Making the Grade:

Ideas for Increasing the On-Time Graduation Rate at San Fernando High School

Jointly Composedby

Students Enrolled in Honors 9 and Honors 12 English Coursesat

San Fernando High School

March 1, 2013

1

For the past five years or so, America’s economy has suffered a serious decline. During

this time of high unemployment and prolonged joblessness, even those who have a high school

degree have found it difficult to find steady work. For those who lack this minimum educational

requirement, securing employment is much more of a challenge. Ironically, at a time when the

percentage of American youth who graduate high school should be increasing, it is actually

moving in the opposite direction, especially in California. Many ideas have been put forward to

reverse the downward trend, but at least two of them – paying youths to go to school and fining

the parents of those who don’t – would likely only compound the problem. Two approaches

with a much greater chance of succeeding, at least with respect to the students in danger of

dropping out of San Fernando High School, would be to partner with local radio and television

station owners in the broadcast of public service announcements and to facilitate meetings

between successful high school seniors and their middle school counterparts.

An Epidemic of Early Exits

According to the most recent information available, approximately 1.3 million American

teenagers drop out of school each year. This is the equivalent of approximately 7,200 per day

(Wingert). The seriousness of this problem can also be measured in terms of the percentage of

high school students who graduate on time. At last count, it was only 68.8% -- a number

considerably lower than the rates of many other economically developed countries. Denmark,

Japan, Germany, and Finland, for example, have graduation percentages of 96%, 93%, 92%, and

91%, respectively (OECD). Many Americans would likely be surprised to learn that the United

States, known around the world as a superpower, ranks only 18th among economically developed

nations in terms of its high-school-graduation rate (NEA).

2

Compared to other states, California occupies an even lower ranking relative to other

states than the US does among its peers. With approximately one in four students leaving school

before graduation, it holds the unenviable distinction of being 41st in the percentage of secondary

students it graduates on time (Blume). This number reflects a decrease over the last ten years

and contrasts with the performance of 36 states that succeeded in improving their on-time

graduation rates (Education Week). Two in particular, New York and Tennessee, actually had

double-digit gains over the last decade (ibid).

As bad as California is as a whole, the situation is even worse in Los Angeles, where

nearly one out of three teens gives up on school (Blume). Especially unsatisfactory is the

performance of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), which graduates

between 40 (Wingert) and 56 percent (LAUSD School Report Card) of its students on time –

depending, respectively, on whether independent or district sources are used in calculating on-

time graduation rates. The second-largest school district in the United States, LAUSD is also the

second worst in the nation in terms of this critically important measure (Education Week). Each

year, roughly 40,000 of its students make the decision to abandon their educations (ibid).

Compared to the New York City school district, which is twice its size, LAUSD graduates 14%

fewer students (ibid).

Of particular concern to our class is the fact that San Fernando High School’s on-time

graduation rate is only slightly higher than that of LAUSD, the district it belongs to. For the

2011-12 school year, only 55% of its students completed their high school education on time

(LAUSD School Report Card). This means that out of 825 seniors who might have graduated,

only 455 did, and that 370 are left to make their way in the world without the piece of paper

3

required of job applicants by the majority of employers and of would-be students by post-

secondary educational institutions.

Another way to look at the problem is to consider how the percentage of on-time

graduations has fared over time. Whereas the National Center for Educational Statistics claims

that there has been a 3% increase in this rate between 1997 and 2007 (NCES), outside experts

contend that the actual dropout rates have gotten much worse over the past 40 years than what

are officially reported (Heckman).

Those who study this problem often discuss it in terms of demographics. When it comes

to ethnicity, researchers have found that there is a huge difference between the on-time

graduation rates of whites and minorities, with Asians being a notable exception. Indeed, the gap

between some ethnic groups is as much as 40 to 50 percentage points (Alliance for Education).

