David R. Eberhard

The purpose of this study was to provide data helping to characterize,American Indian Secondary urban dropouts. Four cohorts, or graduating classes, were examined descriptively:

Dropouts and stayers between 1980 and 1981 were examined on six variables.

Parent and pupil group interviews focused on the six dropout and stayer

Table 1 represents each cohort, its membership count, dropout count, dropout percentage, and overall totals. The urban district reported the dropout rate for American Indian pupils in 1983/84 as 9.7%, 1984/85 as 15.5%, 1985/86 as 10.3% and 1986/87 as 10%.

Each figure was substantially lower than the cohort-reported dropout figures. However, the urban district count for the 1984/'85/'86 years excluded freshman pupils, counting sophomore, junior, and senior pupils only. In 1987, as required by state law, seventh, eighth, and ninth graders were added to the figures.

In addition, the urban district counted all dropouts in the same year. The cohort dropout data for this study covered the school years longitudinally nine through 12. Therefore, these data were not directly comparable to the urban district data

TABLE 1
Cohorts by Year, Membership, Dropouts and Percentages

TABLE 2
Cohorts, by Freshman - Senior Membership, and Individual Loss

Table 3 represents the known tribal affiliation of cohort members, shown expressed by each cohort. Most tribal associations were discovered by the researcher through 506 Form identification. Some tribal memberships were learned through identification by urban district American Indian employees and parents.

There was no reason to believe that pupils whose tribal membership was not known belonged to a specific tribe. Many American Indian families chose not to file 506 Form identification with the district.

TABLE 3
Known Cohort Tribal Affiliation

There was no known policy in the urban district regarding the retention of a pupil. The school principal had the final word in deciding which pupils were to stay in a grade another year and which pupils were to be passed to the next grade. While factors in a pupil's performance in the building or classroom were considered, such as grades, test scores, and/or pupil behaviors, there was not one criteria followed by the school principals. Table 4 displays the retention figures for the cohorts. In the cohort years 1981-85 not one pupil of the 12 pupils retained was able to stay in the district and graduate. From the entire population, only six pupils, or 12%, graduated after being retained in a grade for a year. These retention data represented only the secondary years of a pupil's experience. It is likely that some from the population were retained in their elementary or junior high/middle-school years. These data show only retentions which actually occurred between ninth and 12th grade.

TABLE 4
Cohort Retentions

There were two types of reported academic achievement. The first was Proficiency and Review (PAR) test scores, and the second was grade point average (GPA).

The PAR test was administered at the beginning of the ninth grade. 'Me test covered four basic skills:

Each pupil took the test once per semester until each part was passed.

GPA in the urban district was determined by cumulatively averaging all grades received beginning with the ninth grade. The scale was as follows:

Each pupil received three six-week grades. They were averaged over an 18-week period.

Dropouts and stayers were analyzed on their mean GPA and PAR scores. Analysis of variance was conducted to test this effect. It was expected that GPAs and PAR scores would be higher for stayers than dropouts.

The categorical relationship of dropouts and stayers was examined. A Chi Square test was performed. It was expected that more stayers than dropouts would be from two-parent families.

All male pupils were placed in one category and all females were placed in a second category.

The relationship of dropouts and stayers was examined. A Chi Square test was performed on dropouts and stayers. It was expected that there would be more female stayers than males.

There were four categories to family mobility. The first showed no movement by the pupil between schools unless authorized by the district; the second indicated transfer by the pupil between schools within the district; the third documented the movement a pupil makes between schools which are outside the district but within the metropolitan area of the city; the fourth reported movement which was outside the metropolitan boundaries, including movement outside the state or country. The last two categories were considered withdrawals.

This study tested dropouts and stayers. It did not analyze those considered by the districts as withdrawals. All dropouts are withdrawals, but not all withdrawals are dropouts. The urban district has a set of eight codings used to identify those pupils as dropouts: pregnancy, marriage, dropout, employment, expulsion, mutual consent, runaway and other causes, and no trace of enrollment at another school. It is reasonable to conclude that many of the withdrawals did drop out of school at a later time. There was, however, no firm data upon which to base any conclusion. The matter was left untouched.

The categorical relationships of dropouts and stayers was analyzed. An analysis of variance was conducted on dropouts and stayers. A Chi Square was also performed on the same variable. It was expected that stayers would move less than dropouts.

There were 10 urban district high schools, excluding alternative schools. All pupil transcript records were located in the high school, including those attending an alternative school.

The relationships of dropouts and stayers to school attended were examined. A Chi Square test was performed on dropouts and stayers. It was known what effect the school attended would have.

