Soc Psychol Educ (2008) 11:25–42
DOI 10.1007/s11218-007-9033-z
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out
Anne Lessard · Lynn Butler-Kisber · Laurier Fortin ·
Diane Marcotte · Pierre Potvin · Égide Royer
Received: 17 April 2007 / Accepted: 12 September 2007 / Published online: 11 December 2007
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract The purpose of this study was to describe how dropouts navigate their educational journeys. Eighty dropouts participated to individual interviews which were recorded
and transcribed. The data analysis yielded three broad categories in answering the research
question. Setting the stage in the family and the school, the dropouts described their teetering
between in and out of school contexts and proceeded to explain how they ended their educational journey. For 20 dropouts, family turmoil represented a pervasive force negatively
influencing their schooling. For 24 dropouts, problems in school set the stage for dropping
out. Teetering represented juggling strategies to prolong and to sabotage the journey, while
A. Lessard (B)
Faculté d’éducation, Département d’Études en Adaptation Scolaire et Sociale, Université de Sherbrooke,
2500 Boul. Université, Sherbrooke QC, Canada J1K 2R1
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Butler-Kisber
Faculty of Education, Department of Integrated Studies, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Montreal
QC, Canada H3A 1Y2
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Fortin
Faculté d’éducation, Département de Psychoéducation, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 Boul. Université,
Sherbrooke QC, Canada J1K 2R1
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Marcotte
Département de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Montréal, QC,
Canada H3C 3P8
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Potvin
Département de Psychoéducation, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, C. P. 500, Trois-Rivieres QC,
Canada G9A 5H7
e-mail: [email protected]
É. Royer
Faculté des Sciences de l’Éducation, Université Laval, Ste-Foy QC, Canada G1K 7P4
e-mail: [email protected]
123
26 A. Lessard et al.
the end of the journey occurred as a result of a pivotal moment (48%) or a gradual fade out
(52%) from the school context.
Keywords School dropout · High school · Qualitative methodology
1 Introduction
The Ministry of Education in Quebec estimated that during the school year of 2003–2004,
28.1% of students failed to obtain their high school diploma and did not reenroll the following
year (MELS 2005). Many of these dropouts may not have acquired the competencies needed
to integrate into the workforce, may have difficulty finding work (Statistique Canada 2003)
or remaining gainfully employed, may suffer from social maladjustment (Fortin et al. 2004)
or psychological dysfunction (Kaplan et al. 1996) and may depend on the welfare system
more so than will graduates. In such cases, the consequences of dropping out of high school
prior to graduation represent a heavy burden both for the individuals who drop out of school
and for the society that supports them.
Researchers have studied the personal, family and school-related risk factors to determine
which factors may contribute to increasing the probability that a student will drop out of
school prior to graduation. On the personal level, findings suggest that behaviour problems
and gender are risk factors. More specifically, results indicate that externalized behaviour
problems, such as aggression or delinquency, contribute to increasing the risk of dropping
out (Fortin et al. 2004; Kasen et al. 1998; Newcomb et al. 2002) as do internalized behaviour
problems, such as depression or anxiety (Marcotte et al. 2001). Research findings pertaining to the influence of gender on the risk of dropping out do not converge. Earlier studies
conducted on school dropouts indicated that being a boy increased the dropout probability
(Rumberger 1995); however, more recent studies statistically controlling such factors as academic performance (Battin-Pearson et al. 2000) and aggressive behaviour (Alexander et al.
1997) showed that the probability that girls will drop out is greater than that of boys.
On the family level, the dropout risk factors most often reported in the literature are
low socioeconomic status (Alexander et al. 1997; Battin-Pearson et al. 2000) and elements
related to family functioning. Following results of large studies conducted in the United
States, researchers have documented low socioeconomic status as affecting the risk level
of students throughout their educational trajectories (Ekstrom et al. 1986; Goldschmidt and
Wang 1999). Battin-Pearson et al. (2000) determined that this factor contributed directly
and significantly to increasing the dropout risk level. In terms of family functioning, boys
and girls who perceive little cohesion, conflicts and a lack of organization within the family show a higher dropout risk than other students (Fortin et al. 2004). Potvin et al. (1999)
found that students who perceived little affective support and a lack of commitment from
their parents were at higher risk of dropping out than were other students, as were those who
reported little communication between home and school. Students who came from broken
homes were at higher risk of dropping out (Rumberger 1995).
Finally, school-related risk factors associated with dropping out of school include academic performance, grade retention and the student–teacher relationship. Poor academic
performance is one of the factors most often associated with dropping out of school (Kasen
et al. 1998) and has been found to be the most significant predictor of school dropout (BattinPearson et al. 2000). Poor academic performance may be a result of poor academic competence (Newcomb et al. 2002; Saunders et al. 2004) and may lead to failure to complete a
grade, causing the student to be retained. According to Rumberger (1995), grade retention
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 27
is the single most powerful predictor of school dropout. Results from a study conducted by
Ripple and Luthar (2000) show that being older than other students in a cohort as a result of
being held back was a determining factor in the dropout process.Jimerson et al. (2002) determined that being held back in primary school was a significant dropout risk factor and being
held back more than once increased the dropout probability. Finally, Lessard et al. (2004)
found the negative perception of student–teacher relationship was the second most important
factor contributing to increasing the risk of dropping out in a sample of 3,359 middle school
students. Rumberger (1995) reported that students who perceived their teachers positively
were 16% less likely to drop out than were those whose perceptions were negative.
Results from studies conducted on school dropout show that there are a number of factors
which contribute to increasing the dropout risk. Researchers have often resorted to using
regression analysis to try and disentangle the complex relationships between risk factors and
their confounding effects. However, researchers tend to agree that the “task of predicting
who drops out is more difficult than simply taking into account known risk factors” (Gleason
and Dynarski 2002, p. 37). Alexander et al. (2001) suggest that the risk factor checklist
approach is a useful starting point in attempting to determine which student may drop out
of school; however, risk factors may come as a package and their configuration may vary
between students. Moreover, Entwisle et al. (2004) propose that dropping out of school be
viewed more as a process than as an event. A few studies on school dropout have relied on
longitudinal research designs spanning primary and secondary schooling (Alexander et al.