Asians are the most successful of all ethnic groups, graduating 89.6% of their high school

students on time (NEA). Not too far behind are non-Hispanic whites, whose rate in 2010 was

81% (ibid). Much less successful are Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans,

whose rates are 56%, 54%, and 51%, respectively (Education Week). That Hispanics are doing

so poorly is obviously of special concern to us inasmuch as this is the racial category that

describes 97% of the students at SFHS. While not as wide, the difference between genders is also

significant. For example, whereas only 48% of African American males graduate on time, 59%

of their female counterparts do. Similarly, 49% of Latino males finish school in four years

compared to 58% of Latina females who do (NEA).

With further regard to demographics, a student’s socioeconomic status seems important

as well. As a matter of fact, a student raised in the wealthiest 25% of American households is

seven times as likely to graduate from high school on time as one who comes from the poorest

4

25% (Alliance for Education). This is another significant statistic for us given that 87% of SFHS

students qualify for Title One benefits. Where a student is raised seems to matter too.

According to recent statistics, only 58% of teens in cities graduate on time compared to 75% of

those in the suburbs (NEA). Although it is located in the San Fernando Valley, SFHS likely has

more in common with urban schools than suburban ones. An especially troubling fact is that

fully half of all high school dropouts in the nation attend one of only 2000 schools (ibid).

Perhaps appropriately, these institutions are popularly known as “dropout factories” (ibid).

All of these numbers take on real significance when one considers the impact that

dropping out of high school has on the individuals who choose to do so. One huge effect is a

higher rate of unemployment. Whereas a dropout currently faces a 14.9% chance of not having a

job, someone who finishes high school has a much lower chance of being out of work: 10.3%

(BLS). If this person graduated from college, the likelihood of their being without work is only

5.4%, or one-third that of a dropout (ibid). Even with a little bit of college, a person faces only a

9.2% chance of not being employed (ibid).

The difficulty of finding a job is a situation poignantly described by one of the many

SFHS dropouts we interviewed for this project. “Jesus” is in his late twenties and has yet to

move out of his parents’ home. As he explains,

It’s been tough since I dropped out. Twelve years later, and I’m still livin’ at home. I’ve had a few jobs that I thought were gonna last, but none of them did. I lost the last one more than a year ago, and nobody’ll even talk to me about a job these days. First thing they ask for is a high school diploma. I got two kids, and they should be living with me and their moms in our own place – instead of with her family. Pretty soon, they’ll be old enough to know what’s up, and they’ll ask me why we gotta be living apart. That’s gonna hurt, for sure. A man’s supposed to provide for his family, and I can’t even give mine a place to live. How they gonna have respect for me when they figure that out? Hopefully, they’ll at least see what happens when you don’t finish school like me.

5

Even when they are able to find a job, high school dropouts earn considerably less than

those who earn a high school diploma. On average, the former will earn $444 per week while

the latter will take home roughly two hundred dollars more in that amount of time (BLS).

Assuming that this difference persists throughout the dropout’s working years, he or she will

earn about $260,000.00 less than the high school graduate (Alliance for Education). As one

would expect, the difference in earning potential is much greater still between dropouts and those

who earn a bachelor’s degree, the latter taking home an average of $1058 per week. This

difference is not at all insignificant when one considers that over a 40-year period, it would equal

$1,275,000.00.

These disparities are obviously important when it comes to purchasing such essentials as

a house and a car. According to californiarealitycheck.com, a web site sponsored by the

California Department of Education, one would need to earn approximately $80,000.00 per year

to maintain an average lifestyle in Los Angeles. This may explain why nearly 40% of the

homeless population consists of high school dropouts (Da Costa Nunez), whose average gross

annual wages total only $23,000.00. Compounding this problem is the fact that dropouts are half

as likely to find work that provides them with health care benefits (NCES). This is significant

given that health care costs the average American household approximately $15,000 a year

(ibid), which is equal to two-thirds of the average dropout’s annual income. Perhaps because

they are unable to afford health care, high school dropouts are “more likely to suffer from illness

or disability and to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, cancer, infection, injury, and

diabetes” than those with at least a high school diploma (NEA).

Such circumstances may help explain why dropouts constitute such a disproportionate

percentage of our nation’s prison population. Currently, approximately 78% of all inmates either

6

failed to graduate from high school or earned an alternative diploma such as the GED

(Heckman). Not only do the incarcerated pay a great price in terms of the loss of their freedom,

but society bears a huge expense in administering federal, state, and municipal penal systems.

