Hupfeld, K. (n.d.). Resiliency skills and dropout prevention: A review of the literature.
Denver: ScholarCentric.
Ingram, A. (n.d.). High school dropout determinants: The effect of poverty and learning
disabilities. The Park Place Economist, XIV, 73-79. Retrieved from
http://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE14/Ingrum.pdf
141
Jimerson, S.R., Anderson, G.E., & Whipple, A.D. (2002). Winning the battle and losing
the war: Examining the relation between grade retention and dropping out of high
school. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 441-457.
Kennelly, L. & Monrad, M. (2007). Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early
warning signs with appropriate interventions. National High School Center.
Retrieved from
http://www.betterhighschools.org/pubs/documents/NHSC_ApproachestoDropout
Approaches.pdf
Kingsbury, K. (2008). No dropouts left behind: New rules on grad rates. Time.
Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1854758,00.html.
Kubiszyn, T. & Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lee, V.E. & Burkam, D.T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 353393.
Lessard, A., Butler-Kisber, L., Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., & Royer, É. (2008).
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out. Social Psychology of
Education, 11(1), 25-42. doi: 10.1007/s11218-007-9033-z.
Lessard, A., Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., and Royer, E. (2009). Why Did They
Not Drop Out? Narratives from resilient students. The Prevention Researcher,
Vol. 16, 3, 21-24.
Lichtman, M. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. 2nd. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
142
Lifton, R. (1994). The protean self: Human resilience in an age of fragmentation. New
York: Basic Books.
Luthar, S. (1999). Poverty and children's adjustment. Newbury Park: Sage.
Luthar, S., Ciccheti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 543-562.
Mac Iver, M.A., & Mac Iver, D.J. (2009). Beyond the indicators: An integrated schoollevel approach to dropout prevention. The George Washington University Center
for Equity and Excellence in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.maine.gov/education/speced/tools/b2dropout/reports/indicators.pdf
Masten, A. (2001). Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 227-238.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development:
contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development
and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable
and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 205-220.
McMillan, J. H., & Reed, D. R. (1993). Defying the odds: a study of resilient at-risk
students. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University: Metropolitan Education
Research Consortium.
Meeker, S.D., Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2008). The voices of high school dropouts:
implications for research and practice. The International Journal on School
Disaffection, 40-52. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ871305.pdf
143
Menzer, J.D. & Hampel, R.L. (2009). Lost at the last minute. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9),
660-664. Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2011, June). Retrieved from
www.mnps.org/Page58149.aspx
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2012). Retrieved from MNPS.org:
www.mnps.org/Page58149.aspx
Neild, R., Balfanz, R., & Herzog, L. (2007). An early warning system. Educational
Leadership, 65(2), 28-33. Retrieved from
http://www.every1graduates.org/balfanz/item/96-an-early-warning-system.html
Renzulli, J.S., and Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 44(4), 261-271. doi: 10.1177/001698620004400407
Rumberger, R.W. (2004). Why students drop out of school. In G. Orfield (Ed.), 2004,
Dropouts In America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press. Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of
high school drop out. American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance
to psychiatric disorder. British Journalof Psychiatry, 598-611.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychological resilience and protective mechanisms. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 316-331.
Sabates, R., Akyeampong, K., Westbrook J., & Hunt, F. (2010). School drop out:
Patterns, causes, changes, and policies. Centre for International Education.
Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190771e.pdf
144
Sagor, R. (1996, September). Building Resiliency in Students. Retrieved from
http://m.ascd.org/EL/Article/ee568483d4eaff00VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD
Scherer, M. (2010, October). Not Waiting for Superman. Educational Leadership.
Retrieved from
http://www.betterhighschools.org/pubs/documents/IssueBrief_EarlyWarningSyste
EarlyWa.pdf
Shealy, L.C. (2011). Building an early warning system to identify potential high school
dropouts (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses. (Accession Order No. 3450672.)
Sparks, S.D., (2010a). Scholars urge creation of early-warning systems. Education
Week. 30(10). Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Sparks, S.D., (2010b). Study finds fewer ‘dropout factory’ schools. Education Week.
30(14). Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Stearns, E. & Glennie, E.J. (2006). When and why dropouts leave high school. Youth
and Society, 38, 29-57. Retrieved from
http://www.pineforge.com/ballantinestudy/articles/Chapter11_Article01.pdf
Swanson, C.B. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn’t? A statistical portrait of public high
school graduation. Education Policy Center, The Urban Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410934_WhoGraduates.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education (2012). Report card on Tennessee schools.
Retrieved from http://www.state.tn.us/education/reportcard/index.html
145
Ungar, M. (2004). A constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts, multiple
realities among at-risk children and youth. Youth and Society, 341-365.
Wagnild, G.M. (2009). The Resilience Scale™. Retrieved from
http://www.resiliencescale.com/
Wagnild, G. M. (2011). The Resilience Scale User's Guide. Worden: Resilience Center.
Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P., & Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on Educational
Resilience. Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1971). The Children of Kauai Honolulu. Hawaii: University of
Hawaii Press.
Werner, E., & Smith, R. (1977). Kauai's children come of age. Hawaii: University of
Hawaii Press.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Arunkumar, R. (1994). Resliency research: implications for
schools and policy. Social Policy Report, 1-17.
146
Appendix A
Participant Informed Consent Form
Dear Participant,
Background
The research team of Claire Jasper, Emily Medlock, and Millie Norwood, under their
advisor Dr. Keith Nikolaus of the Lipscomb University Doctoral Program in Learning
Organizations and Strategic Change, are conducting a research study with graduates of
the Academy at Old Cockrill about the at-risk indicators of dropping out of high school.
This research will take place between November 2011 and May 2012.
The purpose of our study is to identify indicators beyond the Balfanz at-risk indicators of
high school dropouts that students at the Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC) may possess.
In addition, the researchers hope to identify characteristics inherent to the students which
predispose them to success, and finally to identify the characteristics of the AOC program
that make it a successful intervention for at risk students.
Participants
You are being asked to participate in the study because you chose to fulfill your high
school graduation requirements at the Academy at Old Cockrill during the 2010-2011
school year.
Procedures
This study hopes to learn from you. If you agree to participate in this study, you may be
selected to participate in an interview with the research team where you will have the
opportunity to “tell your story.”
Benefits of Participation
There are no direct benefits to you as a participant in this research study. However, your
input in this study will help educators better understand the common at-risk indicators
students at AOC may possess and how programs such as AOC impact student graduation
rates.
Risks of Participation
Participation in this study is voluntary. There are risks involved in all research studies.
This study may include only minimal risks. During the research process you may be
asked questions that may be uncomfortable for you when bringing up previous
experiences in school. You will not be forced to share any information you are not
comfortable in sharing with the research team.
Costs/Compensation
There will not be any financial cost to you to participate in this study. Once the research
team receives your questionnaire, you may be selected to participate in an
interview/focus group. The study will take approximately one hour of your time for the
147
interview. If you are selected to participate in the interview/focus group, you will be
compensated for your time with a gift card to a local retail store.
Contact Information
If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject for the study, please
contact the research team at [email protected]. If problems arise which you
do not feel you can discuss with the research team, you may contact Dr. Bill Tallon,
Chair Lipscomb IRB at [email protected] or 615-966-5825.
Confidentiality
Information gathered in this study will be kept confidential. The anonymity of the
participants will be protected. Students’ personal stories will be stored in the locked
office of the administrator of the Academy at Old Cockrill. The transcribed data from
students’ personal stories and interviews will be stored in the researchers’ secure,
password protected, database.
A separate section is provided on the consent form for participants to indicate whether or
not they will consent to the use of video clips and/or audio recordings of interview
sessions with the participants in the presentation of the results of this research.
Participant Consent
Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You may refuse to participate in this
study or in any part of this study. You may withdraw at any time without prejudice to
your relations with AOC. You are encouraged to ask questions about this study at the
beginning or any time during the research study.
I grant permission, without restriction, to allow the research team to make an audio
recording of my interview/focus group. The research team has explained to me that a
written copy (a transcript) of my interview will be prepared from the audiotape. The
audiotape will be for the sole purpose of supporting the Academy at Old Cockrill
Capstone Project. ______ (Initial)
I grant permission, without restriction, to the research team to use photographs and/or
videos for the research project. The photographs/videos will be for the sole purpose of
supporting the Academy at Old Cockrill Capstone Project. I understand that identifying
information will be limited as much as possible and that full names will not be used.
______ (Initial)
I grant permission, without restriction, to the research team to use photographs, video
clips, and/or audio recordings in the presentation of the results of the research. I
understand that identifying information will be limited to the use of first names only.
________ (Initial)
By signing below I agree to have read the above information, have had my questions
answered, and agree to participate in this research study. A copy of this form has been
given to me.
148
_______________________________________
Signature of Study Participant
____________________
Date
_______________________________________
Participant Name (Please Print)
____________________
Student ID Number
149
Appendix B
Parental Informed Consent Form
For Participants Under the Age of 18
Dear Parents/Guardian,
Background
The research team of Claire Jasper, Emily Medlock, and Millie Norwood, under their
advisor Dr. Keith Nikolaus of the Lipscomb University Doctoral Program in Learning
Organizations and Strategic Change, are conducting a research study with graduates of
the Academy at Old Cockrill about the at-risk indicators of dropping out of high school.
This research will take place between November 2011 and May 2012.
that make it a successful intervention for at risk students.
Participants
Your child is being asked to participate in the study because they chose to fulfill their
high school graduation requirements at the Academy at Old Cockrill during the 20102011 school year.
Procedures
If you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, they may be selected to
participate in an interview with the research team where they will have the opportunity to
“tell their story.”
Benefits of Participation
There are no direct benefits to your child as a participant in this research study.
However, your child’s input in this study will help educators better understand the
common at-risk indicators students at AOC may possess and how programs such as AOC
impact student graduation rates.
Risks of Participation
Participation in this study is voluntary. There are risks involved in all research studies.
This study may include only minimal risks. During the research process your child may
be asked questions that may be uncomfortable for them when bringing up previous
experiences in school. Your child will not be forced to share any information they are
not comfortable in sharing with the research team.
