Sinclair 2

8/14/2019 Sinclair 2

1/19

Vol. 71. No.4. pp. 465-482.2005 Council or Exceptional Children.

Promoting School Completion ofUrban Secondary Youth WithEmotional or BehavioralDisabilitiesMARY F, SINCLAIRUniversity of KansasSANDRA L, CHRISTENSONMARTHA L, THURLpWUniversity of Minnesota

ABSTRACT: AH experimental research design was used to examine the effectiveness of a targeted,long-term intervention to promote school completion and reduce dropout among urban high schoolstudents with emotional or behavioral disabilities. African American (67%) males (82%) com-posed a large portion ofthe sample. This intervention study was a replication ofan emp iricallysupported m odel referred to as check & connect. Study participants included 144 ninth graders,randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. The majority of youth were followed for 4years, with a subsample followed for 5 years. Program outcomes included lower rates of dropoutand mobility, higher rates of persistent attendance and enrollment status in school, and more com-prehensive transition plans.

T he risk of school failure and highincidence of negative postschooioutcomes are critical concernsfor the education of youth withemotional or behavioral disabili-ties (also referred to as serious emotional distur-bance or emotional or behavioral disorders), Adisproportionate number of these youth drop outof school and experience higher postschooi rates

Students (NLTS) indicated that 55% of youthwith emotional disturbance drop out of school,compared to 36% of all students with disabilitiesover the same time period and 24% of a compa-rable cohort of general education students acrossthe country (Wagner, 1995, Table 2), In 1999 to2000, 40% ( = 14,842) of youth with emotionalor behavioral disabilities age 14 and older gradu-ated with a standard diploma and 5 1 % {n =


2/19

disabilities, analysis of the NLTS data indicatedthat only 28% graduate from high school with adiploma, compared to 42 % of all youth identifiedwith this disability, 56% of all youth with disabil-ities, and 79% ofa similar cohort of general edu-cation peers (Osher & Osher, 1996).Blackorby and Wagner (1996) found that35 % of youth with emotional disturbances werearrested 3 to 5 years after they graduated, and upto 73% of those who dropped out were arrested.One third of youth with emotional disturbancewere nor employed either 2 to 5 years out ofschool, and 19% of those who were employed losttheir job at least once; this is the highest percent-age among all students with disabilities (Wagner,1995). Attendance difficulties were a commonreason for dropping out noted by youth withlearning or emotional or behavioral disabilities(Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). Mobility is also a sig-nificant component of the school experienceamong school dropouts and for youth with emo-tional or behavioral disabilities in particular. Fifiy-two percent of all the students with emotional orbehavioral disabilities who exited special educa-tion did so because they moved, compared to37% of students across all disability categories(U.S. Department of Education, 2002, Table AD -1). Students from the National Education Longi-tudinal Study who experienced one or morenonpromotional school changes between 8th and12th grades were twice as likely to drop out ofschool (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Osher,Morrison, and Bailey (2003) identified a cumula-tive exposure to mobility over time and settingsamong youth with emotional or behavioral dis-abilities that was highly associated with droppingout.

Moreover, the availability of experimental,evidence-based intervention studies that directlyinvestigate dropout prevention or school comple-tion is limited (Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & Chris-tenson, 2003). Dropout prevention interventionstudies that report outcomes separately for stu-dents with disabilities or include students receiv-ing special education services are even fewer (Lehret al., 2003). Th e vast majority of information on

of the youth, the families, the communities inwhich they live, and the schools they attend(Christenson, Sinclair, Lehr, & Hurley, 2000). Although this research is valuable, practitioners andpolicymakers in search of empirically supportedintervention strategies will need to rely on studiesthat examine secondary indicators of dropout prevention, such as reduction in problem behaviothrough positive behavioral supports or increasingstudent's affiliation with school through service

Attendance difficulties were a commonreason for dropping out no ted by youthwith learning or emotional or behavioraldisabilities.

learning programs. More experimental researchand evaluation studies are needed on the effectiveness of prevention and intervention strategies directly in relation to the impact on dropout andschool completion rates.

P U R P O S E A N DT H E S T U D Y

IMPORTANCE OF

This study investigated the effectiveness of thcheck & connect model of student engagemenfor urban high school students with emotional obehavioral disabilities. The model was originalldeveloped to prevent dropout and to promotstudent engagement among urban middle schoostudents with disabilities (Sinclair, ChristensonEvelo, & Hurley, 1998). The check component the model refers to the continuous and systematiassessment of student levels of engagement witschool (e.g., attendance, suspensions, gradescredits). The connect component refers to timeand individualized intervention focused on student's educational progress, guided by the checindicators, and provided by program staff in partnership with school personnel, family membersand com munity workers.


3/19

is a process of withdrawal and disengagementrather than an event that occurs at a specific mo-ment in time (Finn, 1993). An influential aspectof Finn's research was his approach to classifyingthe long list of dropout predicators. He essentiallydivided them into two categories: alterable predic-tors that educators, family, and community mem-bers have the power to change (school suspensionpolicies, student's attendance patterns, accessibil-ity of services) and status predictor variables thatexceed the realm of influence among educatorsand families (home language, disability, poverty).This division of predictor variables was applied tothe development of the model with an apprecia-tion for the contextual influences of home,school, and community support for learning(Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Christenson, 1995).This intervention study is compelling fortwo reasons. First, check & connect is an empiri-cally supported model that has demonstrated ef-fectiveness among students with and withoutdisabilities, at elementary, middle, and highschool levels, in urban and suburban communi-ties (Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson, 2004; Sinclair

et al., 1998; Sinclair & Kaibel, 2002; Thurlow,Christenson, Sinclair, & Evelo, 1997). Second,the model is conceptually grounded in a broadbase of research on student engagement (Finn,1993) and school dropout (Blackorby & Wagner,1996; Rum berger, 1 995; Wagner, 1995), re-siliency (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), socialcompetence (Braswell & Bloomquist, 1991 ; Elias&C Clabby, 1992), as well as home-school collabo-ration (Christenson, 1995) and the goodness offit between the student and school in the contextof the student's home, community, and peers(Bronfenbrenner, 1995).RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

This study used a longitudinal experimental re-search design, with random assignment of stu-dents to treatment (i.e., check & connect) orcontrol group. The results of the investigation re-ported here focus on program impact. We hy-pothesized that s tudents with emotional orbehavioral disabilities who participated in check

plete school or remain on track toward comple-tion, and more likely to have a developed and in-dividualized education program (IEP) transitionplan than their peers receiving typical district ser-

M ETHOD

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The participating school district was purposefullyselected for this intervention study for its preva-lence of youth with emotional or behavioral dis-abilities as well as for the history of productivecollaboration between the researchers and district.The district is urban and one of the 100 largest inthe country with a diverse population ethnically,linguistically, and economically, providing specialeducation services to about 14% of the students.Less than half of the district's entire 2000 gradua-