According to one calculation, if the high school completion rate were increased by only 1%

among those aged 20 to 60, the United States would save $1.4 billion annually in such costs

(NEA). One can truly get a sense of how much society spends on the criminal justice system

when one considers that California spends $50,000.00 to house and feed a prisoner for a year but

only $8,000.00 annually to educate a K-12 student (Gollan).

When lower tax payments and greater dependence on Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare

are added to these costs, the total effect on taxpayers is a burden of approximately $240,000.00

for each person who fails to earn a high school diploma (NCES). To take but one category of

high school dropouts, teenage mothers, if each had at least graduated high school, the nation

would save approximately $3.8 billion each year (NEA). Based on estimates provided by the

National Education Association, if each and every person who drops out in a single year had

graduated instead, the country would realize a savings of $46 billion in public health costs that

wouldn’t have to be paid. This number reflects the fact that dropouts enroll in programs like

Medicaid at far greater rates than those who earn a high school diploma. Whereas only eight

percent of high school graduates (and only 1% of college graduates) enroll in Medicaid, 25

percent of dropouts do so (ibid). Clearly, our taxes would be significantly lower if students

graduated and thus were able to better take care of themselves.

Another economic consequence of there being so many Americans lacking a basic

education is our nation’s high unemployment rate. In spite of the fact that 13.9 million people

are out of work in this country, the number of jobs available in the manufacturing sector has

7

increased from 98,000 in 2008 to 230,000 in 2011 (Bradford). The problem, employers say, is

that companies can’t find suitable candidates to fill those positions because of their lack of

education and experience (ibid).

Americans should also be concerned about the effects of the dropout problem on the

health of our political system. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “If a nation expects to be

ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” This

statement reflects his well-known belief that an informed electorate is essential to the survival of

a democracy and his strong advocacy of a public education system that is easily accessible to all.

As he might well have predicted, today’s dropouts are much less likely to vote or to involve

themselves in civic activities. In the presidential election year of 2004, for example, Americans

with a college degree were three times as likely to vote as their fellow citizens who lacked a high

school diploma (NEA).

A final sobering statistic about the dropout problem that should instill anyone who reads

it with a real sense of urgency about doing something to address it is the fact that the children of

those who fail to graduate from high school are more likely to drop out themselves. Unless we

want this generation of dropouts to produce another and that one produce yet another, we have to

do a better job of making sure that our students earn their high school diploma.

Why Carrots and Sticks Won’t Do the Trick

One idea for dealing with the dropout problem that has gained some attention of late

relies on financial rewards and penalties. Chelsea High School in Boston is one institution that

counts on the former to keep kids in school. It deposits $25 in an account that can’t be accessed

8

until graduation for each quarter that a student has perfect attendance. A charter school in

Illinois provides students with an even greater incentive: $50 each week for each student who

doesn’t miss any classes. This school is advised by Michael Grady, St. Louis University

professor of educational studies, who justifies the practice of paying kids on the grounds that

“students can’t learn if they’re not in class” (Miller). Proponents also point to studies such as one

conducted by the University of Southern California in the 1990s, which found that scores

increase when kids are paid. When researchers there offered 8th graders $1 for every correct

answer they got on a national math examination, they supposedly did 13% better (ibid).

Education reformers have also taken note of the success of students attending the Providence St.

Mel School in West Chicago who not only graduate on time but who go on to attend some of the

nation’s most prestigious universities. Their successes – and the fact that they were financially

compensated for them – were documented in a film entitled The Providence Effect.

Unfortunately for proponents of this idea, there are a number of serious problems with it.

As suggested by Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, paying

kids to go to school might actually make the attendance problem worse, as children with

communicable illnesses will feel pressured to attend class – and thus spread whatever ailment

they have – when they should stay home until they feel better (Miller). Another occasion when it

is unreasonable to expect children to attend school would be when they have experienced a death

in the family or when there is an emergency involving one or more of its members. With further

regard to a child’s family, it’s been noted that unscrupulous parents may take advantage of the

financial-rewards approach to not only send their children to school when they should stay home

– again, such as when they are ill – but that they might keep the money that their children

obtained for themselves (ibid).