2001; Garnier et al. 1997; Jimerson et al. 2000) and their results tend to show the intricate
associations between different risk factors, supporting the perspective of school dropout as
a multidimensional life-course process.
Alexander et al. (2001) studied a population of 790 students over a 14 year period. Their
results show that academic, parental and personal resources affected dropout prospects
throughout their lives, thus leading this research team to view dropping out as the culmination of a long-term process of disengagement from school. Garnier et al. (1997) followed
a cohort of 205 families over the course of 18 years. Their results show that early risk factors
in childhood (difficulties in school or family stress) are related to multiple problems in adolescence (such as continued lower academic performance, lack of motivation or drug use)
thus increasing the probability of school disengagement and eventual dropout.
According to the results obtained by Jimerson et al. (2000), who conducted a 19 year
prospective longitudinal study of 143 at-risk children, the process of dropping out may begin
even before the child begins school since the results of analyses demonstrated the association of the early home environment and the quality of early care giving in predicting high
school status at age 19. These variables emerged as powerful predictors of school dropout.
However, these authors also note the probabilistic nature of risk factors or predictors, stating
that predictors should be viewed as markers in the dropout process. Thus, truancy, behaviour
problems and failing grades in high school may indicate an advanced stage in the dropout
process that, in many cases, began much earlier in the individual’s life.
Studies focussing on school dropout, relying mostly on quantitative research methods,
have allowed researchers to outline the factors which contribute to increasing the probability
of dropping out. However, such studies have certain limits. As was stated by Jimerson et al.
(2000), results are probabilistic and may not be representative of the lived experiences of all
dropouts. Janosz et al. (1997) revealed that an important limit of such studies pertain to the
fact that not all risk factors affect individuals in the same way.
On a different level, the probabilities that certain factors will lead a student to drop out
provide statistics which yield a fragmented, decontextualized picture. Studying student disengagement leading to school dropout, Dei (2003) observed that “there is a human side to
123
28 A. Lessard et al.
stories that statistics do not tell us” (p. 245). Jimerson et al. (2002) suggested that using
qualitative methods to study the dropout process from the dropout’s perspective may yield
a more thorough understanding of this phenomenon. Cairns and Cairns (1994) pointed out
that dropping out is a two-way street, suggesting that adolescents may or may not be the
ones actually making the ultimate decision to stay in school or to drop out. Few studies
have focussed on the dropout’s perspective, allowing these youths a voice in describing their
experiences (Beekhoven and Dekkers 2005).
2 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to describe how the lived experiences of dropouts have helped
to shape their educational journeys. More specifically, two research questions were posed.
How do students navigate their educational journeys? What precipitates dropping out?
3 Methodology
3.1 Participants
In the context of the larger longitudinal study (Fortin et al. 2006), 808 participants were
contacted twice per year since 1996 to answer several questionnaires. During the fall of
2001, the research assistants who contacted the participants asked them whether they had
obtained their diploma and whether they were still in school. When participants answered
in the negative to both questions, they were identified as dropouts. They were informed that
the study included an opportunity for them to “tell their story”. Dropouts were asked if they
were interested in participating in interviews. Out of the 92 individuals who were identified
as dropouts, 80 (36 females; 44 males) accepted to participate in this study.
These participants had left school at one point since 1996 and had not obtained their high
school diplomas. The difficulty in reaching the dropout population has been documented by
researchers (Janosz et al. 1997; Kortering et al. 2002). Anticipating the challenges associated
with contacting individuals who have left the school system, the research team asked the
students, in their fifth and potentially final year of secondary school, to fill out a form with
nominative information and to sign a consent form for the continuation of the study. The consent form had been approved by the Sherbrooke University Ethics Committee and included
a clause allowing researchers to use provincial and national databases to locate participants,
should the need arise. Researchers called repeatedly the phone numbers provided until the
participant was reached and agreed or refused to participate or until someone confirmed the
participant could no longer be reached using the dialled phone number. Written notices were
also sent to the last known address, providing information about the study and how to reach
the researchers.
The 80 dropouts who agreed to participate were all French-Canadian Caucasians living
in the province of Quebec. Three high schools had been targeted in 1996 for the initial longitudinal study, in three different regions of Quebec. In the dropout population, 17 (seven
females and ten males) came from site 1, 26 (nine females, 17 males) from site 2 and 37 (20
females, 17 males) from site 3. They were between 17 and 21 years of age when asked to
participate in interviews.
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 29
3.2 Procedure
The researchers called all dropouts and informed them about the purpose of the study. The participants were told that they would receive $20 for their participation in the interview, which
they did. They were also reminded about confidentiality; moreover, they were informed that
during the interview, if they were uncomfortable with some questions, they could refuse to
answer. The researcher and the participant determined a time and place for the interview. As
the same researcher conducted all interviews in the three sites, the settings for the interview
varied from site to site (hotel conference room, local university or school, restaurants and in
participants’ homes). The interviews usually took place within 24 h of establishing contact
with the participant.
Depending on the participant and context in which the interview took place, interviews
were videotaped and audio-taped. The individual face-to-face, semi-structured interviews
lasted on average 45 minutes. The interviews were then transcribed word for word by research
assistants and reviewed by the researcher who conducted the interviews. No paralingual notation systems were used during the data collection or transcription process. Research assistants
were asked to ignore some French-Canadian colloquial expressions such as tsé là (you know,
like…) because the expressions tended to obstruct the data analysis rather than contribute to
a better understanding of the process.
3.3 Data collection
In the context of this study, data were collected through interviews conducted by the same
researcher. The interview protocol was initially built by the researchers who, based on their
knowledge of the dropout process, listed questions pertaining to the evolution of the educational trajectory over a life-time. Open-ended questions encouraged the description by the
participants of their primary and secondary schools, of their relationships with other students
and school personnel. Probes were included to help the interviewer draw out the lived experiences of participants. The participants were also asked to describe the events which led to
the moment when they dropped out and to reflect on and describe their present situation.