Conceptually, the components and under-lying principles of the check & connectmodel were shaped by the orientation thatdropping out is a process of withdrawaland disengagement rather than an eventthat occurs at a specific moment in time.

tion class (the 1996-1997 cohor t of n in thgraders) completed high school in 4 years38%dropped out, 11 % moved out of district, and theremaining 8% were still enrolled in school.Students targeted for this longitudinalstudy included all ninth graders from two consec-utive cohorts receiving special education servicesfor an emotional or behavioral disability and en-rolled in any of the district's seven comprehensivehigh schools ( = 206). The study began mid-Oc-tober 1996 with the process of identifying the

first cohort of ninth graders from the graduationclass of 2000. Baseline data collection and inter-


4/19

ninth graders from the graduation class of 2001,Baseline data collection and intervention beganfor this second group in late December of the1997 to 1998 school year. Identification of a stu-dent's disability was determined by school districtassessment procedures and state guidelines. In-cluded in the study were students with an activeIEP for a primary (69%) or secondary (12%)emotional or behavioral disability or with primarylabels of learning disability or other health im-pairment when the IEP included behavior goalsand objectives (19%),

For each cohort, students were randomlyassigned to the treatment or control group priorto the process of obtaining permission using astratified sampling procedure. Differentiated per-mission slips were required for each group. Thevariables on which the participants were stratifiedincluded disability, ethnicity, eligibility for free orreduced lunch program, gender, adult with whomthe youth resided, and high school. Siblings wererandomly assigned to treatment or control as agroup. In the few cases where an older sibling wasalready participating in the study, the youngersibling was automatically assigned to the samegroup. Attempts to obtain permission were exten-sive and included a mailing with a self-addressed,stamped envelope for return, making multipletelephone calls, making multiple home visits ondifferent days and different times of day, follow-ing up with persons listed as emergency contacts,talking with neighbors, checking with schoolstaff, and following up after a written refusal. Per-mission was obtained from 175 parents across thetwo cohorts (85%), 19 refused to participate(9%) and 12 students (6%) moved out ofthe dis-trict while in the process of seeking permission.Another 4 of the students with signed permissionsmoved out of district within the first 2 months oftheir ninth-grade year and an additional 7 stu-dents with signed permissions refused to partici-pate after a year of per sisten t att em pts atoutreach, leaving 85 treatment students and 79control students for a total of 164 study partici-pants.

trictwide) and male (84%, compared to 52% dis-trictwide). More than two thirds of the studentswere eligible for free or reduced lunch (70% over-all, comparable to districtwide characteristics) andwere living with one parent (65%, compared to54 % districtwide)typically their mother (61%),Another 13% lived with caregivers other thantheir parent(s). More than two thirds ofthe sam-ple had a primary label of emotional or behavioraldisability (69%), the remaining study participantswete targeted for their secondary label (12%) orassociated behavior goals and objectives (19%),On average, the study participants were 14 yearsand 6 months old at the beginning of ninthgrade. The disproportionate representation ofAfrican American males in the study sample was afunction of the district population and referralprocedures. In January 1998, the participatingschool district and the U.S. Department of Edu-cation's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) entered intoa collaborative agreement that addressed the dis-proportionate numbers of students of color inspecial education and in gifted and talented pro-grams. The 5-year agreement extended to June2002, As part of this agreement, the district im-plemented a range of instructional and assessmenactivities designed to improve student perfor-mance in reading, math, and behavior.

Alterable indicators of engagement at base-line were also characteristic of a population withhigh risk for dropping out. Teacher ratings of stu-dent social behaviors were assessed using the So-cial Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham &Elliott, 1990), The SSRS is a standardized, norm -teferenced questionnaire and provides informa-tion on three areas of social behavior: academiccompetence, social competence, and problem behavior. The baseline ratings were completed byone of the student's core academic general educa-tion teachers (language, math, social studies, science) and/or the student's special education casemanager. Data collection was scheduled to allowtime for the teachers to get to know the studentand to be inclusive of students entering the district mid-year (January and May 1997 for cohor1, March and May 1998 for cohort 2), Ratingoverall were consistently well "below average,


5/19

TABLE 1Student Characteristics 3t Referral by Intervention Group (N = 164)Treatment

Student CharacteristicsControi

MaleEthnicity/RaceEuropean AmericanAfrican AmericanOtherDisability labelPrimary EBDSecondary EB DBehavior goalsTotal n

60 84 58 80174585271271

M80.478.6110.0

87.283.7116.0

246412731017

SD13.515.912.6

12.812.918.7

n

212734

484551

1552649111373

M83.479.5114.4

85.280.9

116.1

21718671518

SD13.113.711.8

13.015.811.6

n

253440

474450

General Educator SSRS'Academic competenceSocial competenceProblem behavior

Special Educator SSRS'Academic competenceSocial competenceProblem behavior

SSRS=Social Skills Rating System teacher version (Gresham & E lliott, 1990). Th e standardized subscale scoresare reported here, where academic competence rating of 78 to 87= 7th to 19th percentile, social competence rating of79 to 86= 8th to 18th percentile, and problem behavior rating of 108 to 118=70th to 89th percentile.

70rh to 89th percentiles on average (see Table 1).Twenty students dropped from the studythrough attrition, 17% ( = 14) from the treat-me nt group and 8% ( = 6) from the c ontrolgroup. The attrition occurred within students'first year in the study, such that no interventioncould be delivered and/or no baseline data couldbe collected. One youth moved out of state.

Seven students entered the correctional systemduring their first year and either remained in thatsetting or never returned to the district. Twelvestudents could not be found at home or at a newaddress after 2 years of search, 4 of whom neverentered the district and 8 of whom could nolonger be found in school. The final sample in-cluded 71 students in the treatment group and 73in the control group, reflecting three quarters ofthe target population for a total of 144 study par-ticipants. In addition, a subsample of 29 studentsfrom the first cohort remained active participants

To ensure comparability between interven-tion groups given the attrition and the need tomaximize sample size, the sample was examinedalong three dimensions before proceeding withanalyses of outcomes: cohort (1 and 2), interven-tion group (treatment, control, attrition, 5thyear), and as a function of gender and ethnicity(males and females, African American males andnon-African American males). Few statisticallysignificant differences were found between any ofthe subgroups across the baseline variables: six sta-tus characteristics and six SSRS ratings of stu-dents' social behaviors by the general and specialeducation teachers. First, analyses of all interven-tion group differences were nonsignificant. Nostatistically significant differences were found be-tween treatment and control groups, among theattrition, treatment and control groups, betweenthe 5th-year students and those who participatedin the study for 4 years, or between treatment and