9

Another problem with this idea is that there is no guarantee that students will take their

education seriously just because they’re in school. Indeed, it’s very possible – if not likely – that

those who don’t want to be in class will engage in disruptive behavior that will make it difficult

for those who do want to learn to do so. Schools that pay their students for merely showing up

may thus compound the problem of students not being sufficiently educated.

Critics of what might be called the “cash-for-class” approach also contend that it

undermines a central mission of the public education system, which is to instill children with

morals and values that most members of society subscribe to. One such belief is that education

is something that should be pursued throughout one’s life for its own sake and for the sake of our

democratic society, which benefits from having a well-educated electorate. Paying kids to go to

school would go against these important precepts in that it would discourage youth from

pursuing other worthwhile objectives unless they receive an immediate financial reward, and

because it will weaken their sense of obligation to contribute to the greater good. In essence, it

amounts to a substitution of bribery for the recognition of intrinsic rewards that benefit both

themselves and others. One can only wonder how many students will decide not to attend

college because they’re not immediately compensated for doing so.

Something else that American students should be taught is that, by virtue of their being

provided with a free education all the way through twelfth grade, they are much more fortunate

than many millions – if not billions – of young people in other parts of the world. If they were

aware, for example, that girls in countries like Afghanistan were until recently denied any

education at all and that in many other countries only those children whose parents can afford to

pay have access to formal schooling beyond the elementary grades, they might be more

appreciative of the opportunity they have to better themselves through education here. Paying

10

American kids to go to school would certainly be viewed critically by those who are

systematically denied an education in other countries. Negative perceptions would also likely be

generated within the United States if it were only the urban poor, who have the highest dropout

rates, who were compensated for going to school. As others have suggested, it might reinforce

the stereotype that poor communities don’t value education for its own sake (Miller).

From a much more practical and local point of view, paying kids to go to school is

something that LAUSD, at least, most certainly cannot afford to do. If it were to adopt the

Chelsea High School model and pay its students $25 for each quarter of perfect attendance from

9th grade on, it could potentially need to come up with $11.5 million annually, assuming that all

of the approximately 58,000 students that should be graduating each year never missed any

classes. Assuming an average teacher salary of $60,000, the district would have to eliminate

nearly 200 teaching positions if it implemented this plan, which works out to about three per

high school, where classes are already notoriously overcrowded. For the 2011-12 school year,

LAUSD already has a $408 million deficit and is seriously considering shortening the school

year by a week in order to stay within its budget. At such a time, it is inconceivable that the

district would seriously consider adding to its financial woes in this manner.

In contrast to a system of financial rewards, some would-be reformers believe that our

dropout problem could be successfully addressed by fining the parents of students who are

chronically truant, especially those who ignore warnings or offers of services like counseling and

tutoring. In nearby Orange Country, police arrested a number of such parents last year and

prosecutors there succeeded in convincing a judge to find them guilty of contributing to the

delinquency of a minor, for which they were fined $2500.00 and faced a possible one-year prison

sentence (Hardesty). Proponents of this approach contend that parents should be held

11

responsible for the behavior of their children, and that they should pay a stiff price if their

children break the law. They further maintain that once they see that the courts are serious about

holding their parents accountable in this manner, students will attend school more regularly

inasmuch as they won’t want their parents to suffer on their account.

While no one would deny that parents are responsible for teaching their children right

from wrong, it is naive to suggest that they can always control them. This is particularly true of

parents who work long hours and who thus have fewer opportunities to meaningfully interact

with their children – or even to gain awareness that their students are skipping school. It also

ignores the unfortunate reality that some children would like nothing more than to get their

parents in trouble and may thus see this type of law enforcement as an opportunity they can take

advantage of to satisfy such desires. There is also the problem of what to do with the children of

single parents who would be left to fend for themselves if their parents were taken away. The

penalty is too severe, moreover, given that $2500.00 is more than 10% of the nation’s official

poverty rate for a family of four. Finally, it goes against fundamental legal principles to punish

someone for the crimes committed by another. If one were to extend the logic employed by

proponents of this plan, parents could be punished for any crime committed by their children.

