The Dropout Argument

by: Stephen D. Krashen



Critics of bilingual education have cited the high Hispanic dropout rate as evidence against bilingual education. Since most bilingual programs are Spanish-English, it is concluded that bilingual education must be responsible. In this note, I review what is known about dropout rates among Hispanic students.


Do Hispanic students drop out more?

The latest figures from the US government have been recently released, covering the academic year 1994-1995 (McMillan, Kaufman, and Klein, 1997). Defining the dropout rate as the proportion of young adults (ages 16 to 24) who are not enrolled in a high school program and who have not completed high school, there is no question that Hispanic students have higher dropout rates: 30 percent of Hispanic young adults were classified as dropouts, compared to 8.6% for non-Hispanic whites and 12.1% for non Hispanic blacks.

Among Hispanic young adults, however, dropout figures include many who never enrolled in school, foreign born immigrants who apparently came to the US for work and not education (p. 31). The government report calculates that about one-third of the 30% dropout figure for Hispanic young adults is due to non-enrollees. The true dropout rate is thus about 20%.

Is bilingual education to blame?

It is true that most students in bilingual education speak Spanish, but not all Spanish speaking children are in bilingual education. Far from it. Fewer than half of the Spanish speaking children in school in California are limited English proficient (Han, Baker, and Rogriquez 1997, Snyder and Hoffman, 1996). Of these, not all are in programs that provide instruction in the primary language; according to Macias (1997), about 30% were in programs that had academic instruction in the primary language while another 22% had "informal" support in the first language. Thus, most Spanish speaking children are NOT in bilingual education. The 20% dropout figure applies to all Spanish speaking children.

What accounts for dropout rates?

Not surprisingly, English language speaking ability is a factor. Again limiting the analysis to those who actually enrolled in school, those who reported speaking English "not well" had a 32.9% dropout rate, while those who spoke English well or very well had a 19.2% dropout rate (McMillan, Kaufman and Klein, 1997). This is , once again, not an argument against bilingual education, because studies have shown that children in well-designed bilingual programs do well in English.

Several "background factors" have been identified as consistent predictors of dropping out: Socioeconomic class, time spent in the US, the presence of print, and family factors. Students in wealthier families drop out less, those who have been here longer and who live in a more print-rich environment drop out less, those who live with both parents, and whose parents monitor school work drop out less, and those who do not become teen parents drop out less.

What is of great interest to us is that these background factors appear to be responsible for the difference in dropout rates among different ethnic groups. In other words, when researchers control for these factors, there is no difference in dropout rates between Hispanics and other groups. This result holds for those who drop out between grades 8 and 10 (Rumberger, 1995) as well as for those who drop out later (Rumberger, 1983; White and Kaufman, 1997; Pirog and Magee, 1997).

Rumberger (1995), for example, concluded: "Changes in the predicted odds of dropping out associated with demographic variables become insignificant after controlling for other factors. For example, Black, Hispanic, and Native American students have twice the odds of dropping out compared to White students ... however, after controlling for the structural characteristics of family background - particularly, socioeconomic status - the predicted odds of dropping out are no different than those for White students" (p. 605).

Hispanic students are well behind majority children in these areas. Approximately 40% of Hispanic children live in poverty, compared to 15% of white non-Hispanic children, and 45% live with parents who have completed high school, compared to 81% of non Hispanic white children. Only 68% live with both parents, compared to 81% of non Hispanic white children (Rumberger, 1991).

White and Kaufman (1997), in their study of high school dropouts between 1980 and 1986 provide a clear example of the impact of these factors.

Probabilities of dropping out of high school: impact of SES, social capital, generation

White - low SES, low social capital = .23
Black - low SES, low social capital = .22
White - high SES, high social capital = .08
Black - high SES, high social capital = .08
Mexican - immigrant, less than 6 years in US, low SES, low social capital = .40
Mexican - immigrant, more than 6 years, high SES, high social capital = .12
Mexican- second generation or native, high SES, high social capital = .10
Asian - immigrant, less than 6 years in US, low SES, low social capital = .31
Asian - immigrant, more than 6 years in US, high SES, high social capital = .08
Asian - second generation or native, high SES, high social capital = .07

social capital = living with both parents,parents monitor schoolwork,siblings in college from: White and Kaufman (1997)


Note that Hispanic lower social class new immigrants without family factors working in their favor have a high probability of dropping out, but when factors are more favorable, there is no significant difference in the probability of dropping out among the groups.