6/19

However, subgroup analyses revealed a dif-ference between cohorts, associated with disabilitycategory and the African American male sub-groups. Cohort 2 had a greater percentage ofyouth with a primary em otional or behavioral dis-ability (EBD) label compared to cohort 1 (81%vs. 59%) and fewer with a secondary label (7%vs. 19%) or behavior goals and objectives (12%vs. 23%), x^(2) = 8-99, / = .011, = 144, ES =.25. General education teacher ratings of student'sacademic competence were higher for youth withprimary or secondary EBD labels compared tothe students identified for behavior goals and ob-jectives, F(2) = 5.44, p = .008, n = 46, ES = .17.The African American male study participantswere more likely to have a primary EBD label(78% vs. 61%) and less likely to be identified forbehavior goals and objectives compared to theirpeers (9% vs. 27%), X (2) = 8-49,p = .014, n =144, ES = .24. No statistically significant differ-ences were found between cohorts on any of theother baseline measures (all/ values > .05).INTERVENTION DESCRIPTION

The check & connect model of student engage-ment can be characterized by seven interrelatedelements. These core elements guided the role ofprogram staff and included: routine monitoringof alterable indicators of engagement, individual-ized and timely intervention, relationship build-ing, persistence plus, following mobile studentsfrom school to school, problem-solving, and pro-moting affiliation with school and learning (Sin-clair, Ghristenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003, seealso www.ici.unin.edu/checkandconnect).

Routine monitoring of alterable indicators ofstudent engagement was the premise of the checkcomponent of the model. Alterable indicatorsthat were routinely monitored included absen-teeism, out-of-school suspension, and accrual ofcredits (Finn, 1993). Program staff, referred to asmonitors, maintained daily to weekly awareness ofthese indicators for their caseload using one mon-itoring sheet per student (Sinclair et al., 1997).Daily information was summarized and docu-mented at monthly intervals on the form and was

tervention for an entire year on one sheet ofpaper.Individualized and timely intervention wasthe premise of the connect component of themodel. The monitor's primary goal was to keep

education a salient issue for the targeted students,their teachers, and family members. Their role hasbeen characterized as a combination of a mentor,advocate, and service coordinator. The connectcomponent included two levels of student-fo-cused interventions developed to maximize theuse of finite resources: basic intervention, whichwas the same for all students, and intensive inter-ventions, which were more frequent and individu-alized. All students received basic interventions(even if receiving intensive intervent ions),whereas indicators of school engagement wereused to guide who received the delivery of moreintensive interventions. Individual needs of thestudent dictated to an extent what specific inter-vention strategy was used.

The check and connect components werepersonalized through the model's emphasis on re-lationships. Relationship building stemmed fromresiliency research that has documented a strongcorrelation between the presence of a caring adultand positive school and postschool outcomes foryouth placed at high risk for failure (Masten &Goatsworth, 1998). Masten (2001) referred tothese systems of support as "everyday ordinarymagic," such as a significant adult in the life of achild. Gheck & connect was structured to maxi-mize this type of personal contact and these op-por tuni t ies to build t rust ing relat ionships.Monitors worked with a caseload of students andfamilies over a period of 4 to 5 years. The moni-tors' efforts to build relationships extended be-yond the monitor-student dyad to that of familymembers and school staff.

Persistence plus refers to a persistent sourcof academic motivation, a continuity of familiar-ity with the youth and family, and a consistencyin the message that "education is important foryour futurestay in school" (Thurlow, Ghristen-son, Sinclair, Evelo & Thornton, 1995). Persis-tence plus was a message to students that therewas someone who was not going to give up on


7/19

year, the summer, and into the next school year.Following students and families referred to a casemanagement approach in which resources (i.e.,program staff) followed the student from schoolto school throughout the metropolitan area. Thisdesign element rested in the belief that to have asubstantive impact on student engagement, wehad to address issues of mobility, a significant co-variate of school failure among the target popula-tion (Osher et al., 2003; Rumberger & Larson,1998).THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR

Gheck & connect monitors modeled and coachedthe use of a cognitive-behavioral problem-solvingapproach, intended to promote the acquisition ofconfiict resolution skills and the capacity to seeksolutions rather than a source of blame (Braswell& Bloomquist, 1991; Sheridan, 1995). Skill ac-quisition lends itself to capacity building and wasintended to minimize the potential for mentor-ing-type programs to create student and familydependency. The basic connect intervention, forexample, was essentially a weekly-to-biweeklyproblem-solving conversation about the student'sprogress in school, the relationship betweenschool completion and the student's regular par-ticipation in school, the importance of staying inschool, and a review of problem-solving stepsused to resolve confiict. Students were guidedthrough real and/or hypothetical problems usingsteps such as: Stop. Think about the problem. Wha tare the choices? Choose one. Do it. How did it work?For this target population, monitors frequentlytalked with students about making constructivelife choices in the context of coping with parents'mental health challenges, engaging in criminal ac-tivity, abusing substances, or starting a family at ayoung age.

Finally, monitors strived to facilitate stu-dent affiliation with and active participation inschool-related activities and events. Research hasshown that student participation in extracurricu-lar activities is associated with reduced dropoutrates (Rumberger, 1995). Monitors' efforts in-cluded informing students about options, waiving

The role of the check & connect monitorwas modeled after one of the commonly identi-fied protective factors in resiliency literaturethepresence of an adult in the child's life tofiiel hemotivation and foster the development of lifeskills needed to overcome obstacles (Masten &Goatsworth, 1998). Monitors typically worked 20to 35 hours per week and carried a caseload of 25to AA students, respectively, with the majority oftheir caseload enrolled across three schools. Moni-tors connected with each student a little less thanan hour total per week, on average, with a fewstudents requiring several hours of interventionand others only a couple minutes of contact. Atotal of six monitors staffed the program through-out the 5-year period and four of them stayedwith the program for 4 years.

Monitors maintained contact with studentsyear-round. The time devoted to intervention ser-vices each summer was about half of what it wasduring the academic school year. The purpose ofstaffing the program year-round was to maintainrelations with the student and family, to supportsummer school participation, to help youth se-cure employment, and to guide youth towardsummer activities that would keep them on trackto graduate. Summer school was strongly encour-aged for youth who were behind in credits, andmonitors provided assistance with enrollment,morning wakeup calls, and rides when needed.Older students with very few credits (and little in-clination to attend a formal education program)were actively encouraged to maintain their pur-suit of a General Education Development (GED)diploma throughout the summer months. Towardth e end of the summer, monitors often tookyouth around to stock up on back-to-school sup-plies and clothes or added to supplies started bythe parents and students.Family outreach was an integral componentof the model, though less explicit for this popula-tion at the upper secondary level relative to ele-mentary-age youth. The monitor's goal was toincrease constructive communication between

home and school and to link parental support forlearning to their adolescent's transition program.


