|Re: 10 - 11 Drop numbers|
Poster: JEhinger Posted: 2012/3/27 11:54:29
So I blew my lunch hour on this but it’s interesting. In theory, the methodology requires inclusion of nulls as drop outs, but there are some leavers excluded from the numerator for reasons that might have some weak controls generally. That is, could result in less meaningful stats from districts that follow the reporting rules.
Leavers not counted as drop outs:
82 - Left for school out of state – could be based on thin documentation. “He went to live with his aunt in Altanta and goes to school there, I promise.”
83 - Not entitled to enrollment. Depending of definition of “resident” – this could result in variability and vulnerability to manipulation with respect to migrant, transient, highly mobile families.
16 - Returned to home country. Not counted as drop outs – does not require any knowledge of whether student is in school. Could be based on thin documentation. “My son Werther moved back to Liechtenstein, I promise.” Can mask de facto drop outs but on the other hand, counting these as drop outs would basically ding Texas and school districts for the educational policies of other countries. For example, given that Mexico doesn’t have compulsory education for grades 10 to 12 (per Wikipedia), how do you count a student who moves to Mexico but is done with school? Perhaps a refinement on this would be to separately count each country to which they return – allowing further study into the longitudinal effects using country drop out stats. Or for students who move back to countries without compulsory education through grade 12, track that as well. And then of course, you could make some argument that some students who leave for countries from which many illegal/undocumented immigrants come (insert whatever word you feel is the politically neutral term) are effectively "drop outs" as they're likely to still be here or return shortly after.
81 - Home schooling – requires only parents to confirm. Could truancy laws result in over reporting?
66 - Removed by child protective services. This seems to make some sense since students in these categories have been pulled out for reasons well beyond a school district’s control. But on the other hand, child services is also a state agency so perhaps some data from child services might be used to provide a fuller picture of where these kids end up. From a state accountability standpoint, if a minor becomes a ward of the state, then it seems like the state is more responsible for their education as the “parent”.
78 – expelled for criminal activity or expelled in county with no juvy. Considering that expulsion is an activity within the control of districts, creates an opportunity, albeit heavy handed and constitutionally suspect, to manipulate.
Leaver codes not counted in state assessments but counted in federal:
89 – incarcerated as adult/tried as adult – again, beyond control of district but perhaps state should merge education data with corrections data on GED or other educational programs
88 – court ordered GED program but GED not earned
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/acctres/Dr ... resent_TAC_Dec_5_2011.pdf
I guess if someone is really motivated, they could try to get the leaver codes for LISD and see how the attendance numbers drop is accounted for.