Volume 35 Number 2
January 1996

While researchers differ as to the root causes of the problem, there can be little doubt as to the consequences of dropping out for the premature school leaver. As Sullivan (1988) notes, early school leavers are more likely to have experienced unemployment, been unemployed for longer periods of time, receive lower wages, and be employed in occupations that require less skill than their peers who complete secondary school. Indeed for many, the prognosis resembles the scenario outlined by Anisef and Johnson (1993) in which they state that:

These adolescents are growing up without a hope of enjoying the advantages that go with adulthood. They are not learning the skills necessary to participate in the educational system or make the transition to the labour force. There is a widening gap between achievers and non-achievers. A sub group of young learners is appearing who are functionally illiterate, disconnected from school, prone to substance abuse and early criminal activity. (Vol. 1, p. 48)

For the Canadian Native (see Note 1) student, the consequences of leaving school prior to graduation are significant. While accurate figures are difficult to obtain, the rate at which Native youth prematurely exit the education system is substantially higher than that of the general population (see Note 2). In an economy that is demanding ever-increasing levels of skills and education in its workforce, the long term economic prospects for Native people in general and for urban Native people in particular, will continue to be severely diminished as long as current dropout levels persist.

The purpose of this article is to examine the dimensions of the dropout phenomenon among both Canadian Native and non-Native youth with an aim to determine; (a) to what extent are the dropout rates experienced by Native students a result of a conflict between Native and non-Native cultures and (b) to what extent are the educational experiences of Native and non-Native dropouts one of sharing a common dissonance?

Limitations
Any discussion surrounding this issue, particularly in the case of Native students, is limited by the provisions of the Indian Act as well as the limitations dictated by the record keeping system currently employed by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). In addition to these factors, there exists a general disagreement on how to define and account for those students who exit the education system prior to graduation.

Problems Inherent with the Indian Act
Any accounting of the dimensions of the dropout problem among Canadian Native youth is complicated by the fact that Native people in Canada are divided into four categories. These are (a) Status Indians (see Note 3), (b) Non-Status Indians (see Note 4), (c) Inuit (see Note 5), and (d) Metis (see Note 6). Of these categories, the federal government maintains educational statistics for those students who belong to the first group and who live in First Nations communities. This situation makes any statistically accurate accounting of the dropout rate among Native youth difficult to attain. As Mackay and Myles (1989) state;

No group in Ontario whether Native provincial or federal, maintains statistical records concerning the education of Native students for the primary purpose of providing a data base for education research. The statistics department of the Ontario Ministry of Education does not separate out Native students as a distinct subgroup in the data it collects. (p. 9)

Furthermore, the situation is clouded by the fact that, since the federal government's financial obligation towards Non-Status and Metis do not differ from that of the general population, it does not maintain any data base for a substantial (and in reality a large majority) number of Native students. As such, while it is possible to discuss the general dimensions surrounding the dropout phenomena among Native youth, it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify it.

The Nominal Roll
The federal government's record system (referred to as the Nominal Roll) is seriously flawed for research purposes. INAC maintains records only for those Status Indian students who attend schools in First Nations communities and for those students whose residence is in a First Nations community but who attend school outside the community. These records do not account for those students whose parents have moved away from their reserves, students who have been retained in grade one or more times, students who drop out then return to school, and those students who attend secondary school on a part-time basis or through correspondence courses. As such, the Nominal Roll is of questionable value as a data base for education research purposes.

Defining the Term Dropout
In spite of the fact that the dropout phenomenon has been the subject of a sizeable body of literature, there remains little agreement as to a standardized definition of the term 'dropout'. While the veracity of the various definitions is subject to debate, for the sake of consistency in this discussion, the term dropout will be defined as "any person who left secondary school for whatever reason prior to graduating" (Sullivan, 1988, p. 1).

The Cultural Discontinuity Hypothesis
While there is substantial literature examining the issue among mainstream and various minority group students, little has been written, until recently, concerning early school leavers of Native origin in North America. As Ledlow (1992) notes "there is little actual research which specifically addresses the causes of American Indian students dropping out" " (p. 22). There is, however, a common theme to much of the literature that does exist: the examination of the 'cultural discontinuity hypothesis'.