8/19

(e.g., IEP meetings, suspension reentry meetings,truancy court appearances).The pro ject coord inator /d i rector wasknowledgeable of the model, as a former check &connect monitor of 4 years and an active school

psychologist in the district high schools at the

The monitor's goal was to increase con-structive communication between homeand school and to link parental supportfor learning to their adolescent's transitionprogram.

time of the study. The coordinator was availableto monitors on a daily basis for case consultation,and ofien modeled how to interact with students,teachers, or parents. Although measures of treat-ment integrity were not quantified, a number ofprocedures and forms were developed, alignedwith core elements of the model, and used regu-larly to sustain treatment fidelity. Two valuabletools were the monitoring sheets used daily byprogram staff and case reviews facilitated rou-tinely by the coordinator. Other tools used by thecoordinator, and also aligned with the model, in-cluded a staff orientation workshop, the monitor'sjob description, annual performance reviews,weekly^to-biweekly staff meetings, staff develop-ment sessions, and the assignment of caseloads.The monitor's job description, for example, speci-fied home visiting and a 24-hour period for re-turning phone calls in alignment with buildingrelationships. A calendar format was used on themonitoring sheet to log and view the timeliness ofintervention contacts at a glance in relation tostudent levels of engagement. Routine case re-views included discussions about unresponsive orresistant students and the extent to which moni-tors persistently pursued outreach to those youth.INSTRUMENTATION AND INDICATORS

Check & Connect Monitoring Sheet. Inci-dences of tardy, skips, absences, suspension, other

name and type of school setting was also recordedmonthly and coded to refiect enrollment statusand number of school changes within a year.Monitors obtained attendance information andthe other indicators of participation primarilyfrom online school records and attendance clerks.Teachers, parents, and students were consulted toverify contradictory or missing information. Eachmonitor was given instructions on how to com-plete the monitoring sheet to ensure consistencyacross monitors and settings. Monitors submittedprintouts of attendance records with their moni-toring sheets for review until the coordinator veri-fied the staff person was completing the formaccurately. The principal investigator reviewed thedata from the monitoring sheets each summer.Rules for coding idiosyncratic data were generatedthe 1st year of the project and applied consis-tently throughout the remainder of the study.

Four outcome variables were generatedfrom the monitoring sheet and included dropoutrates, patterns of attendance, school mobility, andschool completion rates. A cohort dropout rate wascomputed at 1-year intervals, refiecting the cumu-lative percentage of students who had droppedout or were not known to be continuing at theend of each year of high school. The denominatorremained the same for each computation ( = 71treatment, n = 73 control), with the exception of5th year subsample ( = 29 total). District policywithdrew students after 15 consecutive unexcusedabsences. Students with 15 consecutive unexcusedabsences were coded as dropouts to maintain con-sistency with district policy. Students with 15 ab-sences within 20 school days were also coded as adropout for that t ime period, regardless ofwhether the absences were consecutive. Youth inGE D programs were defined as in school.

Patterns of attendance were computed to re-fiect student participation in school over time, inaddition to indicators of enrollment status at asingle point in time (i.e., dropout rate). The pat-terns were used to differentiate between studentswho attended school with some level of consis-tency from those who dropped in and out duringthe school year but were also enrolled in Junewhen d ropout rates were compu ted. Four patterns


9/19

TABLE 2Completion Rates and Exit Status by Year in High School

Year 4 Years

Indicators of Program ImpactCompleted high schoolBy diploma

By G E DStill enrolled in school

In correctional settingDropped outTotal n

Treatmentn211562242871

%3021

931639

Controln2117

410

24273

%2923

514358

Treatmentn

330405

12

%2525

033

042

Controln

11000

1617

%66000

94

in an educational program (traditional, alterna-tive, GED, or separate special education program)and attended with no periods of dropout as de-fined previously. Students attending educationalprograms in a correctional/treatment facility wereaccounted for separately and are referred to asforced persisters. The state coirrectional Web sitewas searched to verify incidence of incarcerationfor a felony offense for all study participants. In-terrupters, also known as stop outs, included stu-dents who were actively enrolled in school forsome portioh of a school year, but who droppedout at least once as defined earlier. Students whowere out-all-year were not kriown to have at-tended any educational program for the entireyear. Students who were on a school's rosters inthe fall but never showed up were counted in thislatter category.

Mobility refers to school changes within theacademic year and is defined as the number of ed-ucational settings a student attended within ayear; Mobility does not account for the length oftime a student was enrolled in any given program.Intervention followed students across a variety ofsettings including: the comprehensive highschools, separate special education programs, al-ternative schools and programs, correctionaland/or treatment centers, homebound or homeschooling, and home visits to students out ofschool. All students began in one of the district'sseven comprehensive high schools.

A cohort school completion rate was com-puted for study participants. Completion in-cluded graduation with a standard diploma or a

was verified independently by the State Depart-ment of Education for all study participants. Stu-dents were considered "in school" if they were inattendance at a traditional high school, alteriiativeprogram, or a separate, RiU-day special educationprogram. Students attending an educational pro-gram through a corrections ahd/or treatment pro-gram were counted separately.

IEP Record Review. The project-derivedchecklist used to review students' IEPs was basedon an instrument developed by DeStefano(1997). The review focused on the transition sec-tion of the IEP. A baseline review was conductedafter the student's 1st year in the study. A fihal re-view was conducted in the spring of the students'final year in the study. The review focused on IEPmeeting participants, evidence of student andparental preferences, and status of the transitiongoals and types of activities. The participation ofstudents, parents, and community agency repre-sentatives in the IEP meeting was coded as pre-sent or not present. Two elements were examinedin relation to student input in the transition plan-ning process: language of the IEP and evidence ofa transition assessment. The language of the IEPtransition goals was coded categorically: first per-son, third person, or mixed voice. Evidence of atransition assessment was coded as either yes or noin which monitors looked for a copy of a com-pleted assessment in the files or an assessmentscore recorded on the IEP. Data from the check-list for each of the five transition areas were alsocoded categorically to indicate whether the docu-ment specified: not a need, a written goal or both


10/19

exceeded .85 after the second rating was com-pleted.ANALYSESPosttest comparisons between treatment and con-trol groups were used to assess program impact.The two cohorts were combined to maximizesample size. Subgroup analyses of program out-comes were run by gender, ethnicity, and disabil-ity category to address the disproport ionatecharacteristics of the sample. Outcome indicatorsincluded rates of dropout, persistence, mobility,and completion, as well as special education tran-sition program services (i.e., status of IEP, parentand student participation, and transition goalsand objectives). Effect sizes (ES) of all reportedPearson's or Yate's chi-square tests were computedusing Phi and Cramer's V, where levels of effectsizes are comparable to the r index of 0.10 =small, 0.30 = moderate, and 0.50 = large (Cohen,1988).