The protocol was piloted with two dropouts (one male, one female). The interviews were
videotaped with the participants’ consent and were reviewed by all researchers who then
proposed changes to the interview protocol. The main modification was in the sequencing
of the questions. It was decided that it would be more convivial if questions pertaining to
the present situation of the dropout were asked first, as a way to establish the rapport with
the participant. The participant was then asked to retrospectively talk about all events and
experiences leading back to the moment when they left school.
3.4 Validity/trustworthiness issues
Trustworthiness was ensured through different modalities. One such modality was the development of the interview protocol and the interview sequence. Seidman (1991) suggests a
three interview format in order to first establish rapport with the participants, second to delve
into the important concepts under study and finally to allow the participant to reflect on
answers and for the researcher to do a member check. In the context of the present study, the
decision was made to do one interview focussing on the main concepts under study. As the
participants had been participating in the longitudinal study since 1996, they were familiar
with the researcher team and a rapport had already been established. The researchers also
allowed for more interaction with participants after the interview; however, as this population
123
30 A. Lessard et al.
is extremely mobile, the researchers could not depend on formal member checking. A second modality in assuring trustworthiness was the use of a research team. Finally, it should
be noted that all the qualitative analyses in this study took place after a five-year, quantitative, longitudinal study. The scope of this paper does not permit us to delve into the work
specifically, but the quantitative work did help to raise awareness about issues and develop
questions that might not have been articulated without this previous work.
3.5 Data analysis
Data analysis is never a linear process, however, in order to answer the research questions, and
make our process as transparent as possible we present it here as a series of different steps.
First, the interview transcript was condensed by extracting the words of the researcher and
replacing them with words in italics to preserve the meaning of the participant’s discourse.
For example, the interaction between researcher (R) and participant (P) could be modified
from R: Where did you go to school in kindergarten? P: I went to school at Coeur-Immaculé
to “when I was in kindergarten, I went to school at Coeur-Immaculé”.
Second, the condensed transcript was further analyzed using the methodology described
by Labov and Waletsky (1967) to produce shorter synopses composed of a sequential and
non-repetitive narrative. The analysis proposed by Labov and Waletsky aims to position the
elements of the discourse by presenting an abstract (a summary of determining events in
the life of a participant), an orientation (a description of events which contributed to shaping the educational journey of a participant), the complicating action (events which directly
contributed to dropping out), a resolution (elements which help make sense of dropping out),
an evaluation (elements presented by the participant describing the participant’s evaluation
of the resulting situation) and a coda (elements pertaining to the participant’s outlook on the
future, considering past events). This step in the analysis helped to make sense of each story
by putting it into a sequence, and to reduce the interviews from approximately eight pages to
three pages retaining the essence of each story, yet making it as concise as possible. We made
a conscious decision to present these condensed narratives in the third person to indicate our
presence in this process (Rhodes 2000), but all participant words were italicized to enhance
the persuasiveness of each account.
Third, the researchers met to discuss the different narratives, focussing on the elements
that were similar in all cases. The goal of this particular step in the analysis was to reach a
higher conceptual level in the understanding of the dropout process. Four elements initially
emerged, namely living invisibly, navigating the edge, never being in the game and swamped
in family turmoil. The data were reviewed to find other elements which might be present
across the entire continuum of experiences, at which point failing, falling, and looking elsewhere represented added elements. At this point in the process, propositional statements
or rules of inclusion (Maykut and Morehouse 1994) were created to collapse and expand
these elements as needed and to help push the analysis to a more conceptual interpretation
(Charmaz 2005).
4 Findings
To answer the research questions and to gain a better understanding of the dropout process,
the researchers reviewed the elements which emerged from the data analysis and positioned
them in a temporal order (Fig. 1), including the number of youths who described occurrences of each element in their lives. Participants’ description of how they navigated their
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 31
Setting the
stage
Teetering Ending the journey
Prolonging the
journey
Sabotaging the
journey Fading out
(41) – Solving
problems with
fists (24)
Swamped in
family turmoil – Living
invisibly (14) Pivotal
moments (20) – Walking in
the dark (18)
- Dabbling in the
margins (15) - Glowing (6) – Turning away – Accidents (3)
(8)
Never being
in the game – Playing it safe – Failure (10)
(8) – Get lost! (20) – Burn-out (3) (24) – Conflicts (22)
Fig. 1 The dropout process, its phases and the number of youths who described occurrences of each element
educational experiences included first setting the stage, then teetering and finally ending
the journey. The last step in the process answers the research question pertaining to what
precipitated dropping out.
4.1 Setting the stage
The first element in the dropout process essentially includes elements which, from childhood, seemed to shape the educational journeys of participants both in the family and the
school contexts. Setting the stage brings together two elements which were initially entitled
swamped in family turmoil and never being in the game.
Family turmoil is representative of approximately 25% of participants. Examples of participant accounts included descriptions of divorce, parental abuse, parental neglect, parental
criminal activities, placement of the participant into foster care by the child and family services and death of a parent.
Although 55% of the participants experienced their parents’ divorce, this experience did
not seem to affect all participants in the same way nor was it problematic for all. Ten participants (seven girls and three boys) described the divorce as the end of the abuse that had
been ongoing in the family or the neglect which they had experienced. The participants also
described the move or moves which took place as a consequence of the divorce. Moving
often entailed changing schools and making new friends. It sometimes also brought on other
forms of turmoil, including financial hardship for the mother, parents’ new significant others
with whom the participant did not get along, and placement of the participant into foster
care by child and family services. The stories of Melissa and Jeremy, which represent two
of the most compelling cases, demonstrate the pervasiveness of the family turmoil which
contributed to shaping their educational journeys from childhood through adolescence.
4.1.1 Melissa
When Melissa was just 7 years old, the child and family services came to take her and her
younger sister away. At the time, the family lived above a bar, which was convenient for her
parents who abused drugs and alcohol daily. Melissa moved from one foster family to another
and changed schools and friends along the way. She did not integrate well into the schools.