The categories for tribal affiliation were four. The pupil subject number was the highest in the Sioux Nation, second in the Navajo Nation, and third for the Pueblo (which includes the Hopi and Zuni). The fourth category included all other tribes represented.

The relationships of dropouts and stayers to their tribal affiliation were examined. A Chi Square test was performed on dropouts and stayers. It was expected that there would be no difference between dropouts and stayers and the tribes to which they belong.

All the variables were examined with dropouts and stayers. Dropouts were those pupils determined by the district as having left the district for dropout reasons. The stayers were those pupils who stayed in the district and graduated. They were determined by pupil transcript records designating the time of graduation.

The recorded and transcribed group interviews were completed in the spring of 1987. They occurred in three sets: The first was with American Indian pupils in the urban district high schools; the second occurred in an urban Indian Center with American Indian GED pupils, and the third was with American Indian parents.

Interview data were analyzed and categorized according to the six variables and reported in conjunction with the variables.

The 1980-1987 cohort dropout percentage (29%) exceeded the urban district, state-reported data (12%). These cohort data fell below the district's 1987 longitudinal study (42%).

Pupil number loss percentage (60%) exceeded the urban district's by 13%, but the longitudinal district study and this research agree upon an 88% individual loss of pupils from freshman to senior years.

American Indian retentions seldom stay in school; six of 51 graduated.

The data base used by this study and the data base used by the urban district are the same. Yet the reported results are different. The urban district reported a 10% American Indian dropout rate for 1987. This research reported an 88% American Indian pupil number loss from 1983 to 1987. There needs to be accurate reporting of dropout data so that problems can be correctly identified and solved. School systems need to change their retention policies. No pupils are being helped when school systems retain them. Eighty-eight percent of the American Indian pupils in this study dropped out after being retained.

36 Journal of American Indian Education October 1989

- PAR scores were significantly higher for stayers than dropouts (p > .01).

- GPAs were significantly higher for stayers than for dropouts (p > .01).

- GPAs remained constant for dropouts and stayers in the last two years (p > .01).

The Chi Square test between dropouts and stayers indicated no statistically significant relationship between attendance at an alternative education program and dropping out or staying (X2 = .95).

Academic achievement provides an indication of those American Indian pupils who dropped out of school. Those Indian pupils with low PAR scores and low GPAs are at high risk of dropping out. Those American Indians who remain in school to graduation can be expected to do well. Math or English may possibly be their favorite subject and their support system at home probably encourages them to achieve and regard their education as important.

- Statistically, parental status had no effect on dropping out (p > . 10). There was a trend for stayers to have both parents at home. In other words, only two-parent families had more staying than dropping out.

If Indian parents are willing to risk the sometimes threatening experience of interacting with urban school personnel, they may well be helping their son or daughter to remain positive about their school experience. This in turn might prevent some pupils from dropping out of school.

There was little indication of one sex dropping out more than the other.

These data are insufficient to change the conclusion that females are no more likely to drop out of school than are males.

- Dropouts moved twice as much as stayers (2.46 versus 1.25) (p > .01).

- Dropping out increased with number of moves made (0-35% versus 4--84%) (p > .01).

- Parents and pupils confirmed the difficulty their mobility presents for achieving in urban schools.

Goodlad (1984) mentioned individualized learning and computer systems as two components of a school system ready to meet the variety of learning styles in schools. Indian pupils are in need of these kinds of unique programs to soften the difficult experience demanded of them in the apparently significant change from reservation to urban school system. Martinez (1986) supported the school system's change in order to meet the needs of the dropout.

- Three schools (numbers two, seven, eight) were above the dropout average of 62%.

- Two of these schools displayed a low interview climate (school numbers two and eight).

- One school (number eight) showed an absence of cultural identity.

- School number two had a high mobility (2.43), and school number eight had the lowest mobility (.93).

Hammack (1936) warned of " single variable analysis." While the reasons for the high dropout rate for school number 10 are more clear, for school number eight they are not. Each school has a climate of its own. Wehlage and Rutter (1986) are unable to identify which influence (home or school) is more prevalent. While it is beyond this research to identify the problem presented in the "school attended" variable, individual schools are important and do have impact upon the dropout situation.

- Navajo pupils dropped out less than all other tribes (Navajo, 27%, all others, 60%).

- Navajo pupil membership was lowest at school number two and highest at school number eight; and school number two had the highest dropout percentage (88%).

- Pupils and parents were critical of the schools' insensitivity to tribal traditions.

The school's knowledge of tribal background and the low Navajo dropout percentage do not appear related. However, the relationship of mobility to being Navajo is strong. Further research is needed. What is evident is that the schools need to become more sensitive to American-Indian culture. This insensitivity is not helping Indian pupils remain in school.

