A Discussion of the Pathways Leading to Dropout

Sociological and psychological theories perceive dropout as a process of academic disengagement influenced by both in- and out-of-school factors that generally starts early in a students’ academic career (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Freeman & Simonsen, 2015; Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012;Hickman, Bartholomew, Mathwig, & Heinrich, 2008; Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000; Rumberger & Rotermund, 2012).
Economists on the other hand saw dropout on the perspective of cost–benefit analysis that teenagers utilized in deciding whether to stay in school. Murnane (2013), on the other hand believed that the expected benefits and costs of staying in school vary depending on the student’s particular skills, attributes, as well as family circumstances. Thus, those students who had the opportunity to receive early investment in the development of their core cognitive and social–emotional skills either from their parents or programs, may perceive and experience greater benefits from staying in school than to poor investment early in early life (Cunha & Heckman, 2007).
However, the economic, psychological, and sociological perspectives did suggest that early intervention in trying to redirect students on a trajectory of academic Disengagement, as well as advice towards investing resources in early skill development of students will be more efficient than intervention in the high school years in reducing dropout.Consistent with these theoretical frameworks, it is believed that risk factors for dropout manifest early in life, and closer to the dropout process or time (Alexander et al., 1997; Heers, Van Klaveren, Groot, & Maassen van den Brink, 2011; Murnane, 2013; Rumberger, 2011; Thyssen, De Witte, Groot, & Maasen van den Brink, 2010).
Besides, studies of high-quality, and comprehensive preschool programs like Head Start as early childhood programs, are commonly associated with a decreased risk of high school dropout (Berrueta-Clement, 1984; Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002). Consequently, high school dropouts are normally measured through student academic indicators like poor grades, low achievement test scores, and grade accumulation during elementary, middle, and high school. On the other hand, indicators of school engagement range from student attendance, classroom behavior, perceptions of school environment, and extracurricular involvement are also linked to dropout
In light of sociodemographic and out-of-school risk factors, the graduation rates appear to be significantly lower for Black and Hispanic youth (Murnane, 2013; NCES, 2016; Pursley, Munsch, & Wampler, 1998) as well as male students as compared to that of female students. It is therefore undisputably clear that Students who drop out of high school presumedly come from low-income families, from a single-parent households, and from parental education levels are strong predictors of high school dropout. Another factor is the result of ethnic influence of English language learners who also present increased risk of dropout (NCES, 2016). Other factors include student mobility involving students changes in home address or school attended may lead to problems of adaptability associated with leaving high school before completion (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Swanson & Schneider, 1999). This process of a partial engagement mechanism that is linked between student mobility or school transfers, are factors that increased risk of dropout (Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Swanson & Schneider, 1999).
By proof of socioeconomic indicators relative to student dropout, it is believed that the  theory of disinvestment from education in adolescence can be linked to insufficient resource investment in skills development in childhood (Murnane, 2013). In addition, this it is also consistent with the idea that children from stressful socioeconomic backgrounds also are likely to have lower school engagement due to daily life stress, attending schools with a high teacher turnover, poor instruction, unsafe conditions, and negative student–teacher relationships (Dearing, 2008).
Most importantly, studies of dropout risk indicate that living in a single parent household as well as having failing grades is highly predictive assessment of a dropout than in a single risk factor (Bowers, Sprott, & Taff, 2013). In conclusion, support and analysis of the dropout models view dropout as the outcome of a long-term developmental process, and that such models account for growth over time in academic skills (Bowers et al., 2013). Thus, a multifaceted, and comprehensive approach to meeting student needs early, might best address the potential dropout trajectories.
 
Alexander K. L., Entwisle D. R., Horsey C. S. (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87–107
Astone N. M., McLanahan S. S. (1994). Family structure, residential mobility, and school dropout: A research note. Demography, 31(4), 575–584.
Berrueta-Clement J. R. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, number eight. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Foundation.
Cunha F., Heckman J. (2007). The technology of skill formation (No. w12840). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dearing E. (2008). The psychological costs of growing up poor. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136, 324–332
Murnane R. J. (2013). U.S. high school graduation rates: Patterns and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 1(2), 370–422.
Rumberger R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 101–121.