The separation from her mother was very difficult, and she was unable to concentrate on her
123
32 A. Lessard et al.
school work. Her thoughts were focussed continually on being reunited with her mother. In
secondary school, the court sent Melissa to a boarding school. This period was the darkest for
her. She was depressed, had insomnia and was unable to concentrate. She attempted suicide
twice. She changed schools and became part of another foster family. Here her siblings introduced her to bars. She was just 15. For the first time in her life, she discovered friends and
could not pass up the opportunity to be with them. She began living nocturnally, drinking and
abusing drugs. It became a way of life. Inevitably, she started missing school. Her truancy
increased and she failed her final exams. Ultimately, she dropped out of school.
4.1.2 Jeremy
Family turmoil started early in Jeremy’s life when just three years old. His mother left his
father to escape the violence that she endured because of his alcoholism. Jeremy went to
day care because his mother had to work long hours. As a result, Jeremy was left to fend
largely for himself. Then a new significant other entered his mother’s life. Jeremy never got
along with his new step-father. In fifth grade, Jeremy started leaving the house at 7:00 am
and returning very late. He fought in the school yard and spent extended periods of time in
the principal’s office. By sixth grade he was smoking and associating with boys who were
often in trouble. He was expelled from the first secondary school he attended because he
flagrantly disobeyed rules and ultimately broke the law. When he was 14 years old, he got
into a heated argument with his step-father that turned into a physical altercation. The police
were called, and as a result, Jeremy was sent to a detention centre. From that moment on,
Jeremy remained in and out of state care. He never concentrated on his school work and
never graduated.
Not all participants faced such family adversity. For other participants, the stage for dropping out was set in the school context rather than in the family. These 24 participants are
those who received special education services early on in their educational journeys, some
as early as first grade. Twenty participants received services because of poor school performance and four because of behaviour problems. These problems set the stage for dropping
out in a number of different ways. Participants who talked about their inability to get good
grades, also talked about not seeing the value in school. They described being picked on or
rejected. Finally, they recalled having to change schools frequently to get the services they
required.
Family events and problems in the school setting in primary school account for the lived
experiences of approximately 35% of participants, with eight students experiencing both
types of problems very early on in life. However, for the majority of students, the dropout
process began in secondary school. Our data document how dropouts wavered between strategies to keep themselves in school, and actions leading them further away from graduation.
4.2 Teetering
The metaphor of teetering was chosen to represent how the dropouts were often off balance
during their educational journeys. Their narratives describe both strategies for prolonging
the journey and others for sabotaging the journey. There seemed to be forces keeping them
in school and others pushing or pulling them away from the school context. These forces
contributed to the tug of war taking place between in and out-of-school contexts. Moreover,
there were elements of family turmoil and psychological stress which also contributed to
this dynamic tension. The data revealed this was more prevalent for boys and girls who had
already been swamped in family turmoil while in primary school. For these students who had
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 33
lacked stability within the family context, teetering was yet another form of instability they
had to face.
Living invisibly was subsumed into the broader category labelled as prolonging the journey, which we defined as a way for a student to navigate the school context and continue on
the educational journey. Other elements of prolonging the journey consisted of walking in
the dark, glowing and playing it safe.
The 14 participants who lived invisibly were those who actively withdrew from the social
aspects of schooling, who chose avoidance strategies (such as truancy, drug abuse or spacing
out) or who offered passive forms of resistance. They were ghosts in the school. Mostly
represented by girls, living invisibly also included statements about being shy, not wanting to
attract attention and “not counting”. One participant stated that no one ever noticed whether
or not she was in school. Avoidance strategies such as truancy and drug abuse were included
as part of prolonging the journey because they provided a form of escape that ultimately
gave them the strength to return to school, at least for a while. These participants selectively
missed classes, mostly to avoid certain situations (conflicts with teachers or peers). They
described using drugs to make their daily lives more bearable. Many of these girls were the
same participants who experienced family turmoil.
Walking in the dark may have been, for some, the persistance in secondary school of the
learning difficulties which appeared in primary school. Others were experiencing difficulties
for the first time. Participants talked about not seeing the value of school, not being able to
equate efforts with accomplishments. They spoke about going through the motion, without
recognizing how the journey would benefit them. The French expression “ça donne quoi?”
(what’s the use?) was a recurrent one throughout the dropouts’ discourse. They were unable
to link their educational journeys with their futures.
Many participants admitted their disliking of school, and for some this happened as early
as kindergarten. There were some positive times, however. These were when participants
were acknowledged, cared for and appreciated by teachers. In those rare moments (6 youths
described such events), they felt like they were glowing. This recognition and/or acceptance
made these teachers their favourites. Many participants stated that if all teachers had been
like this one favourite teacher, they would not have dropped out. The positive characteristics
attributed to these teachers were attentiveness, open-mindedness, patience, availability and
the ability to be rewarding. Feeling valued by these teachers helped to prolong the educational
journey for these participants.
Finally, eight participants described making efforts to prolong their educational journeys
by adopting strategies to play it safe, or to fit in with their peers. They described making
these efforts in their classes, by doing their homework, and making friends each time they
moved and attended a new school. Some of these participants willingly described their behaviour problems, but they also explained how they made a conscious effort to avoid getting in
trouble, to remain calm, to comply with the rules and meet expectations.
However, some participants found themselves in problematic settings where violence was
a way of life. A few shared how they had a choice between either fighting or being a victim. When they chose to defend themselves, this often initiated a spiralling of events that
included conflicts, suspensions and ultimately school dropout. The poisonous elements in
these contexts contributed to the teetering experienced by these participants. Their actions,
albeit sometimes inadvertently, contributed to sabotaging their educational journeys.
Besides solving problems with fists, dabbling in the margins and turning away were other
strategies which contributed to sabotaging the journey. These were specific actions taken by
the participants which set them off on a journey leading to school dropout. However, there
were also external elements that contributed to sabotaging their educational journeys, such as
123
34 A. Lessard et al.
school policies, teacher attitudes and reactions and peer influences. These elements, that we
labelled get lost! address the flip side of the coin, namely that suspension policies, perceived
teacher ostracism and peer rejection provided these students with messages that they did not
belong in the school community.