It is necessary to follow careful guidelines while doing research. Each expression the author makes is made as a scientist, as precise as possible while recognizing the human error inside the data reviewed. It is to the advantage of research that feelings be left aside. Having completed the inquiry, feelings remain, now influenced by a sobering scientific method.

The national public school systems as they now exist need to change. The data lit this study, and other data also, show that schools are not doing the job for which they were designed. These educational institutions perpetuate themselves by showing their best side, e.g., low dropout rates. Current research has exposed them with more realistic numbers. School systems need courage to show how Americans are failing. Old practices need to be reexamined, e.g., maintaining the pupil as a passive learner, competitive environment, retaining pupils with Fs.

This research found Indian pupils who stayed in school to be equal to any pupil who stayed. This is not a surprise. Indian parents regard education highly. They speak with pride when their young ones receive honors. Their children me capable of learning, achieving, and becoming successful in society. It is tragic that American Indian pupils are so often among the highest groups of American dropouts. There is room for immense change.

American Indian parents need to come into the schools. They belong to them too. Schools need to reach out to American Indian parents. It is a matter of relationship. Relationships are often not easy. An Indian leader spoke about the "Sharing and the caring" that is not there in schools. The problems of kids need to be jointly owned by teacher and parent. Owned problems get solved.

Decentralization of the schools leads to the ownership of problems. Sitebased management is a concept ready to cause change. Teachers need to become empowered with responsibilities.

American Indian parents need their own kind of empowerment. They need to take care of their children try making themselves visible to the schools. They must meet the administrator and teachers. They must trust them with education- They must make sure it is done.

Each school has its own character. The problems and solutions can be identified This research suggests two aspects of change that will arrest the high Indian dropout rate Learning must be individualized. Highly mobile pupils come into school classrooms unable to adjust. Teachers have not the time nor to ease this adjustment. Mobility is a dangerous ingredient for failure.

Schools need computers. The time for investment is now. Some enlightened schools raise money themselves for the privilege. Others go without. The potential for pupil-teacher organization is large once computers are used The kids of today are computer users. Computers are in their future. Yet, their future is often denied them through poor school performance.

1. The 29% dropout rate in this research exceeded the district reported rate (12%) by 17%. However, a comprehensive urban district study of one (1983-1987) exceeded the dropout percentage of this research's '83-'87 cohort (42% vs. 35%) by seven percent.

2. The pupil number loss percentage in this research (61) exceeded the urban district reported figure (47%) for two sets of years (1986-87) by 14%. However, the district one-cohort study provided similar individual pupil number loss data (88%) as did this research.

3. The withdrawal rate of American Indian pupils of this research (43%) approximated the withdrawal percentage of the urban district study (40%).

4. Twelve percent of the retained American Indian pupils stayed in the district.

5. PAR scores (3.84 vs. 1.32) and GPAs (2.32 vs. 1.37) were significantly higher for stayers than dropouts.

6. American Indian stayers were academically equal to other urban district stayers.

7. American Indian parents and pupils highly regard education, and prefer math and English.

8. While there was no statistical significance between parental status and dropping out, a trend toward two-parent families having children staying in school was evident.

9. Indian pupils indicated the need for parental support, while parents were sometimes unable to provide it.

10. There was no relationship found between being male or female and dropping out of school.

11. The mobility rate of dropouts (2.46) was significantly higher than the mobility rate of stayers (1.24) and the more moves a dropout made (0-35%), the more likely she or he was to drop out (4-84%).

12. American Indian parents and pupils rated urban schools higher than reservation schools while expressing the difficulties of making a successful transition from one to another.

13. Fifty-five percent of the American Indian dropouts came from three schools (numbers seven, two and eight), none of which displayed a high cultural identity.

14. School number two showed high mobility (2.43) and the highest American Indian dropout percentage (88%) and school number eight showed the lowest mobility (.93) and the third highest dropout rate (63%).

15. Navajo pupils dropped out less (27%) than all other tribes (60%).

16. American Indian pupils were optimistic, while American Indian parents were pessimistic towards positive change in the urban schools.

Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hammack, F.M. (1987, Spring). Large school systems’ dropout reports: An analysis of definitions, procedures, and findings. Teachers College Record, 324-341.

Martinez, R. (1986, Summer). Minority youth dropouts: Personal, social, and institutional reason

for leaving school. Colorado Springs: University of Colorado, Center for Community Development and Design.

Wehlage, G.G., & Rutter, R.A. (1986, Spring). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teaching College Record, 87 (3).