Costs/Compensation
There will not be any financial cost to you or your child to participate in this study. Once
the research team receives your child’s questionnaire, he or she may be selected to
150
participate in an interview/focus group. The study will take approximately one hour of
their time for the interview. If your child is selected to participate in the interview/focus
group, they will be compensated for their time with a gift card to a local retail store.
Contact Information
If you have any questions regarding your rights and your child’s rights as a research
subject for the study, please contact the research team at [email protected].
If problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the research team, you may
contact Dr. Bill Tallon, Chair Lipscomb IRB at [email protected] or 615-9665825.
Confidentiality
Information gathered in this study will be kept confidential. The anonymity of the
participants will be protected. Students’ personal stories will be stored in the locked
office of the administrator of the Academy at Old Cockrill. The transcribed data from
students’ personal stories and interviews will be stored in the researchers’ secure,
password protected, database.
A separate section is provided on the consent form for participants/parents of participants
to indicate whether or not they will consent to the use of video clips and/or audio
recordings of interview sessions with the participants in the presentation of the results of
this research.
Parental Consent
Your child’s participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You may refuse consent for
your child to participate in this study or in any part of this study. You may withdraw
your child at any time without prejudice to your/their relations with AOC. You are
encouraged to ask questions about this study at the beginning or any time during the
research study.
By signing below I agree to have read the above information, have had my questions
answered, and agree to allow my child to participate in this research study. A copy of
this form has been given to me.
_______________________________________
Signature of Study Participant’s Parent/Guardian
____________________
Date
_______________________________________
Participant Name (Please Print)
____________________
Student ID Number
I grant permission, without restriction, to allow the research team to make an audio
recording of my child’s interview/focus group. The research team has explained to me
that a written copy (a transcript) of the interview will be prepared from the audiotape.
The audiotape will be for the sole purpose of supporting the Academy at Old Cockrill
Capstone Project. ______ (Initial)
151
I grant permission, without restriction, to the research team to use photographs and/or
videos of my child for the research project. The photographs/videos will be for the sole
purpose of supporting the Academy at Old Cockrill Capstone Project. I understand that
identifying information will be limited as much as possible and that full names will not
be used. ______ (Initial)
I grant permission, without restriction, to the research team to use photographs, video
clips, and/or audio recordings of my child in the presentation of the results of the
research. I understand that identifying information will be limited to the use of first
names only. ________ (Initial)
152
Appendix C
Questionnaire Instructions
that make it a successful intervention for at-risk students.
Participants
You are being asked to participate in the study because you chose to fulfill your high
school graduation requirements at the Academy at Old Cockrill during the 2010-2011
school year.
Questionnaire Procedures
Please read the statements on each of the enclosed questionnaires. There are no right or
wrong answers, so please be honest in your responses. This study hopes to learn from
you.
Voluntary Participation
“By completing this survey, I volunteer to participate in this research project. I
understand there are minimal risks to my well-being by completing the questionnaire.
All data collected during the research process will only be reported as aggregate (group)
data and my anonymity will be protected. I may withdraw from participating in this
project at any time during the data collection period. I agree to voluntarily participate in
this research project. If I have any concerns or questions, I may contact Dr. Bill Tallon,
Chair Lipscomb IRB at [email protected] or 615-966-5825.”
153
Appendix D
The Resilience Scale™
Student ID Number ____________________
Please read the following statements. To the right of each you will find seven numbers,
ranging from "1" (Strongly Disagree) on the left to "7" (Strongly Agree) on the right.
Circle the number which best indicates your feelings about that statement. For example,
if you strongly disagree with a statement, circle "1". If you are neutral, circle "4", and if
you strongly agree, circle "7", etc.
Circle the number in the appropriate column
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3
1
2
3
Strongly Agree
1. I usually manage one way or another.
4
5
6
7
2. I feel proud that I have accomplished things
4
5
6
7
in life.
3. I usually take things in stride.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. I am friends with myself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. I feel that I can handle many things at a time. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. I am determined.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. I can get through difficult times because I’ve 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
experienced difficulty before.
8. I have self-discipline.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9. I keep interested in things.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. I can usually find something to laugh about.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11. My belief in myself gets me through hard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
times.
12. In an emergency, I’m someone people can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
generally rely on.
13. My life has meaning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14. When I’m in a difficult situation, I can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
usually find my way out of it.
©2009 Gail M. Wagnild and Heather M. Young. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
“The Resilience Scale” is an international trademark of Gail M. Wagnild & Heather M.
Young, 1993
154
Appendix E
The Resilience Scale™ Terms of Use
1. Rights in Site Content and the Site
1.1 All content provided on the Site is protected by copyright, trademark, and other
applicable intellectual property and proprietary rights laws and is owned, controlled,
and/or licensed by Gail M. Wagnild and/or Heather M. Young, except as otherwise
noted. The Site is protected by copyright, patent, trademark, and other applicable
intellectual property and proprietary rights laws and is owned, controlled, and/or licensed
by Gail M. Wagnild (hereinafter referred to as the OWNER).
RESILIENCESCALE.COM™ is a trademark of Gail M. Wagnild. The Resilience Scale™,
RS™, The 14-Item Resilience Scale™, and RS-14™ are trademarks of Gail M. Wagnild
and Heather M. Young (hereinafter referred to as the RS-OWNERS). The The Resilience
Scale User's Guide™ is a trademark of Gail M. Wagnild (hereinafter referred to as the
OWNER). All other trademarks appearing on the Site are the property of their respective
owners.
1.2 You will, upon completion of any study or dissertation in which you used The
Resilience Scale (either the 25- or 14-item version), send an electronic copy of your
results to the OWNER at [email protected] or if you are unable to send
your results electronically, send your paper results to: The Resilience Center, Box 313,
Worden, MT 59088 USA. By sending this report, you give the OWNER implicit
permission to publish it on this Web site and to use your results for statistical purposes.
Unless you specifically request that the OWNER does not publish your report, she will
publish it (or not) at her discretion. If, however, you do not want your report published on
this Web site, and you indicate this in your submission, then the OWNER will not
publish your report, although she reserves the right to include your results in later
statistical studies on the Resilience Scale.
1.3 You will not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create
derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part, found on
the Site except as set forth in these Terms of Use. You will download copyrighted content
solely for your non-commercial use, but will make no commercial use of the content
without the express written permission of the RS-OWNERS. You will not make any
changes to any content that you are permitted to download under this Agreement without
the express written permission of the RS-OWNERS, and in particular you will not delete
or alter any proprietary rights or attribution notices in any content. You agree that you do
not acquire any ownership rights in any downloaded content.
2. Disclaimer of Warranties & Limitation of Liability
2.1 YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.
NEITHER THE RS-OWNERS, NOR ANY OF THEIR AFFILIATES, EMPLOYEES,
AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT
THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. NOR DO THEY
MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED
FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY,
COMPLETENESS, OR CONTENTS OF ANY CONTENT, INFORMATION,
MATERIAL, POSTINGS, OR POSTING RESPONSES FOUND ON THE SITE, ANY
155
MERCHANDISE OR SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE, OR ANY
LINKS TO OTHER SITES MADE AVAILABLE ON THE SITE.
2.2 THE SITE AND ALL CONTENT, MATERIAL, INFORMATION, POSTINGS, OR
POSTING RESPONSES FOUND ON THE SITE ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS"
BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
2.3 UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
NEGLIGENCE, SHALL THE RS-OWNERS OR ANY OF THEIR AFFILIATES,
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS, OR LICENSORS
BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF, OR THE
INABILITY TO USE, ANY CONTENT, INFORMATION, MATERIAL, POSTINGS,
OR POSTING RESPONSES ON THE SITE OR THE SITE ITSELF. THESE
LIMITATIONS APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARTY LIABLE OR
ALLEGEDLY LIABLE WAS ADVISED, HAD OTHER REASON TO KNOW, OR IN
FACT KNEW OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. YOU SPECIFICALLY
ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT GAIL M. WAGNILD AND HEATHER M.
YOUNG (AND ANY OF THEIR AFFILIATES, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD
PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS, OR LICENSORS, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS), ARE NOT LIABLE FOR
ANY DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF ANY USER,
INCLUDING YOU.
3. Indemnification
You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Gail M. Wagnild and/or Heather M.
Young (and/or any of their affiliates, employees, agents, third party content providers, or
licensors, and their respective directors, officers, employees, and agents) from and
against all claims, liability, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and legal fees and
costs, arising out of your use of the Site or your breach of any provision of this
Agreement. The RS-OWNERS reserve the right, in their sole discretion and at their own
expense, to assume the exclusive defence and control of any matter otherwise subject to
indemnification by you. You will cooperate as fully as reasonably required in the defence
of any claim.
4. Fees and Payments
The OWNER reserve the right, in her sole discretion, at any time to charge fees for
access to and use of the Site, or any portions of the Site. If the OWNER elects to charge
fees, she will post notice on the Site of all provisions pertaining to fees and payments.
5. Notices between Us
You will contact the OWNER by submitting your message via e-mail to
[email protected]. She will contact you by sending electronic mail to the
address you provide to us, or by posting a notice on the Site.
6. Termination
The OWNER may terminate this Agreement and your use of the Site at any time. The
OWNER shall have the right immediately to terminate your use of the Site in the event of
156
any conduct by you which the OWNER, in her sole discretion, considers to be
unacceptable, or in the event of any breach by you of this Agreement.
7. Law Governing Performance and Disputes
This Agreement, your performance under it, and any disputes arising under it shall be
governed exclusively by the laws of the United States of America and the State of
Montana, without giving effect to their conflict of laws principles. You expressly consent
to the exclusive forum, jurisdiction, and venue of the Courts of the State of Montana and
the United States District Court for the District of Montana in any and all actions,
disputes, or controversies relating to this Agreement.
8. General Terms
This Agreement and any posted rules on the Site established by the OWNER constitute
the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No waiver by
either the OWNER or you of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach or default. This Agreement shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the OWNER and her successors, trustees, and
permitted assigns. The OWNER may assign this Agreement, or any of its rights or
obligations under this Agreement, with or without notice to you.
The Resilience Scale and 14-Item Resilience Scale are copyrighted internationally by
Gail M. Wagnild and Heather M. Young (1993).