The 'cultural discontinuity hypothesis' states that;

culturally based differences in the communication styles of the minority students' home and the Anglo culture of the school leads to conflicts, misunderstandings, and ultimately, failure for those students. The research focuses on the process rather than the structure of education and concludes that making the classroom culturally appropriate will mean a higher rate of achievement. (Ledlow, 1992, p. 23)

The acceptance of this hypothesis is not exclusive to the United States. Wilson (1992) notes that there are major differences in the academic performance in Canadian schools among Native students who "perform well at elementary schools on reservations [and the same students] who perform very poorly when they later transfer to mainstream secondary schools" (p. 46). Wilson (1992) attributes such changes in performance to "unresolved cultural discontinuity, experienced as conflict, which is faced by the students" (p. 46). The result of this conflict is reduced academic performance, behavior that brings the student into conflict with teachers and administrators, ultimately leading to the decision to drop out. Frideres (1987) aptly summarizes the "cultural discontinuity theory", as applied to Canadian Native students, when he writes;

Schools, to a certain extent, reflect the dominant social values of society. . . . Today then, the educational process instills the business creed into students, stressing the practical usefulness of education, competitive success and making students conform to middle-class standards. Any student unwilling to adopt and internalize this dominant value will find the education process frustrating and useless. (p. 284)

As appealing as this hypothesis may be, it does not fully explain the dropout situation among Canadian Native students in that it does not explain; (a) why the tendency to dropout varies widely among Canadian Native youth depending upon the economic circumstances of their families, (b) why the dropout rates vary so widely from Native community to Native community, and (c) why the school experiences of Native dropouts so closely resemble those of their non-Native peers.

Unlike their Native contemporaries, a substantial body of studies have dealt with the dropout issue among non-Native youth. Both Anisef and Johnson (1993) and Sullivan (1988) found that a student's socioeconomic status is a major influence on a student's likely educational prospects. As Sullivan (1988) notes, the median family income of secondary school graduates (at the time of his study) was $33,180 compared to $27,030 among dropouts. He also notes that "those who did not complete secondary school were more likely to have fathers who were in blue collar occupations and were less likely to be involved in upper level white collar jobs or be self-employed" (p. 6). Family structure also appears to influence school completion rates. Sullivan (1988), Radwanski (1987) and Anisef and Johnson (1993), all indicate that the dropout rate is significantly higher among students coming from single parent families. Anisef and Johnson (1993) indicate that the lack of a stable and supportive family often leads to lower levels of academic achievement which can lead the decision to prematurely leave school.

In addition to these factors, investigators have also identified factors that are specific to the educational system. This includes evidence that dropouts are academically frustrated, tend to be extrinsically rather that intrinsically motivated (in that they see more value in a pay check than in good grades on a report card), and often feel alienated from the school culture (Radwanski, 1987). Karp (1988) reports that many (45%) dropouts, when interviewed report having "some difficulty in one or more academic areas" (p. 19). Similarly, Radwanski (1987), notes that 82% of dropouts report, "having failed at least one subject in high school" and that "30% of dropouts and only 7% of non-dropouts, failed a grade while in elementary school or junior high school" (p. 79).

Furthermore, school leavers appear to be motivated by a different set of considerations than their more academically successful peers. Radwanski (1987) states that dropouts tend to be; (a) non-academic in orientation and more likely to lose interest in a subject as they cannot see its immediate relevance, (b) short range goal setters who are more motivated by the immediate rewards of a job than the less tangible rewards of the classroom, and (c) concrete rather than abstract thinkers.

Finally, both Radwanski (1987) and Karp (1988) point out that many dropouts feel alienated from the school system. As Karp (1988) notes, many of these students find themselves in situations where they often believe themselves to be ignored by a system which is oriented towards their brighter peers. Furthermore, they believe that they are treated differently by their teachers in spite of the fact that the latter claim to treat all students equally; treatment that is rooted in their manner of dress and socioeconomic background. In other words, they feel excluded from the institutional culture of their schools and respond to this exclusion by exiting the system. This sense of alienation provides both Native and non-Native dropouts with a common experience and provides a foundation for a reexamination of the "Cultural Discontinuity Theory."

Criticisms of the Cultural Discontinuity Theory
As previously discussed, the 'cultural discontinuity theory', in and of itself, does not fully explain why a disproportionate number of Native students exit the education system prior to graduation from secondary school. While it cannot be denied that many Native students find themselves in an alien cultural milieu while attending mainstream secondary schools, such cultural differences alone do not account for a number of interesting anomalies. Among these are; (a) the fact that there is a strong correlation between the economic position of individual Native students and the inclination to dropout, (b) the fact that dropout rates vary widely from one First Nations community to another, and (c) why the school experiences of Native and non-Native dropouts so closely resemble each other.