Twenty-four participants (22 boys and 2 girls) described solving their problems with their
fists. They knew that using such a strategy would “get them in trouble”. Nevertheless, they
chose to use their fists because the stakes associated with not fighting were higher than those
associated with fighting. Participants fought to defend themselves and/or to avoid having
people walk all over them. In some cases, participants were being picked on, humiliated or
forcefully cast aside by their peers, for example by being placated into lockers, and so they
chose to act. Many described having to be tougher than others to be respected or left alone.
Often they made their mark and tried to walk away. Regardless of the reason for which they
chose to fight, the consequences were often more rejection and sometimes suspension.
Dabbling in the margins was another way participants’ behaviours set them on a trajectory
leading away from school graduation. Behaviours included in this category were all reprehensible by law. Participants admitted to abusing alcohol and drugs, stealing, committing
acts of vandalism, breaking and entering, loitering and using a firearm. Most of the accounts
included in this category, except for grand automobile theft, included peers. For some participants, particularly those who had been rejected or ignored, making friends was critical.
These new friends introduced drug and alcohol abuse into their lives, dared them to take
part in questionable activities, or encouraged them to break the law. This was the case for
Melissa who chose to follow her new friends, even though she knew she was participating
in delinquent acts. As with Melissa, and perhaps not surprisingly, dabbling in the margins
sometimes coincided with a transition, a move into a new neighbourhood, or a change of
school.
Finally, the act of turning away contributed to the sabotaging of the educational journeys of these participants. They turned their backs on their education. They gave up. They
stopped fighting and started looking elsewhere for gratification. Turning away was the last
conscious decision reached by the participants before actually leaving school, before ending
their journey.
Although dropouts did adopt strategies to sabotage their journeys, there were outside
forces that contributed equally to rerouting their journeys and moving them further away
from graduation. The category we designated as get lost! includes statements from others that contributed to increasing the unease and disengagement of participants. Dropouts
described feeling ignored and cast aside by peers and school personnel. They did not have
a social safety net in the school setting. There were a significant number of accounts of
peer rejection. Many participants had only a few acquaintances in the school, and could not
count on their “friends” to protect them from bullying. Many reported not talking to anyone
about their problems. When they had academic problems, they did not seek help. Some of
the dropouts attending special education classes reported that they were encouraged to leave
school when they reached the age of 16. They did not feel supported by teachers. Peer or
teacher rejection was representative of the lived experience of 25% of our participants, and
was a significant trend in the data which contributed to cutting short the educational journeys
of participants.
The stories of Evita and Max, which are typical cases, show their teetering process. For
Evita, prolonging the journey was done by living invisibly and by experiencing glowing
moments, while she sabotaged her journey by turning away after feeling the pressures of her
environment telling her to get lost! For Max, teetering was a matter of establishing a balance
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 35
between playing it safe on the positive side and solving problems with fists and dabbling in
the margins on the negative side.
4.2.1 Evita
Evita and her mother lived alone together after her mother left her father following a marital dispute. Evita attended a small, rural school for the first 4 years of her education. When
she and her mother subsequently moved to a large city, she felt uprooted and isolated. She
cherished the caring environment she had experienced in her rural school. While she was
never a very sociable student, and preferred working on her own, she was active and liked
participating in sports. However, the transition from the small town to the big city proved to
be extremely difficult, both for her and her mother. Her mother stopped going out, worked at
home and isolated herself from the outside world. They both felt lost. It took some time for
Evita to find her place in her new school. When she went into secondary school, she liked her
teachers and succeeded in her studies, but still she had trouble integrating with her peers. She
disliked initiating interaction, and often faced teasing and bullying. As a result, she withdrew.
During lunch time and recess she would linger near doors that were on a timed lock and slip
in at an opportune moment to escape from everyone. In spite of her difficulties socially, Evita
persevered in her school work and relished the moments when teachers recognized her efforts
and congratulated her. She maintained positive relationships with her teachers and received
good grades until she reached her fourth year in secondary school when she was placed in
an enriched program that was too demanding for her. The result was she failed. The praise
stopped. She began disliking school, and ultimately stopped going to school altogether.
4.2.2 Max
Max did well in primary school. He enjoyed sitting in the back of the classroom with his
buddies, and his small school where everyone was a friend. At age 10 his parents moved, and
he was sent to boarding school. The two years he spent there was an excellent experience
because his teachers were caring, and he always had plenty to do. When he changed schools
the following year and entered secondary school, things went downhill. The environment
was uncaring, and Max felt insignificant. He had never experienced problems integrating
socially, but now for the first time in his life, he felt cast aside. While he never went looking
for trouble, when it found him, he defended himself. On these occasions he ended up in the
principal’s office. This did not deter him from fighting. Teasing because his clothes revealed
his poverty often precipated his aggressive responses. He felt if he let others walk all over
him, he would be victimized. In primary school, Max felt challenged. In secondary school,
he was bored. He changed schools again, and made friends with teenagers who were always
in trouble. Outside of school, he joined his buddies and began smoking marijuana. When
one of them had money, he bought what marijuana they needed; otherwise, they found ways
to acquire it. Max partied until the wee hours making the required 8:00 am arrival at school
almost an impossibility. He lost his motivation to go to school, and finally it was just too
much effort to be there. Max dropped out.
4.3 Ending the journey
During the interviews with the dropouts, they were asked to identify the the actual moment
when they left school and then to work backwards from that point in order to answer the
question, “What precipitated dropping out of school?” Many dropouts (48%) could recall a
123
36 A. Lessard et al.
pivotal moment, while others (52%), such as Max described it as a gradual process of fade out.
Although there were different types of pivotal moments, common themes emerged from the
data. Such themes include incidents of accidents, conflicts with teachers, failure (in school)
and burn-out. Fade out, on the other hand tended to be described as a gradual, homogeneous
process.