PSAs and Mentor Days

Given the many problems inherent in the financial-rewards-and-penalties approach, it’s

clear that a much different way of dealing with the dropout crisis must be found. While plans for

dealing with the problem as it exists nationally are certainly needed, this paper’s primary focus is

on addressing the situation facing the communities served by SFHS.

12

Clearly, whatever idea one puts forward must address the fundamental reasons that

students have for making the decision to abandon their education. According to a number of

educational experts, a student’s failure to graduate from 9th grade with his or her peers is a major

factor in his or her ultimate decision to drop out (National High School Center). This was

confirmed by Ms. Garcia, the Dropout Coordinator for the Los Angeles Unified School District,

who was interviewed by our class in December, 2011. A survey we conducted of nearly three

hundred students, teachers, and adults in the community suggested some reasons as to why this

might be the case. These include: a sense of hopelessness that students who are held back

experience when they realize how much make-up work is required to be promoted; a sense that

graduating from high school won’t make that much difference in determining whether a student

will succeed or not; and the temptation – or perceived need – to work.

A second oft-stated reason is a lack of parental support, which the American

Psychological Association regards as “one of the four prominent risk factors determining the

likelihood of dropping out” (2011). This opinion was also verified by Ms. Garcia when she

visited with our class, and is further supported by the research we conducted in our survey,

wherein approximately 70% of respondents agreed that the failure of parents to involve

themselves in the educational experience of their children is a major problem in this community.

An idea for dealing with the first cause would be for SFHS students to visit middle-

school classrooms to talk to students there about how serious the drop-out problem is at our

school. This means that members of our class would be visiting the campuses of Charles Maclay

Middle School, San Fernando Middle School, and Pacoima Middle School to share information

we have gathered about how many SFHS students drop out and what the negative consequences

are of doing so. We would also discuss the reasons we’ve become familiar with for why so

13

many students here don’t make it, such as the fact that freshman are unaccustomed to not being

socially promoted; the likelihood that they’ll find their classes to be much more challenging; and

the possibility that they won’t feel a sense of belonging. We would follow this discussion up

with advice about how these middle school students might more successfully negotiate their way

through the many challenges and temptations they’ll face in high school. This would include

mention of such things as after-school tutoring; clubs and organizations; the Project Grad and

Impact programs; our Teen Clinic; and college class offerings.

In order to execute our plan, it will be necessary to obtain permission from the

administrators at all of the schools involved, as well as from the teachers whose classrooms will

be impacted. This can be accomplished by providing all of the parties concerned with a copy of

our position paper, as well as an outline of what we intend to discuss, along with a formal letter

of request. The likelihood of succeeding in this endeavor is enhanced by the fact that many of us

are on good terms with some of the individuals whose permission we need. In addition, we will

need to prepare a PowerPoint presentation and a short video, as well as arrange for

transportation.

This proposal has a number of positive aspects to recommend it. First, its only cost is

that of transporting the presenters by school bus, which would be negligible. It is also a very

simple plan to put into effect, inasmuch as we’ve already thoroughly researched this topic and

have composed a position paper on it. It is a logical approach, moreover, since there is ample

evidence supporting the idea that teens are more apt to take advice from their peers than from

adults. Indeed, peer mentoring, of which this is certainly an example, is touted in such academic

publications as The Journal of Primary Prevention (Dennison). Experts also support the idea of

speaking with at-risk students well before they begin attending high school (National High

14

School Center). This proposal has additional benefits not directly related to the drop-out

problem as well. These would include providing middle school teachers with a better idea of

what sorts of things are required of high school students; satisfying service-learning requirements

for graduation; and enhancing the quality of our college- and employment applications.

