Soc Psychol Educ (2008) 11:25\u201342
DOI 10.1007\/s11218-007-9033-z
Shades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak out
Anne Lessard \u00b7 Lynn Butler-Kisber \u00b7 Laurier Fortin \u00b7
Diane Marcotte \u00b7 Pierre Potvin \u00b7 \u00c9gide Royer
Received: 17 April 2007 \/ Accepted: 12 September 2007 \/ Published online: 11 December 2007
\u00a9 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)
Facult\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9ducation, D\u00e9partement d\u2019\u00c9tudes en Adaptation Scolaire et Sociale, Universit\u00e9 de Sherbrooke,
2500 Boul. Universit\u00e9, Sherbrooke QC, Canada J1K 2R1
e-mail: Anne.Lessard@USherbrooke.ca
L. Butler-Kisber
Faculty of Education, Department of Integrated Studies, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Montreal
QC, Canada H3A 1Y2
e-mail: lynn.butlerkisber@mcgill.ca
L. Fortin
Facult\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9ducation, D\u00e9partement de Psycho\u00e9ducation, Universit\u00e9 de Sherbrooke, 2500 Boul. Universit\u00e9,
Sherbrooke QC, Canada J1K 2R1
e-mail: Laurier.Fortin@USherbrooke.ca
D. Marcotte
D\u00e9partement de Psychologie, Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 Montr\u00e9al, C.P. 8888, Montr\u00e9al, QC,
Canada H3C 3P8
e-mail: marcotte.diane@uqam.ca
P. Potvin
D\u00e9partement de Psycho\u00e9ducation, Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 Trois-Rivi\u00e8res, C. P. 500, Trois-Rivieres QC,
Canada G9A 5H7
e-mail: Pierre_Potvin@uqtr.ca
\u00c9. Royer
Facult\u00e9 des Sciences de l\u2019\u00c9ducation, Universit\u00e9 Laval, Ste-Foy QC, Canada G1K 7P4
e-mail: egide.royer@fse.ulaval.ca
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 \u00b7 High school \u00b7 Qualitative methodology
1 Introduction
The Ministry of Education in Quebec estimated that during the school year of 2003\u20132004,
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\u2013teacher 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\u2013teacher 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 \u201ctask of predicting
who drops out is more difficult than simply taking into account known risk factors\u201d (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\u2019s 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 \u201cthere is a human side to
123
28 A. Lessard et al.
stories that statistics do not tell us\u201d (p. 245). Jimerson et al. (2002) suggested that using
qualitative methods to study the dropout process from the dropout\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201ctell their story\u201d. 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\u2019 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 ts\u00e9 l\u00e0 (you know,
like\u2026) 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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-Immacul\u00e9
to \u201cwhen I was in kindergarten, I went to school at Coeur-Immacul\u00e9\u201d.
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\u2019s evaluation
of the resulting situation) and a coda (elements pertaining to the participant\u2019s 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\u2019 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)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soc Psychol Educ (2008) 11:25\u201342DOI 10.1007\/s11218-007-9033-zShades of disengagement: high school dropouts speak outAnne Lessard \u00b7 Lynn Butler-Kisber \u00b7 Laurier Fortin […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n