RESU LTS

COHORT DROPOUT RATEThe high school students with emotional or be-havioral disabilities who participated in check &connect were significantly less likely to drop outof school than similar students in the controlgroup at the end of 4 years (39% vs. 58%, X'^(l)= 4.72, p = .030, n = 144, ES = .18) and at theend of 5 years for a subsample of study partici-pants (42% vs. 94%, x^d ) = 7.24, p = .007, n =29 , ES = .38, see Table 2) .PATTERNS OF ATTENDANCEStudents who participated in check & connect at-tended school with greater consistency relative totheir peers (see Table 3). Treatment students weremore likely to demonstrate persistent attendanceand less likely to remain out of school all yearcompared to similar students in the controlgroup, where statistically significant differenceswere found during students' 3rd, 4th, and 5thyears of high school. Year 3 X^(3) = 8.47 , p =

study participants with persistent attendance dur-ing their second year of high school completedschool (45%) or were still enrolled (24%) at theend of 4 years, compared to 26% of students withinterrupted attendance during the 2nd year ofhigh school (14% completed and 12% still inschool at the end of 4 years), X^n) = 31.25, p =.000, n = 140, ES = .46 . Desp ite grou p differ-ences, persistence was low for both groups afterthe students' 1st year of high school and declinedsteadily over the subsequent years.MOBILITY

The study participants as a whole were a highlymobile population. Just 15 of the 68 studentswho completed school or were still enrolled re-mained in the same setting for a full 4 years.About 20% of the students attended two moreeducational settings within any given year. Dur-ing 3 of the 5 study years, check & connect stu-dents were more likely to remain in oneeducational setting within a year compared tosimilar students in the control group, where sta-tistically significant differences were found. Year 1x2(i) = 4.23, p = .040, n = 144, ES = .17; Year 4x2(2) = 18.5 5,/ '= .000 , = 143, ES = .33; andYear 5 x^(2) = 8-28, p = .016, n = 29, ES = .52.Moreover, mobile treatment students were morelikely to have persistent attendance compared tomobile students in the control group (60% vs.20%), Year 2 x^(i) = 5.10,/. = .024, n = 40, ES =.41. During the 3rd year in high school, studentsin the control group were more likely to remainin one educational setting. Year 3 X^(2) ~ 6.60, p= .037, n = 144, ES = .21. However, during thissame year, more control students were not inschool at all (out all year) compared to the treat-ment students who were more likely to be inschool but mobile (attended two or more educa-tional settings).COHORT COMPLETION RATESAt the end of 4 years, students in the treatmentgroup were more likely to be enrolled in an edu-cational program or to have completed highschool (61%) than similar students in the control


11/19J

f~.

'-CSHT

CS

CS

irNCScn

Oo

oo CN

Oo

CS

(NCO

CSCS

^

ONCS

oo

oCS

CS

00

00

o hv CO oCO ^ (NCS ^ hv OCS CO "H

CS CS

- ^ rO fO O^ \r\CS CN (S OfO rO

CN 00 t-" F-i

hv CS^ O (S

C i2 3Zi ^ ^

^' s o' - t l

= - 31 3

&

year completion rate, five times as many youth inthe treatment group who participated in the studyfor a 5th year went on to complete high schoolcompared to similar students in the control group(25% vs, 6%), plus another 3 3% oft he 5th-yeartreatment students were still enrolled in school,whereas none of the students in the control groupwere known to be continuing during the sametime period. Year 5 X^(2) = 11-79. p = -003, n =29, ES = ,53, Overall, a quarter of the studentsfinished their educational careers in one of thecomprehensive high schools, over a third were en-rolled in or completed from a separate special ed-ucation program for students ages 18 and 22years, and another third from an alternative set-ting including GED programs.SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSITIONPROGRAMEvidence of a transition program was more appar-en t for students in the treatment group than simi-lar students in the control group. Treatmentstudents were significantly more likely to have anIEP written (which in Minnesota includes thetransition section) and updated after ninth gradecompared to similar students in the controlgroup, x^(3) = 9,89, p = ,020, n = 144, ES = ,26(see Table 4), Among those students whose IEPwas updated after ninth grade, treatment studentswere more likely to participate in their IEP meet-ings compared to students in the control group,X^(2) = 6,42,/>= ,040, n = 66 , ES = ,30, Further-more, significantly more treatment students hadarticulated goals or related activities in three ofthe five transition areas compared to the IEPs ofstudents in the control group. Significant resultsemerged in: postsecondary education X (2) ~ 7,03,p = ,030, n = 66 , ES = , 3 3 ; community participa-tion x2(2) = 7 ,74 , />= ,021 , n = 66, ES = ,34; andrecreation and leisure X (2) = 6,75, p = ,034, n =66, ES = ,32, One half to three quarters of all stu-dents with updated IEPs had articulated job andjob-training goals and activities. Common typesof t ransi t ion act ivi t ies included careerawareness/interest and job-seeking activities, ex-ploration of postsecondary options and applica-tion preparation, assessment of communi ty


12/19

TABLE 4IEP Status Year 4 and Transition Plans of IEPs Updated After Ninth GradeIndicators of Program ImpactLast IEP update at Year 4 ( = 144)

After ninth gradeDuring ninth gradeMiddle schoolServices formally terminated

Participants {n = 66)StudentParentCommunity agency

Articulation of transition goals/activities (n = dG)Jobs and job trainingPostsecondary educationCom munity participationRecreation and leisureHome living

Participation in transition planning ( = GG)Use of first person language in IEPEvidence of student assessment or survey

Treatmentn

40225431211031312513141520

%56317678532578786333353850

Controln

2628163

14123

131284658

%363822

454461050463115232031

transition assessment in the IEP was found forless than half of the students.SUBGROUP ANALYSESProgram impact was examined within subgroupsby disability category, by African American malesand non-African American males, and by femalesand males. The sample sizes were small on manyof these analyses of intervention group differencesand reduced the power of the analyses, such that,evidence of program impact was less extensive.

Program impact by disability category sub-groups reached levels of statistical significance inoutcomes related to attendance patterns and mo-bil i ty among youth with a pr imary EBDlabelthe largest subgroup. Treatment studentswith a primary EBD label were more likely topersist compared to similar students in the con-trol group {AA% vs. 33%) and were less likely toremain out of school all year (15% vs. 45%), Year4 x^o) = 2.30, p = .006, n = 101, ES = .35.Treatment students with a primary EBD labelwere also more likely to remain in one educa-tional setting within a year compared to similar

found between intervention groups. Year 1 X (1)= 4.56, p = .033, n = 101, ES = .24 and Year 4x2(2) = 12 .25 ,/ = .002, = 100, ES = .34.