Additional evidence that there is strong economic pressure on many Hispanic students comes from Rumberger (1983), who listed the reasons students gave for dropping out. Only 4% of Hispanic male dropouts said that the reason was "poor performance" in school (compared to 8% of male non-Hispanic white students). On the other hand, 38% of the Hispanic students gave economic reasons (desire to work, financial difficulties, home responsibilities), compared to 22% of the non-Hispanic white students. Similar tendencies were present for female dropouts.


Does Spanish language development increase the odds of dropping out?

Maintenance of Spanish language and culture may prevent dropping out. The US Government report found that for those Hispanic young adults who were enrolled in school in the US, there is no difference in dropout rates between those who said they spoke Spanish at home (20.3%) and those who said they spoke English at home (17.5%). White and Kaufman (1997) and Rumberger (1995) report similar results.

Rumbaut (1995) examined the progress of over 15,000 high school students in San Diego from language minority groups. Predictably, those classified as limited English proficient had lower grade point averages and were more likely to drop out. What is very interesting, however, is that those classified as "fluent English proficient" (in other words, bilingual), had better grades and slightly lower dropout rates than those rated English-only. This was the case even though parents of "English-only" students were of higher socio-economic status than parents of the bilingual students.


Conclusions

The dropout rate among Hispanic students is not linked to bilingual education, and there is no "Hispanic dropout mystery" (Headden, 1997).

No direct link has been reported between dropout rates and participation in bilingual education. Less than a third of Hispanic children in California are in bilingual programs, and the reported dropout rates refer to all Hispanic children. In fact, because well designed bilingual programs produce better academic English (Krashen, 1996), bilingual education is part of the cure, not the disease.

Some factors predicting dropout rates have, however, been identified: Low English language ability, poverty, length of residence in the US, the print environment, and family factors. The important finding from the research is that when these factors are controlled statistically, there is no difference among groups in dropout rates. Hispanics do not drop out anymore than other groups do, when one considers socio-economic class and other background factors.

Finally, there is evidence showing that development of the first language, in addition to fluent and proficient English, is advantageous: Those who speak Spanish at home do not drop out significantly more than those who speak English at home, the results of one study suggest that those who continue to develop their primary language after achieving proficiency in English drop out less.



References

Han, M., Baker, D., and Rodriguez, C. 1997. A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficient Students: Screening Methods, Program Support, and Teacher Training. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, NCES 97-472.

Headden, S. 1997. The Hispanic dropout mystery. US News and World Report, October 20: 64-65.

Krashen, S. 1996. Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City: Language Education Associates.

Macias, R. 1997. CA LEP enrollment slows but continues to rise. LMRI (Linguistic Minority Research Institute), 7,1: 1-2.

McMillen, M., Kaufman, P. and Klein, S. 1997. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995. Washington: US Dept of Education. NCES 97-473.

Pirog, M. and Magee, C. 1997. High school completion: The influence of schools, families, and adolescent parenting. Social Science Quarterly 78: 710-724.

Rumberger, R. 1983. Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and family background. American Educational Research Journal 20 (2): 199-220.

Rumberger, R. 1991. Chicano dropouts: A review of research and policy issues. In R. Valencia (Ed.) Chicano School Failure and Success. New York: Falmer Press.

Rumberger, R. 1995. Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal 32 (3): 583-625.

Snyder, T. and Hoffman, D. 1966. Digest of Educational Statistics.Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, US Department of Education.

White, M. and Kaufman, G. 1997. Language usage, social capital, and school completion among immigrants and native-born ethnic groups. Social Science Quarterly 78 (2): 385-398.



Stephen Krashen is a Professor of Education at the University of Southern California



Copyright Stephen D. Krashen


RETURN TO HOME PAGE

USC CENTER FOR MULTILINGUAL MULTICULTURAL RESEARCH