In pivotal moments, accidents refer to specific events that were instrumental in changing
a participant’s educational journey. One male participant was hit by a car during his second
year in secondary school and was unable to walk for several months. He described feeling worthless and dispondent, and lost interest in school and life. A female participant got
pregnant when she was 15 years old but lost the baby. She explained how she needed a year
to get over the event and was subsequently unable to reintegrate the school context.
Conflicts which occurred with teachers more often involved the boys. Many dropouts
(22) described an escalation of events that led up to one specific argument or conflict that
precipitated their decision to drop out of school. They often described feeling misunderstood
and persecuted by a specific teacher and felt this teacher “had it in” for them. To them it
appeared that the teacher went out of his or her way to pick a fight with them. These conflicts
were described with forceful emotions. The dropouts explained how eventually it became a
choice between continuing to fight or leaving. Eventually, all chose to leave.
Failing grades constituted a pivotal moment for other participants, in one of two ways.
The first includes students who basically completed their secondary school work, but failed
their final examinations and did not return to school the following year. The second may be
the result of persistent learning difficulties that surfaced in primary school and were never
assisted and/or overcome. Although, as was described in Evita’s story, failure at any moment
could represent a trigger for dropping out, it appears that for some students, the experience
of repeated failure and then being confronted with one more failure, caused them to leave.
Finally, burn-out represents the last type of pivotal moment that caused three participants
to end their educational journey. In these situations, the participants were working outside
of school. They described how they could no longer balance the demands of going to school
and working for pay after school. They had to make a choice, and they chose to work.
Fade out is the second way in which participants ended their educational journeys. Participants described a lack of motivation to go to school. They gradually disengaged. They
described being unable to get out of bed in the morning. Truancy increased. Calls were not
forthcoming from the schools to encourage them to return. They slipped out of their student
roles. Eventually, they stopped going to school altogether. Fade out may be the end result of
having lived invisibly through most of the time spent in secondary school.
In summary, dropouts navigated their educational journeys in different ways. For some,
family turmoil and problems in school set the stage for a difficult educational journey. They
had more challenges to overcome than other students, often as early as first grade. Included
in family turmoil were issues of financial hardship and increased mobility. Mobility also
came in the form of change of schools associated with special education services, which
also brought changes in friendships. Participants who experienced either or both of these
conditions in primary school entered secondary school already challenged by the instability
in their lives. For these participants, teetering which occurred in secondary school was more
intense than for other dropouts for whom problems began in secondary school. Some lived
as ghosts or walked in the dark. Some found teachers who cared. They tried to play by the
rules and comply with the demands. But there were forces which pulled them away from the
path leading to graduation. They fought to survive. They found new peers who encouraged
delinquency. They were pushed aside, rejected, suspended and expelled from school. They
either gradually disengaged from school, or walked out one day and never returned.
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 37
5 Discussion
The lived experiences of these dropouts provide a more vivid portrayal of the interplay of
all risk factors in a particular context. The literature presents a number of personal, family
and school factors which increase the probability that a student will drop out of school.
However, when situating all these factors in the life of one person, the complexity of the
process becomes more apparent. Findings from our study tend to confirm some trends in the
literature, while others offer new ways of looking at the dropout process.
The experiences described by dropouts contribute to situating risk factors in a more contextualised perspective. Although not all dropouts were exposed to all risk factors presented
in the literature, there is sufficient evidence to support previous findings. In terms of personal risk factors, behaviour problems and delinquency represent two important risk factors
(Battin-Pearson et al. 2000; Fortin et al. 2004). Our results situate these factors in terms of
solving problems with fists and dabbling with the margin. Dropouts described their use of
aggression in their daily lives. However, our results also showed that 20 of the 24 dropouts
who used aggression did so as a way to establish their place in the school setting, and as a
reaction to the provocation of others. They also described their delinquent acts as a way to
maintain the precarious friendships that they had succeeded in acquiring, often after years
of peer rejection. Our results confirm those of quantitative studies demonstrating the very
complex interplay of many factors constituting the dropout problem.
In terms of school-related risk factors, low school performance, learning disabilities and
overall problems with the school were found to be conditions setting the stage for dropout.
Low school performance and grade retention represent some of the strongest predictors of
school dropout (Battin-Pearson et al. 2000;Jimerson et al. 2000; Rumberger 1995). Although
a percentage of the dropouts interviewed in this study reported low school performance and
being retained, they also described the associated consequences. For many, grade retention
was but another occasion for losing friends. Low school performance was also cited as a
reason for rejection and persecution by peers. As some of the problems in school continued
in secondary school, participants continued to walk in the dark and eventually ended their
educational journey after experiencing one final failure.
The association between the student–teacher relationship and dropping out has also been
demonstrated in the literature (Lessard et al. 2004; Rumberger 1995). Our results show that
student–teacher relationships were integral to teetering for some participants. On the positive
side, supportive and caring relationships where students felt acknowledged and valued contributed to prolonging the time students stayed in school. On the flip side, some participants
felt pushed aside by, and alienated from their teachers. Moreover, the conflicts with teachers frequently escalated and ultimately resulted in a pivotal moment that precipated leaving
school.
Finally, elements reported as family turmoil tend to support the research on family-related
risk factors. More than 55% of participants came from broken homes, a condition which
Rumberger (1995) associated with an increased dropout probability. Moreover, the participants described how the divorce of their parents contributed to financial hardship. Low
socioeconomic status has also been found to contribute to increasing the dropout probability
(Alexander et al. 1997). Finally, the family contexts described by participants show how low
affective support, low cohesion among members and a high rate of conflict fuelled their family turmoil. The relationship between these family factors and high school dropout has been
well documented (Fortin et al. 2004; Potvin et al. 1999). Garnier et al. (1997) and Jimerson
et al. (2000) found the nature of the early caregiving environment to be an important factor
contributing to the dropout process. However, what emerged from our data that is not appar123
38 A. Lessard et al.
ent in previous research is the pervasiveness of family turmoil in the lives of many of the
dropouts.