Program impact by ethnicity and genderreached levels of statistical significance in out-comes related to mobility, dropout rates, atten-dance patterns, and transition goals, but for onlya portion of the subgroup. African Am erican maletreatment students were statistically more likely toremain in one educational setting during Year 4compared to similar students in the control group(60% vs. 51%), x^(2) = 10.83,/ ' = .004, n = 78,ES = .37. Non-African American male treatmentstudents were also more likely to remain in onesetting (59% vs. 48%), where statistically signifi-cant differences were found Year 4 x^(2) = 7.15,p = .028, n = 65 , ES = .33. Non-African Ameri-can male treatment students were significantly lesslikely to drop out at the end of 4 years comparedto similar students in the control group (38% vs.63%), x^(i) = 3.88, p = .049, n = 66, ES = .24.This subgroup was statistically more likely to per-sist in school compared to similar non-African


13/19

9.07, p = .028, n = 66, ES = .37. Finally, non -African American male treatment students weresignificantly more likely to have IEP transitiongoals related to community participation com-pared to the IEPs of similar students in the con-trol group (56% vs. 19%), Year 4 x^{2) = 9'89, p= .007, n = 66, ES = .39.

Program impact by female-male subgroupsreached levels of statistical significance in out-comes related to IEP transition goals, attendancepatterns, and mobility. Female treatment studentswere significantly more likely to have articulatedIEP goals in four of the five transition areas com-pared to their female peers in the control group.Significant results emerged in: jobs an d job train-ing (73 % vs. 20%), x2(2) = 7.5 0, / = .023, n =26, ES = .54; postsecondary education (82% vs.33%), x^(l) =6.00,j0 =.014, = 26 , ES =.48 ;community participation (73% vs. 13%), X'^(2) =9.54, p = .008, n = 26, ES = .61; home living{A6% vs. 7%), x^(2) = 6.11> p = -047, n = 26,ES = .49 . Male treatm ent s tudents were signifi-cantly more likely to persist (38% vs. 29%) andless likely to be out all year (20% vs. 47%) duringYear 4 than similar males in the control group,x2(2)= 12.62 , / . = .006, =1 18 , ES = .3 3.They were also more likely to remain in one set-ting during Year 4 than male control students(60% vs. 47 % ), X^(2) = 14.21, p = . 001 , n =117, ES = .35 . Finally, male treatment studentswere statistically more likely to have an IEP up-dated after ninth grade than males in the controlgroup (53% vs. 36% ), x^(3) = 8.53, p = .036, n= 118, ES =.2 7.

Two somewhat contradictory findings werefound in relation to mobility and attendance pat-terns. First, the male treatment students were sta-tistically less likely to remain in one school (53%vs. 64%) and more likely to move across two ormore settings (32% vs. 12%) during Year 3 rela-tive to the male control students, although themale treatment students were less likely to be outall year (15% vs. 24% ), x^(2) = ^-^^'P = -O^l, = 118, ES = .24. Second, the African Americanmale treatment students were more likely to beinterrupters compared to similar students in thecontrol group (27% vs. 15%) during Year 4, al-

= .029, n = 78 , ES = .34. All other subgroupoutcomes analyses were statistically nonsignifi-cant.D I S C U S S I O N

PROGRAM IMPACTThis study yielded promising evidence thatschools and communities can make a meaningfuldifference in the educational careers of urban highschool youth with emotional or behavioral dis-abilities. Student levels of engagement with schoolwere consistently higher among treatment stu-dents relative to their peers in the control group.In essence, the everyday ordinary magic of thecheck & connect monitors routinely integratedinto the high school lives of youth with emotionalor behavioral disabilities provided that critical sys-tem of support and fostered resilience (Masten,2001). Check & connect students were less likelyto drop out and more likely to demonstrate per-sistent attendance, particularly within the contextof mobility. Check & connect students were more

This Study yielded promising evidencethat schools and communities can make ameaningful difference in the educationalcareers of urban high school youth withemotional or behavioral disabilities.

likely to remain enrolled in school, working to-ward completion, and more likely to have an up-dated IEP with articulated transition goals,activities, and steps taken to reflect student prefer-ences.

Reduced Dropout Rates. Persistent and tar-geted support for learning yielded lower cohortdropout rates among check & connect study par-ticipants relative to their peers, with an effect sizemagnitude that was large (.58) for the 5-yeardropout rate. Furthermore, the 4-year cohort


14/19

tional average (51%) among peers with emotionalor behavioral disabilities while the control groupdropout rates were worse (58%; U.S. D epartmentof Education, 2002, Table IV-1).

Attended With Greater Persistence. A sub-stantial impact of the check & connect model wasevidenced in the attendance patterns. More treat-ment students were persistent and fewer were outof school all year, with effect sizes increasing inmagnitude from small to nearly large over succes-sive years of intervention (Year 3 = .22 , Year 4 =.32, Year 5 = .48). Analyses of attendance patternsby subgroups yielded similar positive results dur-ing Year 4, with effect sizes in the moderate rangefor males (.33), non-African American males(.37), and students with primary EBD labels(.35). Moreover, study results yielded strong evi-dence linking persistent attendance early in highschool with the increased likelihood for comple-tion or remaining in school at the end of 4 years,as suggested by an effect size in the moderate tolarge range (.46). These results address a concernof the participating district where students whoattended ninth grade less than 80% of the schoolyear were 5.6 times less likely to graduate.Remained in School Through Mobility. Sus-tained check & connect intervention helped stu-dents maintain persistent attendance throughperiods of transition, with an effect size in themoderate to large range (.41), and also increasedstability. Check & connect students were morelikely to remain in one educational setting oversuccessive years, with effect sizes increasing inmagnitude from small to large, (Year 1 = .17, Year4 = .35, Year 5 = .52). Subgroup analyses yieldedsimilar increases in stability during Year 4, witheffect sizes in the moderate range for males (.35),African American males (.37), non-African Amer-ican males (.33), and students with primary EBDlabels (.34). Although treatment students experi-enced higher rates of mobility (2 or more settingsin a year) during Years 3 and 4, this mobilityshould be considered in relation to the higherrates of control students out all year during thesame time period. In essence, disenfranchised stu-dents with disabilities who were provided targeted

group stopped coming to school entirely, as foundin past correlational research (Benz, Lindstrom, &Yovanoff, 2000; O sher et al., 2003).

School Completion. The check & connecmodel did not impact the 4-year completion rateamong these urban students with emotional orbehavioral disabilities. However, study findingsunderscore the importance of policy and practicethat accommodate alternative routes and time-lines to school completion. Monitors activelytried to facilitate the likelihood that a move, ifpursued, would result in a successful fit in whichthe youth felt welcomed and engaged, for exam-ple by investigating program options, facilitatingtransportation changes to minimize time out ofschool during the transition, or introducing thestudent to staff in the new setting who could becalled on for help. Furthermore, about a third ofthe youth in the treatment group were still en-rolled in an educational program working towarda diploma or GED certificate on a timeline thatexceeded 4 years. Among the treatment studentsfor whom a 5 th year of intervention was available,five times as many completed high school in 5years as compared to their peers in the controlgroup and a third of the treatment students re-mained in school compared to zero control stu-dents, with a large effect size (.53).