Site contents ©2009 Gail M. Wagnild all rights reserved.
157
Appendix F
AOC Questionnaire
Student ID Number ____________________
Below each statement you will find seven numbers, ranging from "1" (Strongly Disagree)
on the left to "7" (Strongly Agree) on the right. Circle the number which best indicates
your feelings about that statement. For example, if you strongly disagree with a
statement, circle "1". If you are neutral, circle "4", and if you strongly agree, circle "7",
etc.
Relationships
Teachers and staff took a real interest in my future.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teachers treated students with respect.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Students at the Academy at Old Cockrill treated each other with respect.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The administrator at the Academy at Old Cockrill was responsive to students’ needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The teachers at the Academy at Old Cockrill were responsive to students’ needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teachers and staff at the Academy at Old Cockrill believe all students can learn.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
It was easy to talk to teachers and staff at the Academy at Old Cockrill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teacher Effectiveness
Teachers at the Academy at Old Cockrill had adequate content knowledge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teachers at the Academy at Old Cockrill presented content with clarity.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teachers provided additional support to students.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teachers at the Academy at Old Cockrill used different kinds of instruction to help
students learn.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
158
Teachers made me enthusiastic about learning.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Academics
The curriculum at the Academy at Old Cockrill met my academic needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The Academy at Old Cockrill set high academic standards.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Teachers and staff at the Academy at Old Cockrill believed that I could achieve
academically.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Program Structure
I understood my responsibilities at the Academy at Old Cockrill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The program was flexible enough to meet my schedule needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The program design of the Academy at Old Cockrill met my individual needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Program Effectiveness
Support services such as tutoring were adequate at the Academy at Old Cockrill .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Support services such as counseling were adequate at the Academy at Old Cockrill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I was actively involved with my coursework while attending the Academy at Old
Cockrill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I feel satisfied with my accomplishments at the Academy at Old Cockrill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The Academy at Old Cockrill prepared me for the future.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I enjoyed going to school at the Academy at Old Cockrill.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I would recommend the Academy at Old Cockrill to a friend.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
159
Appendix G
Focus Group Questions
1. Tell the research team what comes to mind when you think about high school.
2. What did you dislike about your comprehensive high school that contributed to your
decision to leave? Please be as specific as possible.
- Can you recall anything in particular that triggered this decision?
- Was there anything about the school environment that contributed to your
decision?
Did you feel welcome? Did you feel included? How were you treated?
- Was there anything about the classes you were in that made you not want to
learn at the
school you were attending? Did you feel like you could be successful at your
school?
Were the classes challenging/exciting/boring?
- Was there anything about the teachers, administrators, counselors, or others that
contributed to your decision?
3. Thinking about the reasons you had for leaving high school, was there one that you
would say had the most influence on your decision to leave?
4. Tell the research team what you think when you hear the word “dropout.”
5. How were your grades in school? Did you ever have any difficulty with grades?
6. How many credits did you lack when you left your comprehensive high school?
7. What were the main influences that led you to decide to return and finish school at the
Academy at Old Cockrill?
8. How would you describe the Academy at Old Cockrill? What makes it unique? Are
there particular things about AOC that are different from the high school you left that
made your decision to return to school any easier?
9. If you have thought about dropping out since entering AOC, what factors play an
important role in keeping you here at AOC?
10. Are you employed now? What do you do? Does the job you now hold require a
high school diploma?
160
Appendix H
Client Permission and Access for Research
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
AND
Metro Nashville Public Schools, The Academy at Old Cockrill
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the relationship and guidelines
between the above parties regarding the research partnership described below.
The College of Education (COE) of Lipscomb University offers the Doctor of Education
(Ed.D.) degree in Learning Organizations and Strategic Change. This degree is focused
on preparing leaders for public and private organizations and academic settings. The
program culminates with a practical, collaborative capstone research project with a
partner organization. MNPS’s The Academy at Old Cockrill (AOC) has requested a
Capstone Team to address a real research need in an authentic setting. Successful
completion of this capstone project will fulfill part of the requirements for completion of
the Doctor of Education degree.
AOC’s mission is to produce a safe environment in which students are inspired to achieve
success through an individualized plan that leads to graduation. The Client’s goal is
develop productive citizens and celebrate their success.
AOC’s vision is to be the premier non-traditional high school for students 17-21 years of
age.
AOC was established to address the growing needs of young adults, ages 17-21, who
have dropped out of high school. The school serves young adults who are serious in their
pursuit of a high school diploma.
The organization of the school day is structured much differently than a traditional high
school. AOC offers two class periods a day, Monday-Friday, from 8:30-11:30 and
12:30-3:30. It is possible for a student to earn two full credits every nine weeks. One
semester is equivalent to 4 ½ weeks at The Academy at Old Cockrill.
The total number of credits a student can earn depends upon the number of classes they
elect to take and the amount of time they spend in the A+ lab. A+ is a computerized,
self-paced credit recovery system that both teaches academic material aligned with the
Tennessee State standards and evaluates student mastery of the content. A+ does not
have any seat=time requirements and students can earn credits as quickly as they are able
to progress through and master the course content. A “normal” schedule would be for a
student to be enrolled in both a.m. and p.m. classes. They may earn .5 credits per class
every 4 ½ weeks or 8 credits for a full year.
A variety of classes are offered at The Academy at Old Cockrill. Math, Social Studies,
English, Biology, French, and Spanish are offered in a classroom setting. We also offer
22 different classes in our A+ lab for students who either need a subject not offered in the
traditional classroom setting or for those who prefer to complete their credits on a
161
computer. Recently, the web-based part of A+ was made available to our students,
allowing eligible students to pursue A+ course work from home or from a computer more
convenient to them but outside of the school building. This is a needed component of our
program. We have approximately 40% of our students enrolled on-line. Many work full
time or have difficulties with childcare and cannot attend on a regular basis. Having
mastery-based content and instruction available through the internet provides those
students with a way to continue their studies even if they cannot attend school during the
AOC school day. Along this same line, AOC math teachers have programs that allow
students to work on their math at home. Again, the student does not have to worry about
falling behind if physically getting to the school building becomes an issue.
All students enrolled in The Academy at Old Cockrill are seniors and are expected to
graduate in one year.
The College of Education at Lipscomb University and AOC are entering into and
operating under this MOU for a research partnership and agree to the following.
I. REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
AOC has submitted a Request for Assistance (RFA) outlining the following research
need:
MNPS uses Balfanz markers to indicate students at risk of not graduating. Those
students with markers are flagged as needing intervention to reach graduation. Do AOC
students share these markers? Among the AOC students who do not have Balfanz
markers, are there shared characteristics which could be used to indicate risk beyond the
Balfanz markers?
Are there particular strategies which AOC employs which inculcate hope, a sense of
efficacy, a sense of belonging, and contribute the long term success of these students as
measured by post-secondary education pursuit and post secondary benchmarks of success
such as employment and retention of employment, lack of government assistance, and
lack of arrests and/or criminal records.
If time permits, the Team will also identify the markers and data sets needed to create a
longitudinal study of the economic impact which graduates of AOC have on Nashville.
These markers may include: characteristics linked to economic indicators; characteristics
of AOC students; supports and assets with which AOC students enter the program versus
supports and assets which have been identified as critical for educational advancement in
both secondary and post-secondary settings; and post-program benchmarks and indicators
of success.
The students to be considered are those who are between 17 and 21 years of age,
attending school, and/or have at least 14 credits.
II. PROJECT PARAMETERS
The COE will supervise and direct a team of two to four doctoral students who will frame
and conduct the research and form recommendations for the client’s research need.
162
The COE will provide the training for the Ed.D. students to complete the requested
research project through its curriculum and capstone project support structures. This
training and support includes but is not limited to quantitative and qualitative research
techniques, instrument design, and development of specific timelines, benchmarks, and
processes pertaining to conducting research, and the assignment of a capstone faculty
adviser who will oversee the team throughout the research project.
AOC will provide the following access and/or data:
x Qualitative and quantitative data on the backgrounds of students.
x If students are over 18 when they enroll at AOC, access to school
transcripts.
x Student autobiographies.
x The AOC principal, school counselor, and faculty
x MNPS research and evaluation staff (coordinated by AOC principal)
x Aggregated system data on drop-out
x Tennessee and MNPS Early Warning Indicator Analysis for dropouts
(Balfanz flags such as attendance, grades, and suspensions)
x Self-reported data from graduates
Markers of success include but are not limited to post-secondary schooling or advanced
training, employment and advancement within employment ranks, and entrance into the
military.
The Client foresees data access challenges regarding previous AOC graduates due to their
transient nature.
III. PROJECTED RESEARCH TIMELINE
-
AOC will present a 15-minute presentation (including Q & A) of the RFA to the
Fall 2010 Cohort on Client Presentation Day, which is scheduled for the morning
of Saturday, July 30, 2011.
- Capstone Team will be assigned to AOC no later than August 10, 2011.
- The Capstone Team will have an initial meeting with AOC’s assigned contact
person or his/her designee no later than August 22, 2011.
- The Capstone Team will develop and submit a project proposal to AOC no later
than October 4, 2011.
- AOC will approve or request revision of the project proposal no later than
October 10, 2011.
- The Capstone Team will submit the approved project proposal to Lipscomb
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) by October 11, 2011. Substantive
changes requested by the IRB will be discussed with AOC prior to
implementation.
- The Capstone Team and OCMS will submit the proposal to the MNPS Executive
Director of Research, Assessment, and Evaluation no later than October 24, 2011.
The format should follow the guidelines found at
http://www.mnps.org/AssetFactory.aspx?did=51524
Teams should reference sections A.1 through A.8 and B. 1 through B.3. in determining
appropriate formatting.
-
163
Upon receiving approval from the IRB and the MNPS Executive Director of
Research, the Capstone Team will formally begin the research with a May 3, 2012
target date for completion of analysis.
The Capstone Team will submit a written draft of the report to Lipscomb’s Juried
Review Committee by June 8, 2012.
The Capstone Team will schedule and give a presentation to AOC and to the
Juried Review Committee by August 1, 2012.
AOC and the Team shall jointly submit a written report to the MNPS Executive
Director of Research, Assessment, and Evaluation.