Family turmoil contributed to setting the stage for school dropout. The psychosocial
mechanisms underlying this process are beyond the scope of this study; however, it should
be noted that the family turmoil lived by the participants seemed to affect all spheres of their
lives. Also, the data suggested that there is a relationship between the turmoil experienced
in the family and internalised behaviour problems (such as depression and anxiety), a factor
which has been documented in the dropout literature (Marcotte et al. 2001). Dropouts, such
as Melissa, described being too preoccupied with family issues to focus on their student
roles. A few participants talked about consulting a psychiatrist and being on anti-depressant
medication. Participants who described family turmoil also explained how the use and abuse
of drug and alcohol by their parents influenced their own lives. The family turmoil imposed a
significant burden that weighed heavily on them throughout their entire educational journey.
Data from a portion of our participant group tends to support the notion that dropping
out is a multidimensional, life-course process, supporting the results found by Garnier et al.
(1997), Jimerson et al. (2000) and Alexander et al. (2001). We were surprised by the fact
that many dropouts (65%) seemed to progress smoothly in primary school and only began
teetering while in secondary school. Moreover, our data show that the educational journeys
of participants follow a tenuous path. There were many stories of their oscillating between
attempts to play it safe and conform to expectations, and rebellious moments of frustration
that eventually contributed to sabotaging their schooling. Interestingly, attempts made by
dropouts to fit in are not discussed in the literature.
Finally, issues of peer rejection and the negative influence of deviant peers in the lives of
participants were omnipresent throughout participant discourse. Our results tend to support
those of Battin-Pearson et al. (2000) in terms of the influence of deviant peers which seemed
to contribute to increased delinquency. Our results also indicate that the nature of the relationships established with peers throughout primary and secondary schooling had important
long-term consequences. For Melissa, the fact that she did not have friends in primary school
or the beginning of secondary school made her friendships with her deviant foster sisters that
much more important to her. Peer relationships appeared to play a significant role in shaping
the educational journey of dropouts.
We believe this study contributes to understanding and showing how the lived experiences
of dropouts help shape their educational journeys. Our results offer a different perspective on
school dropout that defines dropping out as a process not an event, and reveals the complexity
involved in each situation. However, there are limits to this study. First, a certain percentage
of dropouts refused to participate in the interviews. Had they participated, their stories might
have shed some light on different experiences, and possibly provided more marginalized
accounts. Second, the discourse of dropouts is accepted at face value. Although some facts
(such as grades obtained) could be and were verified with the quantitative data obtained
since 1996, other accounts (such as acts of delinquency) could not. Finally, the population is
relatively homogeneous in that all dropouts are French Canadian Caucasians selected from
the general population.
6 Conclusion
School dropout has been viewed as a complex phenomenon which has both social implications
and personal consequences for a youth who does not graduate. The complexity associated
with this issue has been demonstrated through the findings of innumerable studies focusing
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 39
on the personal, family and school-related risk factors and through a few longitudinal studies
documenting the long-term nature of the dropout process. Our study contributes by describing and shedding light on this complexity by examining the lived experiences of 80 dropouts.
Allowing the participants a voice to explain how they navigated their educational journey has
allowed this research team to gain a better understanding of the different complex elements
which contributed to shaping their educational journeys. There is indeed a human side to
school disengagement and school dropout that statistics do not capture.
Research on risk factors leading to school dropout has contributed to outlining the different
pieces which create the dropout puzzle. However, as was outlined by researchers, risk factors
may represent but the starting point for understanding the complex dropout process. Our
findings allow us to explain further how the different pieces fit together and just how some
of the factors influence the dropout process. Our findings help draw a more contextualized
picture of the dropout process.
The narratives obtained through the interviews with the 80 dropouts participating to our
study have allowed us to outline three elements composing the dropout process, namely
setting the stage, teetering and ending the journey. Some students start navigating their educational journeys in an unstable home environment while some have difficulty with school
work. These students enter secondary school in a precarious position. Other students start
having problems only when they enter secondary school. All dropouts interviewed talked
about strategies used to prolong their journey and strategies used to sabotage it. They either
ended their journey as a result of a pivotal moment or as a result of a gradual disengagement
from the school context.
Although many of our findings tend to support previous research on school dropout, three
elements provide a different outlook on this process. The first element is family turmoil.
Researchers have determined that many family factors influence the dropout risk. However,
hearing the stories of dropouts who lived 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, allowed this research team to document the pervasiveness of family
turmoil throughout the lives of the participants. Although family factors may represent one
dimension of risk factors, these participants were burdened by these problems often from
early childhood onward. As was the case for Melissa, these dropouts were unable to put
those problems aside when assuming their student roles. It was a constant preoccupation.
Furthermore, the narratives contextualized such factors as divorce in a picture where divorce
led to mobility and financial hardship. Positioned in such a context, family turmoil appears
to have had a major influence on the lives of many dropouts.
The second element allowing for the emergence of a different picture on school dropout
pertains to strategies used by dropouts to prolong their journey. Participants recalled moments
when they did like school, when they did try to fit in and play it safe and when their efforts
were acknowledged. Had these experiences been more prevalent than those used to sabotage
their journey, the balance could have been redirected and their fate altered. It is important
to report moments when these participants were glowing and moments when they did play
it safe, because these attempts on the part of at-risk students may be those which teachers
and school personnel can bank on to keep these students from ending their educational journeys. Focusing on such attempts on the student’s part may also allow the teachers to view
at-risk students’ strengths as opposed to their deficits. Some of the narratives described the
importance that students attributed to their relationships with their teachers. The influence of
teacher–student relationships on the dropout risk has been documented. However, the narratives obtained through this research shows that teacher discourse can sometimes pull the
student back on the right path or push him or her off course.
123
40 A. Lessard et al.
Although dropouts made efforts to prolong their educational journeys, many were faced
with adverse external conditions, which represent the third element to be outlined. Many
dropouts talked about being rejected by their peers and sometimes by their teachers, a fact
which has been documented by researchers. However, although researchers have positioned
peer rejection as one element in the development of antisocial behaviour (Patterson et al.