First, Hull (1990), in his examination of the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and the dropout rate among Native and non-Native youth, noted that a strong correlation existed between the SES of a student and the propensity to leave school prematurely. Using data from a series of INAC studies released in 1986 and 1987, Hull (1990), compared the educational attainment of Status-Indians and other children and analyzed it in terms of their parents SES using the Blishen-McRoberts classification of Canadian occupations (see Note 7). This comparison indicated that;

High school graduation among the Indian population is much more sensitive to parents' SES than it is among other Canadians. Registered Indian children whose parents have a high SES are more than twice as likely to have completed high school than Indian children whose parents have a low SES (70% compared to 30%). SES is also important for non-Indian children, but not as dramatically. . . . In other words, high school completion is the norm for non-Indian children, but is unusual for Indian children unless their parents have a high SES. (p. 3)

Secondly, cultural discontinuity alone does not fully explain why dropout rates among Native youth vary so widely from community to community. Hull (1990) notes, for example, that educational attainment rates for on-reserve Status Indians rise in proportion to the accessibility of the community and their proximity to urban centers. Additionally, Mackay and Myles (1989) note that;

According to the Nominal Roll figures for this decade, retention rates between grades 9 and 12 varies from an annual average of more than 90 percent for registered Indian students attending provincial secondary schools in the District of Peterborough and Brantford to an annual average low of 11 percent for such students attending provincial secondary schools in the Nakina District and 9 percent in James Bay District. (p. 15)

Finally, studies by Radwanski (1987), Myles and Mackay (1989), Wilson (1992), Brantlinger (1993), Oakes (1985), and Gamoran and Barens (1987) reveal strong similarities between the perceptions of Native and non-Native at-risk students, alike, regarding their interactions with school administrations, teachers as well as with their more academically successful peers. Both groups appear to be similarly affected by such administrative practices as academic streaming, both report to be treated in a similar manner by their teachers, and both groups perceive themselves to be excluded from the dominant school culture by their peers. Furthermore, the result for both groups is remarkably the same; an increased likelihood (if not certainty) of dropping out prior to graduation.

As such, while the research is far from conclusive, there would appear to be sufficient grounds to suggest that there are a number of other factors (SES being the most significant), apart from cultural discontinuity, that contribute significantly to the penchant of many Native youth to leave school prematurely. Therefore, if the cultural discontinuity theory is expanded to include the student's SES rather than just his/her ethnicity, then it can be arguably demonstrated that many Native and non-Native dropouts share a common solitude, a solitude based, to a great extent, on economic deprivation.

Holmes (1985) contends that one of the purposes of secondary education is the inculcation of "deeply held value commitments, attitudes and habitual behaviour" (p. 24). As such, the values promoted by the public educational systems of both Canada and the United States tend to be those of its majority clientele; the suburban middle class. These values are reflected in the creation of school cultures, cultures which are transmitted to the students by teachers and administrators and are evident in the manner in which students interact with their peers. Given the existence of this predominant school culture, it is not surprising, therefore, that so many students who are excluded from this school culture choose to prematurely exit the system. It is in light of these observations that the cultural discontinuity theory needs to be re-configured and where Native and non-Native dropouts have, in many instances as shared experience. Both groups often share a common background (low SES) and both are excluded from the mainstream of their school cultures by teachers and administrative practices alike. The extent and results of this exclusion can be illustrated through such administrative practices as; (a) the streaming (tracking) of students according to perceived academic ability, (b) the uneven manner in which administrators enforce policies and practices with regard to different groups of students, (c) the different manner in which teachers treat different groups of students, and (d) the way in which students interact with their peers.

Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement
The relationship between perceived academic achievement, as demonstrated through the streaming process, cannot be underestimated. A study conducted by the Toronto Board of Education notes:

that 18.4 percent of students with fathers in the lowest socio-economic status occupational category, and 15.3 per cent of those with fathers in the second-lowest category, were in Basic-level courses in Grade 9. . . . The same study found that 30.7 percent and 32.6 per cent of the students with fathers in the lowest and second-lowest occupational categories respectively were in General-level courses compared to 6.4 percent and 7.2 percent of students in the highest and second-highest socio-economic categories. (Radwanski, 1987, pp. 76-77)

Conversely, the same study found that, "a whopping 92 per cent [sic] of students from the highest socio-economic background and 87.9 per cent [sic] of those from the second-highest, were in the advanced level program" (p. 7).