AOC will provide a Client Project Evaluation of the Capstone Team and research
project within one week following the presentation.
IV. LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY’S INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
Capstone students are required to gain approval from Lipscomb’s IRB prior to
conducting research. All capstone teams will submit a research proposal to the IRB for
their capstone projects. The research proposal will be submitted to and approved by AOC
prior to submission to Lipscomb’s IRB (see Project Research Timeline).
The following outline may serve as a guide for students in building a research proposal to
be sent to AOC and the IRB.
Title Page
Table of Contents
Introduction (2 – 3 pages)
- A statement of the research topic
- A statement of the research problem
- The purpose of the study
- The research question(s)
Methodology (2 – 3 pages)
- Design or strategy for research
- Research participants (describe participants, description of risk, voluntary
participation, confidentiality, anonymity)
- Procedures to be followed
Data Analysis (1 page)
- Describe data collection, storage, and analysis procedures
- Describe disposition of the data after the study has concluded
References
Appendices
- Informed consent letter
- Apparatus and/or instruments to be used (questionnaire, interview questions, etc.)
- Documentation from client granting permission and access for research
V. FUNDING
The Capstone Team, the COE, and AOC will make every reasonable effort to minimize
costs associated with this project.
As of the date of the signing of this document, the project presented by the client is
expected to require no funding by either the COE or AOC.
164
Capstone Team members are expected to be responsible for normal and customary costs
associated with doctoral students engaging in doctoral research (i.e. cost of mailings,
printing, paper, envelopes, postage, transportation, phone calls, email, etc.). However,
should the Capstone Team members identify what they consider to be an out-of-theordinary funding need, then the team members should seek funding from AOC during
development of their project proposal and prior to submission of the proposal to
Lipscomb’s IRB. Regardless of when the funding need is realized, written approval and
agreement to provide funding should be received from AOC prior to any expenditure
being made. Expenditures incurred without expressed written approval from AOC will
be the responsibility of the Capstone Team members. Team members will be provided a
copy of this MOU.
VI. RESEARCH PRODUCT and DISSEMINATION
The Capstone Team will prepare a full report and presentation to AOC and a COE Juried
Review Committee. This report and presentation must meet or exceed all the
requirements of the capstone project as outlined in the COE’s Capstone Project Manual
(see addendum).
Hard-bound copies of the report manuscript will be submitted to AOC, the COE, and
Beaman Library on Lipscomb University’s campus, and to each Capstone Team Member.
The COE may make the manuscript accessible in electronic format through conventional
venues that provide access to culminating research projects for doctoral programs.
AOC may request an alternative manuscript format for the client’s purposes. Within
reason, the Capstone Team is expected to meet the client’s needs and produce a copy of
the manuscript in the format requested. An alternative manuscript format may be sent to
AOC electronically or as a loosely bound hard copy, but will not be included with the
final manuscripts that are to be submitted to the COE for binding.
All rights and obligation related to interests in and ownership of the Capstone Project
shall be subject to the Lipscomb University Intellectual Property Policy (a copy of which
is attached hereto).
VII.
FAILURE TO MEET RESEARCH OBLIGATION
If the Capstone Team members cannot produce the requested research product they shall
present their concerns to their faculty advisor. The faculty advisor will discuss the matter
with AOC and attempt to craft a remedy to continue the project. If a remedy exists that
will materially alter the research product, then AOC, the COE designee, and the Capstone
Team shall meet and develop an altered research product that meets the needs, goals, and
objectives for all parties. In that case, an addendum to this document shall set forth the
new parameters of the adjusted research project.
If no remedy is available, the COE may unilaterally remove the Capstone Team from the
research project, and AOC will hold the COE, the Capstone Team, and Lipscomb
University harmless.
Should either the Lipscomb IRB or the MNPS Executive Research Committee deny this
project, all parties will put forth their best efforts to meet the requirements of both bodies.
If those requirements cannot be met, neither Lipscomb University College of Education
165
nor MNPS is obligated under this Memorandum, and this Memorandum shall be
completely void and without effect.
VIII.
AUTHORIZATION
On behalf of the Lipscomb University College of Education and AOC, the undersigned
agree to the above stipulations and pledge that the organizations will strive to the best of
their abilities and in good faith to complete these objectives.
Further, we pledge that should the need for modifications arise, we will in good faith
attempt to make such changes or additions as the situation dictates and as are further
detailed in subsequent mutually agreed upon addendums to this document.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS
The following terms shall apply in the interpretation and performance of this MOU:
Relationship of the Parties – This MOU shall not be construed to create a relationship of
partners, brokers, employees, servants or agents as between the parties.
A. Advertising and Publicity – Neither party shall use the other’s name, or any name
that is likely to suggest that it is related to the other institution, in any advertising,
promotion or sales literature without first obtaining the written consent of the
other party. Any publications regarding this MOU must be reviewed and
approved by the parties.
B. Governing Law; Forum – This MOU shall be governed by and construed under
the laws of the State of Tennessee, which shall be the forum for any lawsuits
arising from an incident to this MOU.
C. Waiver – A waiver of any breach of any provision of this MOU shall not be
construed as a continuing waiver of said breach or a waiver of any other breaches
of the same or other provisions of this MOU.
D. Non-Assignment – This MOU may not be assigned by either party without the
advance written consent of the other.
E. Severability - In the event one or more clauses of this Agreement are declared
illegal, void or unenforceable, that shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Agreement.
Appendix I
Human Subject Form Certificate of Completion
Certificate of Completion
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research
certifies that Claire Jasper successfully completed the NIH Web-based
training course “ Protecting Human Research Participants” .
Date of completion: 09/29/2011
Certification Number: 775499
certifies that Emily Medlock successfully completed the NIH Web-based
training course “Protecting Human Research Participants”.
certifies that Millie Norwood successfully completed the NIH Web-based
training course “Protecting Human Research Participants”.
166
Appendix J
IRB Approval
167
Appendix K
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Approval for Research
168
169
Appendix L
Research Questions with Null Hypotheses
1. Do the students in the 2010-2011cohort at AOC share the Balfanz at-risk
indicators?
suspensions.
course failures.
indicators.
170
171
resilience?
resilience.
172
program effectiveness?
at AOC.
students at AOC.
AOC.
students at AOC.
students at AOC.
173
6. What characteristics of AOC do students report which contribute to meeting the
goal of graduation?
174
Appendix M
Null Hypotheses Analysis
Null
Hypotheses
Dependent
Variable
Independent
Variable
Analysis
Result
H1
Total Balfanz AtRisk Indicators
Test Value of Zero
One Sample Test
Rejected
H2
Status
Attendance At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H3
Status
Suspension At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H4
Status
Course Failures AtRisk Indicator
Chi-Square
Rejected
H5
Status
Chi-Square
Retained
H6
Attendance
At-Risk Indicator
Individual At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H7
Suspensions
At-Risk Indicator
Individual At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H8
Course Failures
At-Risk Indicator
Individual At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H9
Attendance
At-Risk Indicator
Family At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Rejected
H10
Suspensions
At-Risk Indicator
Family At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H11
Course Failures
At-Risk Indicator
Family At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H12
Attendance
At-Risk Indicator
School At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H13
Suspensions
At-Risk Indicator
School At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
175
H14
Course Failures
At-Risk Indicator
School At-Risk
Indicator
Chi-Square
Retained
H15
Individual At-Risk
Indicator
Independent T-Test
Retained
H16
Family At-Risk
Indicator
Independent T-Test
Rejected
H17
School At-Risk
Indicator
Independent T-Test
Retained
H18
Resilience Score
Test Value of 74
One-Sample Test
Rejected
H19
Resilience Score
AOC Construct of
Relationships
Linear Regression
Rejected
H20
Resilience Score
AOC Construct of
Teacher
Effectiveness
Linear Regression
Retained
H21
Resilience Score
AOC Construct of
Academics
Linear Regression
Retained
H22
Resilience Score
AOC Construct of
Program Structure
Linear Regression
Rejected
H23
Resilience Score
AOC Construct of
Program
Effectiveness
Linear Regression
Rejected
H24
Status
AOC Constructs of
Relationships,
Teacher
Effectiveness,
Academics,
Program Structure,
Program
Effectiveness
Step-Wise
Regression
Rejected
176
Appendix N
Transcript of Focus Group
The Academy at Old Cockrill
…Unintelligible word or couple of words
Italicized words - sounds like
Hmm hmm – positive
Uh uh – negative
I:
R1:
R2:
R3:
R4:
R5:
R6:
R7:
R8:
R:
U:
Interviewer
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
Respondent 7
Respondent 8
Unidentified student respondent
Unidentified interviewer respondent
I:
Okay, so we’re gonna talk about The Academy at Old Cockrill and your
experiences while you were here and so question #1 is, can you tell the research team
what comes to mind when you think about high school? What comes to mind when you
think about high school?
R1:
Drama, definitely drama. ….(talking over each other 00:22)
I:
Drama.
R1:
I would say laziness too.
R2:
I would also say a lack of respect as well.
R3:
Amusing.
I:
Amusing? Amusing, why?
R3:
Everything we did was for my own amusement, selfish amusement.
I:
Okay.
177
R4:
I’d be like, I had like, high school for me is like you have a, I don’t know I can’t
even think of the word now, but how you think it’s gonna be before you get there cause
you see it on T.V. and stuff so much, like when you’re in middle and something, oh you
wanna get to, especially if you have like older siblings, so.
R5:
I’d say the final step, it’s your last, your last place of your security so to say.
Going out through high school you know, yes I have to go to school Monday through
Friday and I get the weekends off, but it’s your final step. Once it’s gone you kinda miss
it just for that fact that you, it’s a social network, there’s labels, there’s social groups that
hang out with everybody else and it’s, basically it’s your final maturing step so to say.