1992), few have discussed the consequences of rejection in the dropout process. One of the
consequences described by dropouts was their aggressive behaviour. They fought to defend
their honour and to prevent being victimized. Another consequence was adhering to a deviant
peer group to which they attributed a critical role in their daily lives. Through their deviant
peer groups, they attempted to create the social safety net which they had lacked throughout
their journeys. Delinquency, truancy and school dropout were often the consequences of this
peer affiliation.
Considering the dire consequences associated with school dropout, future research efforts
should aim to study the psychosocial mechanisms underlying the dropout process. Moreover,
prevention efforts could be aimed at increasing teacher awareness on their role in this process
as their words often make a difference in the lives of students.
References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R. & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundation of high
school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87–107.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, 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.
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.
Beekhoven, S., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Early school leaving in the lower vocational track: Triangulation of
qualitative and quantitative data. Adolescence, 40(157), 197–213.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, D. (1994). Lifelines and risks. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory for the 21st Century. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dei, G. J. (2003). Schooling and the dilemma of youth disengagement. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2),
241–256.
Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. E., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why?
Findings from a national survey. Teachers College Record, 87, 356–373.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., & Olson, L. (2004). Temporary as compared to permanent high school dropout.
Social Forces, 82(3), 1181–1205.
Fortin, L., Royer, E., Potvin, P., Marcotte, D., & Yergeau, E. (2004). La prédiction du risque de décrochage scolaire au secondaire: Facteurs personnels, familiaux et scolaires. Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement, 36(3), 219–231.
Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., Royer, E., & Joly, J. (2006). Typology of student at risk of dropping out of
school: Description by personal, family and school factors. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
21(4), 363–383.
Garnier, H. E., Stein, J. A. & Jacobs, J. K. (1997). The process of dropping out of school: A 19 year perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 34, 395–419.
Gleason, P., & Dynarski, M. (2002). Do we know whom to serve? Issues in using risk factors to identify
dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 7(1), 25–41.
Goldschmidt, P. & Wang, J. (1999). When can schools affect dropout behaviour? A longitudinal multilevel
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 715–738.
Janosz, M., LeBlanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (1997). Disentangling the weight of school dropout
predictors: A test on two longitudinal samples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(6), 733–762.
Jimerson, S. R., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high
school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6),
525–549.
123
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out 41
Jimerson, S. R., Ferguson, P., Whipple, A., Anderson, G., & Dalton, M. (2002). Exploring the association
between grade retention and dropout: A longitudinal study examining socio-emotional, behavioral, and
achievement characteristics of retained students. The California School Psychologist, 7, 51–62.
Kaplan, D., Damphousse, K., & Kaplan, H. (1996). Moderating effects of gender on the relationship between
not graduating from high school and psychological dysfunction in young adulthood. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88(4), 760–774.
Kasen, S., Cohen, P., & Brook, J. (1998). Adolescent school experiences and dropout, adolescent pregnancy,
and young adult deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13(1), 49–72.
Kortering, L., Braziel, P., & Tomkins, J. (2002). The challenge of school completion among youths with
behavioral disorders: Another side of the story. Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 142–155.
Labov, W., & Waletsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experiences. In J. Helm (Ed.),
Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lessard, A., Fortin, L., Joly, J., Royer, É., & Blaya, C. (2004). Students at-risk for dropping out of school:
Are there gender differences among personal, family and school factors? Journal of At-Risk Issues, 10(2),
91–27.
Marcotte, D., Fortin, L., Royer, E., Potvin, P., & Leclerc, D. (2001). L’influence du style parental, de la dépression et des troubles du comportement sur le risque d’abandon scolaire. Revue des sciences de l’éducation,
XXVII(3), 687–712.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide.
London: Falmer Press.
Ministère de l’éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. (2005). Indicateurs de l’éducation. Québec.
Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Hawkins, J. D., Battin Pearson, S., & Hill, K. (2002).
Mediational and deviance theories of late high school failure: Process roles of structural strains, academic
competence, and general versus specific problem behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(2),
172–186.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J.(1992). Antisocial boys: A social interactional approach. Eugene:
Castalia Publishing Company.
Potvin, P., Deslandes, R., Beaulieu, P., Marcotte, D., Fortin, L., Royer, É., & Leclerc, D. (1999). Risque d’abandon scolaire, style parental et participation parentale au suivi scolaire. Revue canadienne de l’éducation,
24(4), 441–453.
Rhodes, C. (2000). Ghostwriting research: Positioning the researcher in the interview text. Qualitative Inquiry,
6(4), 511–525.
Ripple, C. H., & Luthar, S. S. (2000). Academic risk among inner-city adolescents: The role of personal
attributes. Journal of School Psychology, 38(3), 277–298.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583–625.
Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. (2004). Gender differences in self-perceptions and academic outcomes: A study of African American high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
33(1), 81–90.
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Statistique_Canada (2003). Dernier communiqué de l’enquête sur la population active, http://www.statcan.
ca/francais/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en_f.htm
Author Biographies
Anne Lessard is an associate professor at the Université de Sherbrooke in the Special Education department.
Her research interests revolve around student-teacher relationships, classroom management, school dropout
and gender issues.
Lynn Butler-Kisber is a professor affiliated to the department of Integrated Studies at the Faculty of Education at McGill University. Her research interests include student engagement, collaboration and qualitative
and artful representations of research.
Laurier Fortin is the director of the psychoeducation department at the Université de Sherbrooke. His work
on school dropout, spanning two decades, has earned him a Chair of Research on perseverance and academic
achievement.
123
42 A. Lessard et al.
Diane Marcotte is a professor affiliated to the psychology department at the Université du Québec à Montréal.
Her work on school dropouts and school transitions has included a particular interest in depression in children
and adolescents.
Pierre Potvin is a professor affiliated to the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. His research interests have
included student-teacher relationships and school dropout.
Égide Royer is a professor at the Université Laval. His research interests revolve around students with behaviour problems, teacher training and school dropout.
123