Given the socioeconomic status of many Native people in Canada, it is not surprising to note that a disproportionately large percentage of Native youth are consigned by the secondary school system to non-academic course streams. For example, an Ontario Ministry of Education (1984) document entitled Provincial Review Report: Native Education found that among Native students attending provincially operated schools, "15 per cent [sic] received most of their instruction at the advanced level, 59 per cent [sic] at the general level, and 26 per cent [sic] at the basic level" (p. 4). These figures stand in stark contrast to those for the general population where 60 percent of students are enrolled at the advanced level, 33 percent at the general level and 7 percent are enrolled at the basic level (King & Hughes, 1985). The over-representation of Native students in general and basic level courses has been confirmed in a latter study by Myles and Mackay (1989) which found that "Native students are consistently 'placed' willingly and unwillingly in general and basic levels" (p. 56). This practice is not limited to Ontario. Wilson's (1992) study of the problems faced by Native students attending a public secondary school in a mid-sized Western city indicates that Native students are often "forced into low-level courses because everyone around them assumed that they were incapable of handling university preparatory work" (p. 52).

The negative effects of the aforementioned practice is not limited to Native youth, as non-Native students who are streamed into lower level courses also experience significantly lower retention rates when compared to their academic stream peers. As Radwanski (1987) notes, the dropout rate among general and basic level students (62 and 79%, respectively) were substantially higher than those for the advance level (12%).

The practice of streaming is not the only institutional convention that has a negative impact on Native and non-Native students coming from low SES backgrounds. A variety of studies point to other institutional practices found in the public secondary school which also create a climate that alienates minority and disadvantaged students alike. These practices affect both Native and non-Native students and have a similar effect in that they estrange both groups from the educational system.

One such practice is the different manner in which school policies such as attendance regulations are enforced. Wilson (1992) states that Native students:

told of how attendance policies in the school were used to get rid of kids who did not fit in. . . . Classes in the school were large, and as soon as Indian students reached their allowed 10 absences, they were withdrawn from the class list. Indian students know of white students who had as many as 20 absences were allowed to remain in class. (p. 51)

Uneven application of institutional rules and regulations is not restricted to the treatment of visible minority students. A study by Brantlinger (1993) indicates that low income adolescents often harbour the belief that school administrators are uneven in their enforcement of school rules, often giving harsher penalties for rule infractions to lower income students than are the norm for their higher income peers.

The majority of low-income adolescents (24,80%) complained about unfairness saying that punishment was undeserved, too severe, disproportionate to misdeeds or that they had been picked on or singled out. . . . Again responses of high-income adolescents concurred with those of their low-income counterparts. Nineteen (57%), in contrast to nine low-income respondents (23%) believed that they had a personal advantage in meting out justice. . . . Such responses conveyed that teachers were more tolerant of high-income adolescents because they trusted them, were intimidated by them or their parents, or identified with them and were amused by their "pranks." (Brantlinger, 1993, p. 6)

Such incidents are not limited to school administrative practices, but often extend to the relationship between students and teachers, as well as between students and their peers.

Oakes (1985), as well as Gamoran and Barens (1987), report a considerable difference in the manner in which teachers interact with low track students and their more academically inclined peers. Oakes (1985), for example, concluded that upper track teachers tend to be more enthusiastic, to vary their methods of presentation and use more constructive criticism than teachers in lower track classes. Similarly, Wilson (1992) observed that "teachers seldom, if ever, made contact with Indian students in their classrooms" (pp. 51-52).

This pattern of treatment also appears to extend into adolescent peer group relationships. A study by Karp (1988) indicates that 63% of the dropouts participating in the survey were of the opinion that advanced students looked down on them. Brantlinger (1993) is more forceful in discussing this issue when she states that "the consensus among low-income respondents (27,67.5%) was that high-income adolescents formed cliques that excluded others, but rejection was not simply their fantasy; this position was supported by affluent adolescents" (p. 5).