Active IEP Transition Plan. The capacity oeducators to deliver special education services wasseriously challenged by the interrupted atten-dance and mobility of youth with emotional orbehavioral disabilities. Students must be in schooland attending with some regularity in order to de-velop a transition plan and to work on activitiestoward the achievement of identified postschoolgoals. Through established relationships and per-sistent outreach, particularly the explicit efforts tofacilitate parental participation and a stronger stu-dent voice in the IEP process, check & connectmonitors facilitated greater persistent attendanceamong treatment students and more comprehen-sive transition plans. Intervention led to signifi-cantly more updated IEPs during high school,higher rates of student participation in the IEPmeetings, and more articulated transition goals inthe areas of postsecondary education, community


15/19

transition goals reflected similar positive results,with effect sizes in the moderate to large range forfemales (community participation = .61, jobs andjob training = .54, postsecondary = .49, home liv-in g = .49), and non-African American males(community participation = .39). Although noprogram impact was found on parental participa-tion in the IEP meeting, monitors promoted op-portunities to make learning meaningful for youthand to make schools approachable for families.THE MERITS AND LIMITATIONS OF THESTUDY DESIGN

Merits. A major strength of this interven-tion study was the opportunity to randomly as-sign students to treatment and control groups andsubsequently to attribute the cause of interven-tion group differences to check & connect pro-gram impact. In addition, the study includedthree quarters of the entire population of targetstudents across two consecutive cohorts and wasimplemented in about 20 varied school settings,enhancing the generalizability of study fmdings.Another critical research design element was thereasonable interval (5-year longitudinal study) toredirect the educational trajectory of a highly dis-enfranchised population of youth. Furthermore,the intervention study was a replication of an evi-dence-based model. Crane (1998) identified repli-cat ion as one of the cri t ical evaluat ioncomponents needed to determine whether a socialprogram should be scaled up for broad-based im-plementation. And finally, the overall attrition forour sample was relatively low given the durationof the study and the tenuous connection this pop-ulation of students has with school.

Limitations. One limitation of the studywas the sample anomaly. The district populationof youth identifled with emotional or behavioraldisabilities were disproportionately African Amer-ican and male, and subsequently so was the studysample. Analyses of program impact by subgroupsyielded statistically signiflcant differences betweenexperimental groups, but with less consistency.More study participants would be required to de-termine whether nonsignificant treatment-controldifferences within subgroups were a function of

Nonetheless, we chose to pursue study of this al-ternative route to school completion (i.e., ex-tended timeline) given the low 4-year completionrates among youth with emotional or behavioraldisabilities. Two additional factors would serve tostrengthen the study. Quantifying a measure oftreatment integrity, in addition to the oversightafforded by use of the monitoring sheets and rou-tine case reviews, would provide valuable infor-mation on the degree to which all core elementsof check & connect were implemented. The col-lection of consumer satisfaction data, as was donein other replications, would provide pertinent in-formation on the value participants place on theprogram, their willingness to sustain interventioncomponents, and suggestions for improvement.IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH ANDPRACTICE

Check & connect is a selective or targeted inter-vention ideally implemented in conjunction withuniversal interventions oriented toward the pro-motion of students' engagement with school, suchas positive behavioral supports and small learningcommunities. Many of the model's core elementsare present in schools, but scattered across theroles of existing personnel without a systematiclink to absenteeism or other indicators of stu-dents' engagement. The consolidated role per-formed by monitors, who were typically hiredthrough district classified positions comparable toadvanced paraprofessionals, reflect earlier researchon effective secondary transition practices, partic-ularly in the use of personnel positions to providespecific support to at-risk youth (BuUis, Moran,Benz, Todis, & Johnson, 2002).

Additional intervention studies and othercausal research designs focused on school comple-tion are warranted, particularly interventions thatsystematically target resources to disengagedyouth and that reflect the complexity of theschools and communities that struggle to engagetheir youth. In the present era of accountabilityand attentive fiscal management, practitionersand policymakers are expected to make decisionsbased on empirically supported interventionslinked directly to an intended outcome. A signifi-


16/19

tion requirements and the No Child Left BehindAct (Thurlow, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2002). Ofparticular relevance is the degree to which theseeducational policies lead to early dismissal of stu-dents who lag behind and the unintentional out-come of pushing students out the door.

Research on school completion initiativeswith a wider intervention span is also Warranted.Extension of this intervention study for another 2years would have created the opportunity to fullyinvestigate completion rates hy alternative time-lines as well as postschool outcomes. The goal ofreaching out to youth placed at risk for schoolfailure is to promote the acquisition of academicand social skills and to foster a personal invest-ment in learning that extends heyond schoolthrough to postschool endeavors (Christenson etal., 2000). The added value of starting interven-tion at the beginning of the school year withoutdelay of obtaining parent permission, or startingin earlier grade levels, is a compelling researchquestion (Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson,2000). A substantial portion of the study partici-pants experienced hiobility and some degree ofschool failure prior to ninth grade, including highabsenteeism and course failure (Logan, 2001). Al-though this study yielded powerful results inwhich the dropout rate was halved, a substantialgap in progress is readily apparent in comparisonto more global performance indicatorsthe na-tional status dropout rate is 11% for all studentsage 16 to 25 years and the average national statuscompletion rate is 87% (NCES, 2003, Table108).

REFERENCES

Benz, M. R:, Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Im-proving graduation and employment outcomes of stu-dents with disabilities: Predictive factors and studentperspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509-529.Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinalpostschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Find-ings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.Btaswell, L., & Bloomquist, M. (1991). Cognitive-be-