R6:
Well for me I think it’s more like preparing you for the future, because I mean
there’s so may different things that are lacking, especially in high school cause you’re
barely getting to know, you’re gonna get to know more people and of course bad things
are gonna come your way. For me, actually this high school right here actually got me on
the right track because when I used to go to another high school, I had a bad, bad
experiences, bad friends, drugs, everything you could think of bad, skipping school and
everything and well when I came here and I graduated my step was to go right to college
but I didn’t, I, I mean my baby came up, I found out I was pregnant, so I had to wait till
he came. So that’s why I think it’s more like a future for me. Cause if you don’t finish
high school what is there lat-, you’re gonna work either at McDonald’s, I think
McDonald’s even ask for diploma now, I’m not sure, but you know I think high school is
more like the future.
I:
Great.
R7:
I think it’s stressful just cause you know you’re going in and your, it’s your
teenage years, everything’s changing, you’re meeting new people, people you knew from
middle school, they might’ve went to a different high school or you know so it’s kinda
like sometimes you have to start over, sometimes you worry about just making good
grades, meeting new people, a lot of people worry about you know what people think of
them and I don’t know I think it’s just a little stressful, but at the same time you’ve got to
find what makes you stick out, what makes you wanna keep going there.
I:
Okay. What did you dislike about your comprehensive high school that
contributed to your decision to leave? Please be as specific as possible.
R:
Teachers.
178
(Laughter)
R:
Yeah.
R:
Teachers.
R:
Yeah teachers.
I:
Why? Why?
R:
They were just, they didn’t necessarily look at you as a student, they didn’t really
look at you as a human being almost.
R:
They looked at you as that person, that was in that room, causing a disturbance or
not listening, not paying attention.
R:
They’re just,
R:
That paycheck.
R:
Right. They were just trying to look at every little detail they could to maybe get
you in trouble or to not deal with you instead of trying to help you with what you’re
doing or anything you’re going through. That was one thing about The Academy that I
was like as soon as I walked in the door, just as soon as I walked in the door it was the
most friendly environment, even the students that were in the school, they were just
friendly and there’s just a whole different atmosphere of just people respecting each
other. And that was one problem I had with my high school is that even teachers, the
teachers didn’t respect other teachers, principal didn’t respect teachers,
R:
Neat.
R:
Nobody respected anybody inside the school, it was, it was like the drama inside
of the student body expelled into the entire staff and it just became one big problem that
was extremely difficult to deal with because (5:00) there’d be times where you’d be
trying to do what you’re supposed to do, but then they would get you for dress code or
something so minute
R:
…
179
R6:
They made us pay, I think that was too dramatic, they, in my high school, I used
to go to Hous-, in Houston, they would make us pay if we did not wear a seatbelt, if you
did have your, the shirt, the guys if they didn’t have the shirt tucked in, girls if you’re
showing a little bit of cleavage, they make you pay $5.00 or you know, well taking your
phone I think that was not too much of exaggeration, but they did make us pay $15.00 in
order to get it back. So like I mean, I don’t know why they would do that, but I guess
they just wanted to get money in some kind of way, but everything we did, money,
money, money.
R:
Some, some teachers have a personal vendetta to come to school and catch
somebody with they shirt out.
R:
Right.
R:
Hmm hmm.
R4:
No belt on, like really?
R:
They was waiting for it and I, I wasn’t even really a problem in school, I mean I
had good grades up until like maybe 11th grade year and I just, I didn’t take it seriously,
but I’ve watched other students, other students, I can see how some teachers will be mad
cause some of them students just didn’t care. They came to school, they weren’t gonna
listen, they weren’t gonna learn, they was just gonna talk and have fun, buddy buddy with
their friends. But some students they, they were there to learn, they was there to get good
grades
R:
Hmm hmm.
R:
and them teachers were too busy focusing on the problem students to even look
at the other student. I mean other, other schools was different, but you know I went to,
my last school before I came over to Cockrill it was just horrible. Had one principal, short
black dude, he, he, he was like, champion of dress code.
(Laughter)
R:
He, he, soon as you see him coming around the hall, cause he had a, he had a
particular voice, so everybody knew, everybody just, tucking in their shirts, putting their
phones away, man if he caught ya’ it was instant ISS, don’t matter what, what grade you
was, valedictorian got caught cause she had some heels on and she wasn’t supposed to
have them heels on, supposed to have tennis shoes or something like that. She had some
180
heels on, she got two days ISS, two days that she ain’t in class, she ain’t getting her
grade, cause the teachers didn’t really care to stay and work with ya’, they, the ISS
teacher would just have you copy something out of the dictionary and say you got a grade
and they, they don’t even take it to the teacher, so you know you ain’t really getting a
grade, you just lost two days pretty much.
R:
At my school if you got sent to ISS you automatically in your classes, you got a
zero for any work that was due in those classes.
R:
See, some, some schools did that. Yeah, Antioch, that’s what they did, if you went
to ISS, that was then…(coughing 7:55 covers end of his response)
R1:
So that’s one thing is like the teachers had to be so focused on these problem
students that they didn’t give any time or any even respect to the students who were
actually trying to learn and trying to do what they’re supposed to do and try to graduate.
It just, it got to the point for most students and I think that was one big thing about The
Academy is, most of the kids that were there came there because of the fact that when
they’re at their old school they couldn’t learn what they wanted. They couldn’t learn what
they wanted because everyone was always worried about the problems.
R:
I think one big factor in me leaving my old high school is you’d get nonsense
credits so to say.
R:
Unnecessary.
R:
They would make you take classes that you had absolutely no need for that all it
was doing is just enabling you from taking the classes that you do need to graduate and I
think that was a big factor in me leaving my old school.
R4:
Yeah that was the big reason.
R:
I think in the state of Tennessee you need twenty-six credits or twenty-four.
R:
I think it’s twenty-two actually.
R:
Twenty-two credits to graduate.
R:
Yeah.
R:
I graduated with thirty-six credits,
R:
I had twenty-six.
R:
when I graduated, and,
R:
In a public school it’s twenty-two.
181
R:
Yeah, I graduated with twenty-six credits and that’s because all the actual credits I
took were nonsense credits. I didn’t need them in the actual state of Tennessee to
graduate. When, I think when I came here I had I think it was about thirty-two credits and
well over the rec-, well over the amount, but I still had to take the state recommended
classes to graduate, which teachers held you back saying, oh you have to take this
because you didn’t make a high enough grade or you have to take this because it’s
mandatory and it just enables you,
R:
Hmm hmm.
R:
it’s, you can’t do anything.
R4:
Yeah, I went to a magnet (10:00) school before I came here and like he was
talking about with the credits, cause I had just had a baby …..(talking over each other
10:06) the first day of school and they were like, well we had seven class periods, so I
was taking six classes, but I only need two and a half credits to graduate. So I had six
classes and then I was coming home with like two and a half hours of homework to a
newborn child, I was like, yeah, this isn’t gonna work, so that was one thing that made
me leave there was cause I had to do a whole bunch of extra stuff to get my diploma and I
already had like a lot going on with a child.
I:
Okay. Thank you. Let’s see, okay, thinking about the reasons you had for leaving
high school, was there one thing that you would say that had them, well you’ve already
talk-, kinda talked about that, the most influential reason, decision to leave, can you tell
the research team what you think of when you hear the word dropout, what do you think
of,
R:
Lazy.
R:
Yeah.
R:
Hmm hmm.
182
R:
Yeah, definitely lazy. That’s, there’s no excuse for it, there’s so many options,
you know how it is, I mean there’s
R:
At least get your GED.
R:
yeah, at least get your GED.
R:
You’re too lazy to get your GED you, you just ain’t doing anything.
R6:
I know I have a different opinion. I think, I was a dropout but only because I
actually ran away from home due to the fact that I was actually abused and I had came
with my boyfriend here to Tennessee, we got married and everything and at that age since
I was seventeen, I couldn’t find, I mean they’re not gonna let me in because I’m not sign
myself cause I was seventeen and I mean I tried my best to get in and get in and get in,
but they’re not gonna let me get in, so I mean sometimes you just can’t do it, sometimes
you drop out because you can’t do it or sometimes you don’t have enough money, you
don’t have the ca-, you don’t have a car to go to high school, you don’t have, sometimes
people don’t even have money for clothes, you know, so, I mean it’s difficult. I mean just
as well as looking for a job is the same thing as looking for a high school to get into and
for me, I mean I was so excited, I don’t if any, I don’t know if anybody was here
whenever I did my speech, that I would call Miss, call here like every day, every day
trying to get in and they finally let me in and I was not even eighteen year, I was gonna
turn eighteen in August, but I don’t know I think every different person has a different
thinking, I don’t know, so.
R:
And there’s a lot of reasons a student could dropout. I mean dropout, I think the
dropout in the state of Tennessee is like at least like 50% or 25%, it’s way too high and I
mean a, a lot of times it has to do with you know home life and what teenagers are
dealing with because I mean they’re growing up and it’s just a lot of stressful things
going on at home for every person in any high school anywhere you go. But I mean
dropping out is something where it’s, it’s almost like a person in, has gone to that final
point where they just feel like you know they either can’t do it or they just don’t want to,
I mean it has to be one of those two things, but I mean dropping out, it’s something that
you know you really don’t wanna do, but it’s also something that can be reprimanded,
you know you can, you can come back from it and you can still get your GED and or you
could come, you could come to a school like The Academy and actually get your diploma
and things like that.
R:
You gotta be in a unique situation to be a plausible drop out.
R:
183
Yeah.
(Laughter)
R:
Otherwise it’s just no excuse.
I:
So how were your grades in school?
R7:
A’s and B’s, honor role, that was me.
R4:
Yeah, I did great.
R:
A’s and B’s, honor role up until,
R7:
I was,
R:
I was a failure (14:03)
(Laughter)
I:
So that’s what, I guess that’s what my next thing is, I mean did you have
difficulty in a particular grade or a particular, particular subject?
R:
11th grade, I, I didn’t take that whole, this is your stepping stone to life seriously,
so I just, I guess I clowned around.
R:
I think that was getting through a lot of,
R:
I didn’t start focusing till 12th grade and they was like, you’re not gonna graduate.
R:
Right.