With respect to the lack of parental support, we propose to invite local radio and

television station owners and managers – as well as outdoor advertising companies – to

broadcast public service announcements urging parents in our community to get more involved

in the education of their children, in general, and to do all they can to ensure that their children

graduate from high school, in particular. This will necessitate that we write formal letters of

request, as well as notify local newspapers of our intention so that they can help us pressure these

parties into helping us put our plan into action. Once we succeed in establishing a partnership,

we hope to be integrally involved in composing the scripts that will be used – and perhaps even

taking part in their recording and production.

As bold as this approach may seem, its cost to all parties is minimal. Time is all that we

will have to donate, and station owners and advertisers can realize a substantial tax benefit.

These parties will also have the opportunity to satisfy the requirement that they engage in public

service in exchange for being able to use public airwaves. Another feature that makes this plan

attractive is that it is more likely to succeed than current methods of communicating with

parents. Although SFHS has a Parent Center which regularly sponsors events intended to

facilitate communication with parents, their success in getting parents to participate has been

very limited. Similar events that have been sponsored by SFHS’s respective Small Learning

Communities have also been largely unsuccessful. The reason most often given for why parents

don’t attend these events is that they are working or commuting to or from work. If the message

15

that we want to communicate to them is broadcast over the airwaves or posted on local

billboards, it’s highly likely that we’ll be successful in overcoming such obstacles.

Conclusion

As this essay has hopefully made plain, a viable approach to dealing with the high school

dropout problem – at least as it exists in the San Fernando/Pacoima community – would be to

take advantage of existing resources to have local broadcasters produce and send out public

service announcements reminding parents of the role they play in ensuring that the youth of this

area take their education seriously. Coupled with this is the recommendation that those SFHS

students who are succeeding visit those who will soon embark upon their high school careers and

advise them about how to overcome the many challenges they are likely to face. While the idea

of paying kids to go to school or arresting the parents of those students who don’t may be well-

intentioned, they are unfeasible at the very least and would likely create more problems. Given

how serious the problem of students abandoning their education is – again, especially in this

community – it is imperative that all of those who can do something about it join with us to do

so. No one is immune from the detrimental effects this problem poses; therefore, no one should

think they have no role to play in attempting to solve it.

16

Works Cited

Alliance for Excellent Education. “High School Dropouts in America.” Alliance for Excellent Eduction. Sept 2010. <http://www.all4ed.org/files/GraduationRates_FactSheet.pdf>

American Psychological Association. “Facing the School Dropout Dilemma.” Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2011. < http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/school-dropout-prevention.aspx

Blume, Howard and Mitchell Landsberg. “1 in 4 Quit High School in California.” Los Angeles Times July 17, 2008 <http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-dropout17>

Bradford, Harry. “Siemens CEO: 'Mismatch' Between U.S. Jobs Available, Skills Needed.” The Huffington Post 21 Jun 2011 < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/siemens-ceo-there-is-mismatch-jobs-unemployed_n_881257.html>

California’s Children. “LAUSD 2nd worst HS grad rate in US; CA ranks 41st among states.” San Diego: Human Services Management Corporation, Jun 2010. <http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/2010/06/hs-grad-rates-plumet-in-ca.html>

Da Costa Nunez, Ralph. “How a GED Is a Real Advantage in Reducing Family Homelessness in NYC.” The Huffington Post 19 Mar 2011 < http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2011/03/how-a-ged-is-a-real-advantage.html

Dennison, Susan. ‘”A Win-Win Peer Mentoring and Tutoring Program: A Collaborative Model.  Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 161-174.

Dianda, Marcella R. “Preventing Future High School Dropouts.” Washington: National Education Association, 2008. <http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/dropoutguide1108.pdf>

Education Week. “Progress on Graduation Rate Stalls; 1.3 Million Students Fail to Earn Diploma.” Education Week 10 Jun 2010. <http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/dc/2010/DC10_PressKit_FINAL.pdf>

Gollan, Jennifer and Sydney Lupkin. “Education vs. Prisons: Shifting Priorities.” The Bay Citizen 30 Aug 2011 < http://www.baycitizen.org/education/interactive/education-vs-prisons-shifting-priorities/

Hardesty, Greg. “Police Sweep Arrests Parents for Kids’ Skipping School.” ‘The Orange County Regiser May 10, 2011.

