A school system hired Edstar to evaluate all of their dropout prevention programs in the district.  They were wanting to move toward using data-driven decisions rather than professional judgment, and they wanted to know which of their programs were most effective.  This was a medium to large district in an urban area.  There were a lot of high schools.  We got data on everyone who was served by their dropout programs over the previous few years.  We had them articulate for us how students were identified to be in these programs, and what the objectives of the programs were. What were they hoping to change in these students to make them less likely to drop out?

They reported that students were referred to the programs by teachers and school counselors for being “at-risk,” but “having potential.” They wanted to help the at-risk student with the most potential. They had not ever articulated objectives for the individuals served. They just had the general goal of the dropout rate lowering. We asked them for something measurable that they were hoping to change in the students served. Reflecting on this, they told us that these students were "at-risk" or their teachers and school counselors would not have referred them. Therefore, they must be below grade level on standardized tests, had poor reading skills, and have behavior problems–either suspensions or attendance.  They then wrote objectives that these students would pass algebra and English 1, both of which were required for graduation, and that suspensions for these students would be fewer and attendance would improve. The program staff did not know how to put together a file of course enrollment, test scores, suspensions, and attendance data so they were not able to look at baseline data for these students to set realistic targets.

We created a data file for the students in the programs, and those served over the past several years. We found that the majority of the students were low-income or minority. About 85% of them had always scored at or above grade level proficiency on both math and reading tests and had never failed a core course. They also had never been suspended and did not have attendance problems. (This is probably why teachers and counselors saw them as having so much potential, even though they were viewed as "at risk.")