R:
I ain’t never been here
R4:
Right, anywhere so I
R:
Hey I was here with that before cause I, you know school just came easy, I passed
every test, and it came, it came easy to the point where I’d come to class and I’d do no
homework but I’d pass every test and still pass the class with a B or an A. I didn’t come
out with no C’s or D’s. When I got to 11th grade, some of them teachers weren’t, weren’t
184
happy with me just passing the test, they wanted me to do the work too and it was like,
(15:00) well if you’re not gonna do your work, we’ll, we’ll fail you. I was like, okay,
whatever, I’ll still pass. Floated on by, 12th grade came along, I was, I think two credits
short cause of a class that this one teacher, who was one of those teachers who wanted
me, who wanted me to do my work, that’s how I ended up here.
R1:
My grades in high school weren’t too good. I was, I don’t know, I, I, I want to say
I was, real-, I have a really big ego. Like from the time I like got into high school until
came to The Academy I just, I felt like I knew everything, knew what I was doing, didn’t,
didn’t need anybody’s help or anything like that and I just, I really didn’t have like, I
guess I felt like when I was in high school I just didn’t want to be there, never wanted to
be there, hated going to school, tried to get out of it as much as I could. I think like my
11th grade year I skipped school so much that I had like forty tardies or forty absences
actually, so it was one of them things where just my grades didn’t matter to me or
anything like that, I just wanted to leave, I just wanted to be able to get out, you know I
mean once I graduated you know I, of course I regretted that decision cause getting into
college was really hard, things like that, but, it was just one of those things where I was, I
argued with my teachers more than my teachers taught me. I just, I didn’t, I didn’t like
any of my teachers, I found them to all be rude, disrespectful, things like that, but as soon
as I came to The Academy, it just completely turned out and it was like the teachers
actually you know inspired me to do my work because they actually cared about what I
was doing you know and they actually wanted me, to see me succeed, they didn’t want
me to just you know pass my class so they can you know keep their job.
R7:
I think 11th grade was hardest for me because I was taking lots of AP and IB
classes and it got to the point where you know I got it in my mind that, oh this is what it’s
gonna be like in college and it was so overwhelming, I think I had maybe one or two
standard classes and we were on block schedule so we had eight classes, so four, four
classes a day and they switched it up and it got to the point where you know I, I didn’t go
to school because it was like my whole life you know from Pre-K to, to that point and
then it was just like school, school, school, it was like school while I’m at school, school
while I’m at home with my homework and I was like, I’m gonna do it like for the rest of
my life, I guess? It depends on what I want to be when I grow up, so it’s like you know
twelve years of school and then college, it just, like this is what it’s gonna be like that’s
so overwhelming, so I did what I could to just try and escape that kinda, so like I said, I
didn’t go to school a lot. I just wanted to be a kid and have fun and I just felt like you
know those classes were just too overwhelming, so that was actually my hardest year.
I:
Anybody else?
185
R6:
For my grades, like you said, sometimes the students are the ones that keep us
from learning actually, in my opinion, there was a lot of people that, that you know were
distracting, they think they were, you know they think they were the, the bomb in the
class, like you know like popular or whatever, you know whatever you wanna call it. And
they would interrupt the teacher, they would throw, actually they would even throw paper
balls at them you know it was really childish to me.
R:
Corny.
R6:
So you know while they’re deal-, while they’re dealing with all that, the teachers,
I would actually open up my book, my textbook and I would actually go through my, like
step by step trying to figure it out and then later on when we’re doing the test, all the
students they would actually try to catch, catch my attention, hey, hey what’s number
one, what’s number two? And you know in my mind I’m like your, your, I didn’t wanna
say it, but I wanted to say it, I would say it on my own, like you’re stupid because I mean
you could’ve let the teacher teach you and then I’m the one over here trying to, cause a
teacher actually told me to, to tutor them and I, I wouldn’t want to because I mean if they
act like that with her they’re gonna you know probably tell me stuff too and you know
there was one time (20:00) that I did give the answers to the test to one friend, but
because she had helped through the hardest times whenever my dad was abusive to me
and I mean if there’s interruption in there, in the class, I, from you know just for I could
pass, I don’t care about the others, I would open up a book and you know step by step, no
matter how, how long it’s gonna take for me to understand it, it’s gonna be step by step.
That’s how I got A’s and B’s.
I:
So in your high school experience, when you left your comprehensive high
school, how many credits did you lack from actually graduating?
R:
Two.
R4:
Me, two and a half.
I:
Two, two and a half.
R1:
year.
I think I had like three and a half and one of those credits was like my freshmen
R:
Mine was over.
R:
Yeah mine was from
186
R6:
Mine was over two.
I:
Okay.
R1:
That’s, that’s where they get you, the state,
I:
So is the state requirements that were a problem?
R:
Yeah cause it’s,
R6:
Yeah cause it’s twenty-six in order to graduate in Texas and here it’s twenty-two.
R4:
And it’s only, let’s see, like government, econ, English were all senior year
classes, so and you have to have those to graduate, so.
R:
I just think it’s messed up that those are the classes that are required to graduate,
but then your exit exam is in the 11th grade, so they said.
R:
Hmm hmm.
R:
Yeah.
U:
Any response from everybody.
I:
Alright, anybody else? How many credits?
R8:
Who me? I had like fifteen to like graduate but then when I came here I had seven
so I already knew when I was at Hillwood I was playing around and wasn’t taking school
seriously so it caught up with me when I thought I was gonna graduate from Hillsboro
senior year, so I came here and then I been here for two years and I graduated in
December 2011.
R1:
I think I needed about three and a half credits and I was able to finish those three
and a half credits in like three months. Like I graduated two months early, I would’ve
had, if I’d stayed in my old school, had to stay at my old high school I wouldn’t have
graduated cause I wouldn’t have done my work.
(Laughter)
187
R:
If I had stayed, I would’ve had to graduate in May, I only needed two classes, I
finished in like two months.
I:
So what were the main influences or reasons that led you to decide to return and
come to The Academy at Old Cockrill?
R:
I just needed to get out.
(Laughter)
R4:
I’m like, I’m out of here.
R1:
I needed to leave my high school. It’s one of those things were like, I just, I
looked around at you know the students that were in my classes and things like that and I
just felt like I was the only one trying to, you know starting to try to take it seriously
cause I’m a senior and I wanna graduate, but then it gets to the point to where like you
know my teachers are-, teachers aren’t even focusing on teaching and things like that and
I just got fed up with it so I just, I had to leave and I and my, one of my friends was
actually going here at the time and he was just telling me about it and I just, I, I came
here with my mom and I just, I talked to Miss Fahrner and ever since like I just talked to
Miss Fahrner, she just, it seemed like the place that I need to be. Miss Fahrner just
reassured me that I could graduate when I wanted to and I could get everything done and
I did and it’s helped me out tremendously. Actually gave me a drive to be able to get
things and gave me a feeling that I can do what I want, just gotta do it.
R:
I agree with that. Miss Fahrner was a big, big help on coming here.
R:
I think,
R:
Cause when, when I left the other school I was like, I don’t know, I was kinda
embarrassed cause I look around and I see Billy Joe over here, stutters when he reads, he
graduating, but me, Mr. honor student, I came from MLK, I ain’t graduating by two
credits. I came here, Miss Fahrner said you can knock that out and I got to work.
R1:
I think if it’s one person in this tiring school, in this entire school that influences
the most people would be Miss Fahrner. I had Miss Fahrner when I was in 8th grade at
Martin Luck Middle School and she was actually the big reason I came here, I just moved
here from Texas, (25:00) I was looking for a school, I heard it, I heard about this school
through a friend and then I come, cause we all had to take interviews before we actually
was established in the school and seeing a familiar face it’s, it’s hard to say no.
R:
Hmm hmm.
R:
Plus Miss Fahrner’s just so welcoming.
R:
Exactly.
188
R:
She is, she’s one of the nicest people ever, but she, at the same time, you know
she takes what she does very seriously, like I mean you know if, if there’s students at The
Academy that aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing, you know Miss Fahrner
will handle it because there’s so many students that want to come here to actually try to
graduate and that was one big thing is that all the students that are going to school and
walking these halls throughout the day, they’re actually doing what they’re supposed to
be doing because they want to, not because they’re forced to or anything like that, they’re
doing it because it’s, it’s all on them, it’s what they wanna do.
R6:
What was the question again?
I:
Well the, (laughter) the que-, yeah, the question was what were the main
influences or reasons that led you to The Academy at Old Cockrill.
R4:
Mine was like more of a time thing, like I had, just had a baby and I felt like I was
spending my whole life in school with a bunch of people that I did not relate to anymore
cause I was like the only person with a kid in my school, like the only person, so and it
was like and I was just ready to get out of there cause it, I felt like it’d be a waste of my
time to go to school from August to May just for two and a half credits.
U:
I’m sorry, can I go to lunch now, I’m starving.
I:
Come get dinner.
R:
Cake thief.
U:
Fix a plate.
U:
No.
I:
Come fix a plate and we’ll take a break.
U:
Maybe I will.
189
(Laughter)
U:
Keep going.
I:
Okay.
R1:
That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
(Laughter)
I:
Okay, so we’ve been talking a lot about The Academy at Old Cockrill and I’ve
heard some great things and so the question, the next question is, how would you
describe The Academy at Old Cockrill, what makes it unique? Are there particular things
about AOC that are different from the high school you left that made your decision to
return to school any easier? And some of you have already spoke to that a little bit, but
how would you describe The Academy at Old Cockrill?
R:
The way it sounds, The Academy, it’s, most of the people that are coming here,
they’re coming here to learn, it’s not a matter of, oh I screwed up, I have to go
somewhere, it’s they want to get their diploma, they want to get out of here and the way
that it, The Academy at Old Cockrill does it, it’s, it just makes it that much simpler. They
sit you down and it’s here, what you need to graduate, here’s what you got to do Monday
through Friday to make sure you graduate, all you have to do is show up and do the work,
it’s not that hard. Well for some other people you know it may be a struggle to get to
school and to do that and the staff you know, sometimes they know that and I think a big
thing is they weed out the people that’s, so to say like problems, like if a student’s
disrupting the class, Miss Fahrner calls it, thinning the herd (laughter) is what she likes to
say. It’s, she takes all those problem students and say, here’s your final chance, you’re
given a privilege, if you don’t wanna use that privilege, there’s the door and that’s just
the way it is here.
R:
Hmm hmm.
I:
Anybody else?