Heckman, James J. and Paul A. LaFontaine. “The American High School Graduation

17

Rate:Trends and Levels.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Dec 2007. < http://www.nber.org/papers/w13670.pdf>

Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey.” Jan 6, 1816.

Leonhardt, David. “How Much Does Health Care Cost You?” The New York Times July 21, 2009.

Los Angeles Unified School District. “School Report Card 10-11.” Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District, 2011.

Miller, Sara B. “How to keep those kids in class? Pay them.” The Christian Science Monitor 29 July 2005.

National Center for Education Statistics. “Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates ....in the United States: 1972–2008.” Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, ....2010. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/dropout08/

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. "Education At a Glance 2009." Paris: Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009. <http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_43586328_1_1_1_1,00.html>

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Education Pay in higher earnings and lower unemployment rates.” Washington, D.C.: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011. <http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

Wingert, Patrice. “The (Somewhat) Good and (Mostly) Bad News About High-School Dropout Rates.” Newsweek 13 Jun 2010 <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/14/the-somewhat-good-and-mostly-bad-news-about-high-school-dropout-rates.html

18

Addendum

In contrast to the inadequacies of paying kids to go to school or fining their parents if

they do not – and in addition to work, described above, that we plan to do at our feeder middle

schools – we have recently been made aware of a commonsense idea whose efficacy has already

been demonstrated, and that will likely prove more beneficial than anything we may undertake to

do with middleschoolers. We became familiar with it after we finished our paper and came

across a story produced by the Planet Money1 program on National Public Radio. It is based on

the notion that trying to address the symptoms exhibited by teenagers who are at risk of dropping

out is a waste of both time and money, as there is little hope that anything significant can be done

by the time those in danger of leaving school prematurely reach that age. Instead of waiting for

the tell-tale symptoms to manifest themselves, the approach we have become aware of seeks to

combat the circumstances disadvantaged children face at a much younger age that often lead

them to drop out later on. The idea is a simple one; namely, to make pre-school education more

accessible to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

This approach is based on research conducted at the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill in 1972 by psychiatrists Craig Rainey and Frances Campbell, who wanted to

question the long-held belief that attempting to educate pre-school children served no real

purpose. They not only debunked that notion but found that preschool children who aren’t

adequately nurtured grow up to be “crippled” adults. Based on these findings, they developed a

formal curriculum and a plan for testing its effectiveness in producing lasting, positive attributes

in the children whom they would subject to it.

Once they had designed their curriculum, Rainey and Campbell populated their preschool

with 50 children from underprivileged households. They simultaneously selected 50 children for

19

long-term observation who would not receive a preschool education. The latter group functioned,

in other words, as a control group. The results of the study, which became known as the

“Abecedarian” project, were astonishing in a number of important ways. One is that the

researchers discovered long-term differences in IQ levels between the two groups of children

that persisted into adulthood. In addition, whereas nearly half of the females in the control group

got pregnant when they were teenagers, only 23% of the former preschoolers did. The children

who went to preschool also had higher employment and college enrollment rates. Moreover,

whereas only 6% of the control group eventually went to college, 25% - a rate comparable to the

general population – ended up doing so.

Many of the results of this experiment were confirmed by another in Ipsilane, Michigan,

that came to be known as the Perry Pre-School Project. While the same sort of long-term IQ

gains were not reproduced, there were other significant improvements regarding the percentage

of test subjects who opened up savings accounts and owned such important assets as an

automobile and a home. Significant, as well, is the fact that adolescent- and adult-illness rates

were lower, as was the percentage of those who engaged in criminal activity. With regard to the

latter, whereas those who are raised in low socioeconomic circumstances and drop out of school

are 2.3 times as likely to commit a crime, the graduates of the Perry Pre-school Project were less

than half as likely to.

One academician who found the results noteworthy is James Heckman, a professor of

economics at the University of Chicago and a Noble laureate in that discipline. Commenting on

the lower crime rates, in particular, he explains that disadvantaged children who are fortunate

enough to get a pre-K education learn 50% more “soft skills” than those who do not. By soft

skills, he means such things as impulse and anger control, which he suggests are critical to future

20

development in that they allow a person to focus on learning and thereby acquire positive and

long-lasting adult traits. Heckman contends that children from disadvantaged households learn

many fewer words and symbols than their counterparts from more privileged backgrounds: a

finding which is corroborated by studies done at the University of Oregon2 and summarized in

the following chart.