For Native students such rejection is even more painful since they are even further marginalized within the school culture. Wilson (1992) points to the fact that "Indian students endured 'racial slurs' and 'spoke of areas of the school where Indians students were not supposed to be" (p. 52). In other words, the culture of the secondary school system, as institutionalized by its various official and unofficial practices, has been internalized by the students to the extent that it directly influences their treatment of one another. Students, Native and non-Native alike, who do not conform to the middle class ethos of their schools find themselves excluded from the mainstream, officially sanctioned school culture. As Brantlinger (1993) observes:

The formal organization of school, such as stratified curricular tracks and scaled grading practices, and the informal interactions, such as high-income students' exclusiveness, were legitimated by views of social classes. . . Although the organization of the school may not be responsible for social class rifts, it did nothing to bridge the chasm. (p. 10)

While there can be little doubt that cultural discontinuity does play an important role in the disposition of many Native adolescents to leave school prior to graduation, it falls short of fully explaining the phenomenon. As Wilson (1992) points out, success or failure in school is more of a reflection of society's social and cultural structure than a result of any person's individual attributes. By approaching this issue from a broader perspective, it is apparent that Native adolescents share a number of experiences with their non-Native counterparts; experiences which isolate them from the mainstream culture of the contemporary secondary school. Wilson's (1992) and Brantlinger's (1993) findings are analogous, in that they both detect what Brantlinger regards as a perception that "high and low income respondents had extremely similar views, associating socioeconomic status with factors such as achievement, intelligence, behaviour patterns and self-worth" (p. 8). Given this perception, it is not surprising that both Native and non-Native dropouts share many of the same feelings of alienation from the educational system, feelings that have their origins in the same source: the failure of the system to accommodate students who come from backgrounds other than that of the mainstream middle class culture.

This lack of accommodations is evident in the practice of streaming the majority of disadvantaged Native and non-Native youth into lower track or nonacademic course streams. It is also evident from the fact that both groups report that they are treated differently from their more advantaged peers by school officialdom, and that institutional rules and regulations are applied more rigorously to them. This differential treatment also extends to the manner in which teachers interact with different groups of students within the classroom setting.

Finally, it is evident that the aforementioned institutional practices have been internalized by these students to the extent that they are perpetuated and reinforced by the students themselves. It is entirely plausible to suggest that while being a member of a visible minority does play a significant role in the decision to dropout, being part of a larger cultural minority (the socioeconomically disadvantaged), plays an equal, if not greater, role in the creation of this phenomenon. As Ogbu (1983) writes:

minority status is not synonymous with numerical status; it refers, rather to quality of power relations between\in groups. We define a population as a minority if it occupied some form of subordinate power position in relation to another in the same society. (p. 169)

For the Native and non-Native dropout this relationship takes the form of being disempowered by an educational system that is geared to meeting the needs and aspirations of their mainstream clientele. Until it is recognized that the secondary educational system's purpose extends beyond preparing students for postsecondary education, and that the secondary school does have a role to play in the promotion of educational opportunity of the minority student (in the broader definition of the term), the prospect for reducing the dropout rate among Native and non-Native alike will remain tenuous at best.

1. For the purposes of this article, the term Native will include both Status and Non-Status Indians, Inuit and Metis. Thus it is used in its most inclusionary form.
2. Research into this issue is complicated by the fact that it is all but impossible to provide the reader with accurate statistical data. Neither the federal government, nor any of the ten provincial governments maintains a satisfactory data base on Native student retention rates. Furthermore, in the case of the general population, there is considerable debate as to the correct definition of the term dropout. In broad terms the dropout rate among Native youth is estimated to be in the 70-80% range (Anisef & Johnson, 1993, p. 52) while the non-Native rate ranges from 36.1 % (Anisef & Johnson, 1993, p. 20) to 18%. (Gilbert & Orok, 1993, p. 3)
3. Status Indians are Native people who are registered with the federal government consistent with the terms of the Indian Act, and, therefore, hold certain legal rights and are entitled to specific federal benefits. These rights and benefits are a result of a series of treaties signed between various Native groups and the federal government between 1871 and 1923.
4. Non-Status Indians are people of Native origin who, for one reason or another, have either lost their status or are not registered with the federal government. Therefore, they do not enjoy (at least in the eyes of the federal or provincial governments) special legal status, nor are they entitled to any other federal benefits not available to the general population.
5. The Inuit are the original inhabitants of Canada's northern territories. While recognized in the Indian Act and, therefore, entitled to certain federal benefits, the Inuit do not have treaty rights as they have not entered into any treaty arrangements with the federal government.
6. Metis are people of mixed Native and non-Native origin who distinguish themselves from Indians and Inuit.
7. The Blishen-McRoberts classification system ranks occupations based on their educational requirements and income characteristics.