R:
To describe The Academy.
I:
Hmm hmm. Describe The Academy at Old Cockrill.
R:
I think it’s too hard to describe in a few sentences, that’s my problem.
R4:
Right, we’d be talking all night, like (laughter)
190
I:
Okay, let’s go around the table and give me one or two words to describe The
Academy at Old Cockrill. Let’s start with, over here, one or two words to describe The
Academy at Old Cockrill.
R:
I mean you trying; give me a simple flat pie (29:22) (laughter)
I:
Okay, a short phrase, a sentence.
R:
Extensive. I don’t know, I came here and like you said it was, it was an air of, get
the job done.
I:
Okay.
R8:
It’s a good place to get your education and stuff like that because the teachers are
very helpful and stuff, so I like it here. (30:00)
R4:
Let’s see, a phrase, I don’t know, I would say that it’s kinda like your, like your
family, like the same way your family wants to see you succeed, like the people here
want to see you succeed and we’re all saying that Miss Fahrner’s like your mother, she
was like, oh, and she like knows you by name and she’s like, why haven’t you been in
school, so, like they actually care if you’re here and get your work done and they
encourage you to do that.
R6:
Supportive in overachievement cause each teacher will see you as an individual,
whenever you have any kind of problems they’re always gonna be there for you and they
would try to help you out with the situation and I guess also because they find ways to
have, to get everybody together, like for example here, you know and you know get to
know each other and do some, some outwork activities such as whenever I was here I, we
planted a tree outside together and you know it was pretty fun.
R:
I don’t know, one thing I could say is like the finish line, just about everybody
that goes here you know they start working and they don’t realize how close they are to
actually being done and getting their diploma and it’s just, it’s hard to describe in a
phrase or one or two words.
191
R1:
I’d definitely say it’s very influential, it, The Academy just gets you headed in the
direction that you wanna be headed in cause it’s all about what you’re doing for yourself,
you know and that’s one big thing that you know the teachers and Miss Fahrner point out,
is that you know everything their doing is not necessarily for themselves, it’s for us as the
students because we’re coming here based on our own decisions, you know we come to
school on our own, with our own intentions of graduation. Basically gives us you know
our own role to, to do what we want to do instead of being demanded to do something.
R1:
I guess I would say it’s kinda like a support group where everyone they’re one
and the same, they have different reasons for you know why they came here but it all
boils down to the same thing.
I:
Is there, was there ever a time while you were at The Academy that you ever
thought about dropping out or leaving The Academy?
R:
No.
R:
Never.
R:
No.
R:
No.
R4:
It’s like, why would you leave? There’s no reason for you to leave.
R:
Yeah.
R1:
They, they make it so easy for us to achieve our goals, there’s no reason for us to
leave.
R:
The people that have dropped out of the school, they don’t want it hard enough,
you know, they didn’t wanna get to that final step, they didn’t wanna pursue the rest of
their lives, they kinda see it their way, you know,
R:
Yeah.
R:
it’s, oh well they ain’t gonna let me do this, they ain’t gonna let me do that, oh,
what’s the point, you know? And I think that’s the only reason that people dropped out
cause just the curriculum, the sta-, the staff, faculty, it’s, they laid it out, laid it out before
you, all you had to do was just put the work in and grab it.
192
I:
Could you, could you describe to me like what a typical day, what a typical
school day looks like here? Or if there is a typical day?
R4:
Yeah, I was gonna say. (laughter)
R:
With Miss Fahrner roaming the halls, it’s not going to be.
R:
Like I say, I came in, had my little breakfast, tall dude told me good morning, we
sat for like five minutes in that little lounge and then after that five minutes that bell rung,
we went upstairs, got to work, lunch came, I left the campus, got my little lunch, came
back, couple people joking in the hallway, that bell rang, we got back to work. Wasn’t no
watching the clock waiting for three so we could leave, we was all just working.
R6:
Yeah sometimes you could hear Miss Fahrner in the hallways while you’re doing
your work but it is because she blows, I don’t know if you remember, but she blows a
horn.
R4:
Oh yeah, how you gonna forget that.
R:
Oh yeah.
(Laughter)
R6:
She blows a horn when somebody graduates early, you know when they finish all
their credits, she goes outside and they walk the hal-, everybody who makes like a, they,
R:
Gather everybody in the hall.
R6:
Yeah, everybody and they make the one that graduates walk, you know just walk,
like if you’re walking in the stage, then you walk and everybody claps and you (35:00)
know screams and everything, that was one thing that I like about this cause I mean you
could cheer for other people and you’re gonna be like, that’s gonna be me later on.
(laughs)
R4:
Do they make ya’ll call somebody as soon as you like finish? They made me call.
They were like, okay, but I was on the phone telling my, like, I guess it was like nine
months then, telling my…(35:18) oh I graduated and he’s just like, okay, whatever.
(laughs)
193
R:
Yeah I think Miss Fahrner made my momma cry cause I’ve known Miss Fahrner
ever since middle school and she actually called my mom and told me, told her when I
graduated and I thought that was pretty cool.
R:
Yeah.
R:
What was the question again?
I:
What would be a typ-, or what is a typical day
R:
Oh a typical day.
I:
at The Academy?
R:
I think he explained it pretty well, I mean you know we would just come in and
you know before classes started we would all, most of the time, everyone being around
cause they would have like food out and snacks for us that we could eat,
R:
Hmm hmm.
R:
you know and we didn’t have to pay for it cause they understood you know what
you’re going through and you’d just be hanging out in the lou-, lounge, everybody be just
talking, joking, but you know as soon as the bell rang we were just ready to get our work
done. It wasn’t like we were trying to get our work done as fast as possible so we didn’t
have to do it anymore, so once we got our work done we didn’t have anything to do.
R:
We didn’t go up there, cause we was scared somebody was gonna come around
the corner and be like, hey, why you ain’t in class?
R:
Yeah.
(laughter)
R:
So I mean, it’s, I don’t know, like she said, it’s just one big support group,
R:
Yeah.
R:
everybody in the school doing the exact same thing, you know like with the whole
blowing the horn thing, it’s like everybody inside that school is you know helping these
people so just realize that you know hey you’re done, you’re actually, you did it and you
194
know we’re all on our way, it’s, every time you hear that, that horn ringing, it’s, it’s
another, just another set that you realize, it’s like you know it’s gonna be me eventually.
R4:
And Miss Fahrner’s always like, who’s next, who’s next?
R:
Yeah.
R4:
Or we pass in the hallway, you’re gonna be next?
R:
Hmm hmm.
I:
I guess if we could go around the table again and talk about what you’re doing
now, so you’ve graduated, what, what, you know what are you doing now, if you’re
working or if you’re going to school, family, you can share what you want or, okay,
R:
Well,
I:
start on this side, we’ll go this way.
R:
Since I graduated, well I had like a six month summer, so that was really fun, but
after that I went to MTSU for my first semester of college just to try it out, just to see
how I, I like it, cause I wanted to give college a chance and you know it was, it was
alright, definitely wasn’t what I expected. I finished out the semester with like 2.7 G.P.A.
which I feel like is fairly average for a freshmen college student, so, some of the work
was very overwhelming and it all came in like loads and you had tons of papers to write,
just tons of things to do and then you know I finished out my first semester and just
missed home a lot, came back home and then just decided it was time to like start doing
something, so I got a job, you know I’m working full time now, but you know now that
I’m working full time and I have like my own apartment, I’m settled in, you know I’m,
I’m gonna continue schooling in a, I’m gonna go back to school in the fall, or not in the
fall, but in the spring 2013 to finish out my general education for college and then once,
once I’ve done with that just trying to find out basically what I would like and work on
that, cause I don’t know, I feel like I rush into college, just one of those things where it’s
like, hey I’m gonna be on my own, no parents, nothing, do whatever I want, but it kind be
good place send me in the right place.
I:
Does your job require you that you have now, does it require you to have a high
school diploma?
195
R:
Oh yeah, so, that was one big thing, high school diploma, I mean they pay more if
you have a college degree, so.
R7:
When I graduated high school I went to University of Tennessee in Knoxville in
August and my classes were good, I was just, like you said I was very, very homesick
cause I left with the mentality of, okay (40:00) I wanna be on my own, I wanna be away
from my family, but not too far away and that it was, it was still too far away. I needed
the support, I needed all the support I could get. I feel like, like you said, I just feel like I
kinda rushed it, so like I just feel like I just wanted to just go ahead and get it done, get
just, get all my school done, but I just, I really needed a break, like I said it was just
overwhelming and I was homesick and so I came back and now I have a full time job, I
have my own place and being there, I’ve been there for a while now, I’ve realized now
that that’s not what I wanna do for the rest of my life and I do plan on going back to
school this fall and just feeling around, see what I wanna do, see if anything sparks my
interest, hopefully I’ll do well in physics because that looks like something I wanna do
right now.
R:
Since I’ve been out of The Academy, I think it was the week I graduated, I
actually ended up calling Miss Fahrner and said, I’m sick of mak-, making pizzas, you
know can you please help me find a job and I ended up getting hired on with JCA which
is the, the custodial services for Metropolitan Schools and I worked there for about four
months, saved up my money, ended up actually paying for my own apartment, paying the
first, last month’s and the second month’s rent and my girlfriend, Kayla, who also
graduated here, we had it all planned out, you know she was a military child, she gets her
G.I. bill, so we had it all plan, planned out, I pay utilities and she pays the rent and we
split groceries and it worked out simple and I just, I couldn’t get over the fact that I was
cleaning up, I was working at an elementary school, so I think the last straw for me was
when a little kid like ran down the hall and you see a line of fecal, just straight turd and I
said, I, I’m better than this, so I actually ended up talking to her dad and I got a job with
Boto, it’s a little mom and pop owned company, but the benefits, the benefits I think is
what dre-, drew me in the most. I have a 401K, I have 100% paid health care by my
company, they match me 4% on my 401K and I’m guaranteed 60 hours a week if I want
60 hours. I can take 40 and be done and I’ve been working there for about a year and a
half now, I’m working toward an RCCD which is the mastery and cable technicians and
it’s a 33% pass rate, you have to take many questions in a small amount of time and I
honestly think I can do it and I’m gonna get my RCCD and I’m gonna just keep on
working from there.