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecologythrough space and time: A future perspective. In P.Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examin-ing lives in context: Perspectives an the ecology of hdevelopment (pp. 619-647). Washington, DC: APABooks.BuUis, M., Moran, T, Benz, M. R., Todis, B., & John-son, M. D. (2002). Description and evaluation of theARIES project: Achieving rehabilitation, individualizededucation, and employment success for adolescentswith emotional disturbance. Career Developm ent for Eceptional Individual 25, 41-58.Ghtistenson, S. L. (1995). Supporting home-schoolcollaboration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Bespractices in school psychology-Ill (pp. 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 ) .Bethesdaj MD: National Association of School Psy-chologists.Christenson; S. L., Sinclair, M. E, Lehr, C. A., & Hur-ley, C. M. (2000). Promoting successful school comple-tion. In D. Minke & G. Bear (Eds.), Preventing schoproblemspromoting school success: Strategies andgrams that work (pp. 211-257). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Gohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the bhavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Ebatim Associates.Crane, J. (Ed.) (1998). Social programs that work. NYork: Russell Sage Foundation.DeStefano, L. (1997). Content analysis of IEP/transi-tion plan goals and objectives. In S. Hasazi (Ed.), Einareport on state an d local efforts to implement the tranrequirements of IDEA (pp. 1-53). Burlington: Univesity of Vermont, Center for Transition and Employ-nient.Elias, M. J., & Clabby, J. F. (1992). Building sociaproblem-solving skills: Guidelines from a school-basedgram. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/PfeifFer.Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement an d studentsrisk. Washington, D G: National Center fot EducationaStatistics, U.S. Department of Education. (NGES No.93470)Gresham, E M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social SkillHating System. Circle Pines, MN : AGS.Lehr, C. A , Hansen, A., Sinclair, M. E, & Christen-son, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond dropout towardsschool completion: An integtative review of data-basedihtetventions: School Psychology Review, 32(3), 342364.


17/19

development. Journal of School Psychology, 38{6), 525-549.Lehr, C, A., Sinclair, M, R, & Christenson, S. L,(2004), Addressing student engagement and truancyprevention during the elementary school years: A repli-cation study of the check & connect model. Journal ofEducation for Students Placed at Risk, i>(3), 279-301,Logan, D, (2001), Predicting the high school completionstatus of students with emotional behavioral disabilities.Unpublished master's thesis. University of Minnesota,College of Education and Human Development, Min-neapolis,Masten, A. S. (2001), Ordinary magic: Resilience pro-cess in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238,Masten, A, S,, & Coatsworth, J, D. (1998). The devel-opment of competence in favorable and unfavorableenvironments, American Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220,NCES, (2003) , Digest of education statistics, 2002(NCES No, 2003-060). Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics, U,S, Department ofEducation, Office of Educational Research and Im-provement,Osher, D., Morrison, G,, & Bailey, W, (2003), Explor-ing the relationship between mobility and dropoutamong students with emotional and behavioral disor-ders. Th e Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 79-96.Osher, D. M,, & Osher, T. W. (1996), The nationalagenda for children and youth with serious emotionaldisturbance (SED). In C. M. Nelson, R.B, Rutherford,Jr., & B. I. Wolford (Eds.), Comprehensive and collabo-rative systems that work for troubled youth: A nationalagenda (pp. 149-164), Richmond, KY: Eastern Ken-tucky University, National Juvenile Detention Associa-tion.Rumberger, R, W, (1995). Dropping out of middleschool: A multilevel analysis of students and schools.American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.Rumberger, R. W,, & Larson, K. A, (1998). Studentmobility and the increased risk of high school drop out,American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35.Scanlon, D,, & Mellard, D. F, (2002). Academic andparticipation profiles of school-age dropouts with andwitho ut disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 239-258.Sheridan, S, (1995), The tough kids social skills book.Longmont, CO : Sopris West.Sinclair, M., Christenson, S,, Evelo, D., & Hurley, C,

Sinclair, M. E, Christenson, S, L,, Lehr, C. A., & An-derson, A, R, (2003). Facilitating student engagement:Lessons learned from check & connect longitudinalstudies. Th e Califomia School Psychologist, 8(\), 29-42.Sinclair, M. E, & Kaibel, C. (2002, October), DakotaCounty: Secondary check & connect program. Programevaluation 2002 final summary report. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota, College of Education and HumanDevelopment, Institute on Community Integration.Sinclair, M. E, Thurlow, M, L,, Christenson, S, L,Evelo, D . L, Lehr, C, A,, & Kaibel, C. (1997), Check& connect monitoring sheet-revised. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota, College of Education and HumanDevelopment, Institute on Com munity Integration.Thurlow, M,, Christenson, S,, Sinclair, M., Evelo, D.,& Thornton, H, (1995). Staying in school: Strategies formiddle school students with learning & emotional disabil-ities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Col-lege of Education and Human Development, Instituteon Community Integration.Thurlow, M, L., Christenson, S, L., Sinclair, M. F., &Evelo, D. L. (1997, Fall). Wanting the unwanted:Keeping those "out of here" kids in school. Beyond Be-havior, 10-16,Thurlow, M.L., Sinclair, M.E, & Johnson, D.R.(2002), Issue brief. Students with disabilities who dropout of schoolimplications for policy an d practice. Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center onSecondary Education and Transition, Institute onCommunity Integration.U.S. Department of Education (2002), Twenty-fourthannual report to Congress on the implementation of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,DC: Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices, Office of Special Educa tion Programs,U,S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.(1998), The Januarjr 2 8, 1998 Voluntary ComplianceAgreement with the Minneapolis Public Schools (No.05-97-5011). http://www.mpls,kl2.mm,us/Office_of_Civil_Rights_Voluntary_Compliance_Agreement.html Washington, DC: Author.Wagner, M. (1995). Outcomes for youth with seriousemotional disturbance in secondary school and earlyadulthood. The Euture of Children: Critical Issues forChildren and Youth, 5(4), 90-112.

A BOU T T H E A U T H OR S


18/19

Research on Learning, University of Kansas,Lawrence. SANDRA u. CHRISTENSON (CECChapter #190), Professor, Department of Educa-tional Psychology; and MARTHA 1_. T H U R L O W(CEC Chapter #190), Senior Research Associateand Director, National Center for EducationalOutcom es, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Address correspondence to Mary R Sinclair, Uni-versity of KansasCenter for Research on Learn-ing, Joseph R. Pearson Hall, 1122 W. CampusRoad, Room 517, Lawrence, KS, 66045-3101,785/ 864-4780, Fax: 785/864-5728. (e-mail:[email protected])

The information reported in this article is basedon a study funded by the U.S. Departm ent of Ed-ucation, Office of Special Education Programs.The authors would like to acknowledge the sig-nificant contributions of David Evelo, ChristineHurley, Darnell Logan, Debra Westberry, andMelissa Kau.

Manuscript received November 2003; revision ac-cepted May 2004 .

When Phonics Doesn't Workby Elizabeth Walters, PhD

At last - a new me thod of beginnmg reading instruction tha t really workswith those who have not been able to learn using traditional methods.Easy to use for teache rs, tutors, and paren ts.Useful for students with

I dyslexia and other learning disabilitiesI attention deficit disorderI short-term memoiy deficitsI hearing impairmentI speech and language impairnientI English as a second languageI or even gifted students with unique learning styles

Visit our booth in Baltimore and don't miss our demonstration session.See for yourself!

From g tr16 Grdde. Making the Impossible Possiblew w w . m a k i n g t h e g r a d e . n e t


19/19

Documents

Sinclair 2