Family Status

Words heard per hour

Words heard in a 100-hour week

Words heard in a 5,200 hour year

Words heard in 4 years

Welfare 616 62,000 3 million 13 million

Working Class

1,251 125,000 6 million 26 million

Professional 2,153 215,000 11 million 45 million

Heckman declares that in addition to being permanently disadvantaged by these disparaties,

students from low socioeconomic backgrounds lack the knowledge of such basic academic

prerequisites as how to hold a book. Because they start elementary school so far behind,

Heckman contends, and because they never catch up to their peers from households that provide

exposure to such crucial inputs, he continues, teenagers from low socioeconomic backgrounds

are much more likely to drop out of school, after which they are much more likely to go to jail.

According to a cost/benefit analysis Heckman prepared, providing disadvantaged

children with a Pre-K education is a much better use of taxpayer dollars than trying to address

the “symptoms of disadvantage” when they are adolescents. Indeed, he calculates that for every

dollar spent, society gets a $30 - $300 return. His calculations must have some legitimacy

inasmuch as a number of highly successful and philanthropic investors and businesspeople have

donated huge sums of money to fund broadened access to preschool education. In Oklahoma,

for example, one preschool that serves at-risk children received the lion’s share of its funding

21

from George Kaiser, a self-styled “robber baron” who made a fortune in the oil and gas industry.

After concluding that his investment has indeed paid great dividends in terms of providing

underserved children with tools critical to their future success, he plans to subsidize the

establishment of another ten such schools. In the neighboring state of Nebraska, the daughter of

multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffet, Susie Buffet, is similarly convinced of pre-K

education’s efficacy and has donated considerable sums to fund the creation of programs in her

area.

If only the state of California had such far-sighted and well-endowed philanthropists.

Because of the economic difficulties it has sustained as a result of the so-called Great Recession,

the Golden State has had to cut funding of its preschool programs. Last year, per-pupil spending

was reduced by $114 to $4028 last year, which is almost $700 less than what was provided

during the 2001-02 school year. The result is that 200,000 eligible children have had to be put on

a waiting list until more monies are available. Until that happens, we believe that the federal

government should do what it can to rectify this situation and strongly applaud President Obama

for calling for just such a measure in his 2013 State of the Union address.

To those who immediately criticized the President for suggesting that the federal

government spend money on this program which they regard as inappropriate for a nation with

such high levels of debt, it should be kept in mind that the amount needed to provide a

disadvantaged child with a pre-school education, approximately $4500.00, is many times less

than the cost of housing a prisoner for a single year, which is currently around $50,000.00 in

California. They should also bear in mind a statistic provided earlier in this paper, which reveals

that approximately three-quarters of those who are incarcerated in this country are high school

dropouts. When one takes into consideration the fact that children from low socioeconomic

22

backgrounds begin elementary school woefully behind their more priveleged peers, and that they

never catch up, it should be abundantly clear that rather than spending more money to support

this program, the nation would actually be getting back many times the amounts that are called

for in reduced incarceration costs alone.

Readers of this paper should also know that the findings of the Abededarian Project and

the opinion of scholars like Professor Heckman agree with the results of a survey of 1200

students we recently conducted at our high school, located in one of the most impoverished and

crime-ridden communities in Los Angeles County. Of the XXX number of students who

reported that they had attended pre-school, XXX % had good grades (defined as As and Bs) and

a significant proportion are or have been on the school’s honor roll, which requires that they

have a grade point average of 3.0 or higher.

1Planet Money. “The Case for Preschool.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/13/137109349/the-friday-podcast-the-case-for-preschool. Jun 10, 2011.

2University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. “Big Ideas in Beginning Reading.” http://reading.uoregon.edu/big_ideas/voc/voc_what.php. Apr 7, 2013.

23