R6:
Well me, I used to work at a Cici’s pizza buffet and like you said, I was tired of
cleaning up after everybody, well I was planning on going to college right after I
196
graduated, but the day I graduated I actually found out I was pregnant, so you know
everything you know just went kinda down the drain, but I was actually wanting to study
so I could become an OB-GYN, but since I had the baby it was going to be difficult for
me and we have financial problems right now, so I decided to go to Kaplan Career
Institute, a nine month program, medical assistant, it’s basically kind of the same, you
know it’s medical field, once I start working in this medical field I’m gonna save up my
money and actually go back for OB-GYN and that way when my child is five year’s old
he’s in school and I don’t have to worry about him anymore, whenever I go to school at
the same time he’s at school, so you know that’s it.
R4:
Let’s see, (45:00) I went to school in August, yeah the August right after we
graduated, well right after I graduated, but I was like moving around a lot cause of issues
at home and I ended up withdrawing from all my classes in the fall and I moved back
home and got back in school in January, so I’m in school and just taking care of my
thing, trying to get a job hopefully this summer and just keeping going to school, trying
to figure out what I wanna be so I’m not just going to school for nothing.
R8:
Well like I said, I just graduated in December, I start college in August, I got
accepted to Chattanooga State for early child development, so that’s good. I’m working
full time at a daycare and everything’s going great. I mean I don’t have no kids though,
that’s one good thing I don’t have to worry bout and everything, everything’s going good,
I have my head on straight, so I’m just following my, my goal that I, that I accomplished
you know, I had goals that I wanted to do after I graduated so I finally accomplished
them, so.
R:
I got out of high school, so like I guess a three month, from January to I guess
April or May, I was just at the house doing nothing, started working for UPS part-time
for the rest of that year, come next January I got tired of moving boxes, so I took this
class for my dad, so I can be a bail bondsman and I’ve been working for him ever since. I
plan, I plan to go to NOCC this summer so I can get my credits up and be a systems
analyst.
R:
You wanna be a what? I’m sorry.
R:
Systems analyst, work with computers.
R:
Oh systems analyst.
I:
Well we’ve come to the end of our questions, I’m gonna ask my other teammates
if they have any questions, final questions they wanna ask, I think ya’ll have shared so
197
much with us tonight and we really appreciate it, I didn’t know if there was anything that,
if there’s anything, anything else you would like to share with us before we leave for the
evening.
R:
Not really.
R:
Uh uh.
R:
The Academy is a great place.
U:
What’s your name?
R:
Who me? Janeece.
U:
Janeece, what’s your last name?
R:
Burton.
U:
Burton, thank you.
I:
So you would recommend The Academy to your friends?
R:
Hmm hmm. I have.
R:
Hmm hmm.
R:
I’ve recommended friends too.
R:
Two cousins.
R:
My sisters are currently going here.
I:
Sisters, cousins, friends.
R:
Yeah my cousin graduated from here.
I:
Well that says a lot when you could recommend,
R:
Hmm hmm.
I:
198
recommend your school to someone else.
U:
You know that made me think of a question, sounds like all of you have some
post-secondary schooling, do you find, did you find The Academy in some way similar to
your college experience when compared to your regular high school?
R4:
Yeah I think so,
R:
I mean.
R4:
as far as being treated like an adult and like the respect part. It isn’t like regular
high school where they treat you like kids, so.
R1:
Right. I mean it’s very similar in the fact that you know your teachers sort of say
it to you in the same way, I mean granted if you need extra help you have to go during
your teacher’s office hours and things like that, but I mean at the same time you know
college is still a very, very difference place in high school cause I mean you still, you’ll
have some college classes but there’s still kids in the class who don’t take it seriously and
you wonder even why they’re there, you know especially cause of the fact that they’re
paying for it.
R4:
Paying right.
R:
Hmm hmm.
I:
Well we really appreciate your time, we do have some, I’ll turn these off, but, we
do have some
[End of Interview]
199
Biography and Contribution to the Research Study
Claire L. Jasper
Claire L. Jasper, M.Ed. is the Executive Principal of Johnson High School, a
Severe Behavior Intervention program for students with emotional and behavioral
challenges. She has over fifteen years professional experience working with troubled and
troubling young people in the Metropolitan Nashville Public School District, including
her years as an Exceptional Education teacher at Bellevue Middle School and Murrell
Exceptional Education School.
Prior to beginning her doctoral studies at Lipscomb University, Claire attended
Memphis State University, Tennessee State University and Trevecca Nazarene
University. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Work and Sociology; and two
Masters of Education Degrees in Special Education, and Administration and Supervision.
Claire is actively involved in her community and her church. She is an ordained
minister in the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. She serves as the chairperson on
the Commission for Membership and Evangelism, and is an enthusiastic preacher and
Adult Sunday School Teacher. She serves on the Board of Advisors for Without Walls
International Christian Ministries, Inc. and is a founding Elder of Family Affair
Ministries, Inc.
Claire Jasper is the mother of two awesome sons. They are her greatest
accomplishment in life! As an educator, she is constantly seeking creative ways to foster
a dynamic learning environment and to positively impact the lives of her students.
200
Emily S. Medlock
Emily Medlock earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education in
1996 and a Master of Education Degree in Administration and Supervision in 2001 from
Lipscomb University. She is currently pursuing her Doctorate in Education in Learning
Organizations and Strategic Change at Lipscomb University.
Mrs. Medlock has 13 years of teaching experience with a wide variety of
leadership positions and experience. She began her teaching career at McMurray Middle
School in the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools district, where she taught 8th grade
pre-algebra and Algebra I for seven years. While at McMurray she served as 8th grade
team leader.
Mrs. Medlock joined the W.H. Oliver Middle School faculty when it opened in
2004, and is now in her sixth year there. While at Oliver, Mrs. Medlock has taught 8th
grade Mathematics, Algebra I, and Geometry. She gained valuable leadership experience
as an 8th grade team leader, principal designee, and as a member of the School Leadership
Team. Mrs. Medlock has also been involved in student activities by working with the
FCA and by serving as Student Council Advisor and Art to STEM Advisor. Mrs.
Medlock has received several distinguished honors including W.H. Oliver Middle School
Teacher of the Year in 2009, Tennessee Titans Teacher of the Week in 2011, and has
been inducted into the Alpha Chi Honor Society in 2012.
Mrs. Medlock currently resides in Brentwood, Tennessee where she lives with her
husband, Mike, and two children, Max and Maeleigh.
201
Millie A. Norwood
Millie Norwood just finished her fourth year as a 7th Grade Mathematics teacher
at Oliver Middle School in Nashville, TN. She graduated in May 2008 with her Bachelor
of Science degree in Mathematics Education and in December 2009 with a Masters of
Education in Administration and Supervision, both from Lipscomb University in
Nashville, TN.
While at Lipscomb, Millie was named Miss Lipscomb by her faculty and peers as
the female student whose life best exemplifies the values and principles of the university.
After serving as a Resident Assistant at Lipscomb, she was employed her senior year as
the Residence Hall Director in Elam Hall. Millie was a member of Who’s Who Among
Colleges and a representative on Lipscomb’s National Alumni Council. She was a
former senator and treasurer of the Student Government Association and Student
Coordinator for Lipscomb’s annual musical production, using her leadership talents in all
aspects of her life. She has served as a member of various mission teams, including Baja,
Jamaica, and she just returned from her fifth trip to Northern Ireland. Recently, Miss
Norwood was inducted into the Alpha Chi National Honor Scholarship Society due to her
strong academic focus and dedication.
Leaders of educational organizations are always debating the condition of
education and how they would like to see it change. One of her favorite quotes of all
time was given by Mahatma Gandhi, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Miss
Norwood is in this doctoral program because she has a desire to be that change. She
finds value in researching educational issues and what she can do to make a difference,
whether it is in her learning organization or daily walk.
202
Contributions to the Research Study
This Capstone Project is the results of the collective efforts of the research team
of The Academy at Old Cockrill. Making any project successful takes more than just
individual efforts; it takes teamwork. Claire Jasper, Emily Medlock, and Millie Norwood
each brought unique and complementary talents and skills to the research study. The
research team came together with clear, shared goals, the ability to work together, mutual
accountability, and a sense of commitment.
The Academy at Old Cockrill team met together regularly as a team and with their
advisor, Dr. Keith Nikolaus, and the client, Elaine Fahrner. The team also used various
meeting formats including Skype, Adobe Connect, E-Mails, and Google Docs. This
varied approach allowed the team to give their best efforts to the project while managing
both their personal and professional lives.
While the majority of this project was a collaborative effort, each individual was
responsible for certain parts of the project. Claire was primarily responsible for the
portion of the study dealing with resilience. This included the theoretical framework, the
resilience section of the literature review, and contributions about resilience to other areas
of the study. Emily’s focus was on the dropout crisis, statistical information on the state
and district levels, as well as preventions and interventions. Her research efforts are
found in the literature and throughout the study. Millie was responsible for research on
the topic of at-risk indicators. This included research in the area of the individual, family,
and school.
Although the majority of the project was a collaborative effort, there was some
division of tasks with the logistical concerns of the study. For instance, Claire was
203
responsible for coordinating the incoming questionnaire items and maintaining the
dataset in SPSS. Emily was in charge taking meeting notes, scheduling meetings, and
coordinating communication between the various stakeholders in this study. Millie was
accountable for organizing the questionnaire distribution, coordinating the follow up calls
to research participants, and formatting APA tables from the data analysis. The Academy
at Old Cockrill research team worked collaboratively and collegially, melding the
strengths of each team member, to create the finished research product.

The Academy at Old Cockrill: An Examination of At

Transcription

Similar documents

DeMarker Strategy

The David Beckham Academy

BatFink indicator

leadership - Ursuline Academy

COLUMBUS ACADEMY DAY AT LYND FRUIT FARM

The Sankofa Series - Mahmoud El-Kati

DeMarker - ActFX Algorithmic Trading

Eclaro Academy PDF

Newsletter for the 10/01/2014

Bio Magdalena Owczarek Pologne / Lodz