Raising the Drop Out Age — Will it Make a Difference?

You might assume that MBAE is cheering these policy makers on, but we are not convinced that this action will have any impact – except perhaps the unexpected kind.  Our concern is that raising the dropout age gives us the illusion of dealing with a problem that can only be solved with strong interventions to engage students in their learning and make the time they are in school productive.  As we said in our response to the state’s 2009 Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission:

Engaging students in learning so they are prepared for further training and gainful employment should be the goal of any dropout prevention initiative.  MBAE supports recommendations that build on evidence of what works – such as early warning systems that identify students at risk and interventions for these students that keep them on track to graduation.  According to Civic Enterprise’s Silent Epidemic, nearly 70% of dropouts were not motivated to work hard and two-thirds would have worked harder if more was demanded of them.  Over 80% said their chances of staying in school would have increased if classes were more interesting and provided opportunities for real-world learning.   Making it illegal for youth under age 18 to dropout of school will not address this reality.  MBAE supports action that will.

Some excellent examples of “supports and services” that better engage these students can be found in schools and districts participating in the state’s MassGrad initiative (MBAE represents employers on the Leadership Council).  A 2009 report from the Rennie Center also highlighted “promising practices” and successful efforts to raise graduation rates in many of Massachusetts’ “Gateway Cities”.  It is frustrating that after years of deliberation, we are still not focused on proven methods that offer students a range of alternatives to help them persist through graduation.  Instead, we are on the verge of forcing students to stay in school regardless of whether the support they need is in place.

As the bill goes to the Senate Ways and Means Committee for cost estimates, there is agreement that supports and services are essential, but there is great skepticism about whether we can afford these.  While it is absolutely essential to make sure what we are already spending is being used effectively, we must recognize that dropouts cost us more in the long run than what we would spend to help them graduate.   There are numerous estimates of the cost of dropouts to society and to the individuals who lack the education needed for self-sufficiency.  In 2007, theCenter for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern issued a report that focused attention on dropout prevention as an economic issue.    Professor Andy Sum and his colleagues found that the costs of social services and loss of tax revenues when a student drops out translates into “a net fiscal difference of $456,500 between high school graduates and dropouts” and the gap between “four year college graduates and high school dropouts was closer to $1.5 million”.

In 2007, MBAE testified in favor of a bill that proposed reducing the dropout rate by 50% by 2012 (yes, this year!) because it set a measurable standard by which to measure our progress and hold ourselves accountable.  The state’s goal has been that 90% of students will graduate ready for college and career without remediation by 2020.  If we are serious about reducing dropout rates, we need to set ambitious goals and do what we know is necessary to meet these – and the needs of our students.