University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparative study of the family processes of youth of Mexican descent who have dropped out of high school and those who have remained in school

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparative study of the family processes of youth of Mexican descent who have dropped out of high school and those who have remained in school

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
T he quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE FAMILY PROCESSES
OF YOUTH OF MEXICAN DESCENT
WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL
AND THOSE WHO HAVE REMAINED IN SCHOOL
by
Victor Cota
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Social Work)
December 1996
Copyright 1996 Victor Cota
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 9720211
Copyright 1996 by
Cota, Victor
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9720211
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
V ictor Cota
under the direction of h is Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF FHRJDSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
12a 1996
Date
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
. / I d *
v \ ^ Chairperson
? -C /l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
Para mi familia, por creer en mi.
(To my fam ily, fo r believing in me.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This researcher wishes to acknowledge the members of his Dissertation Committee
for their support, guidance, and interest in this study. I am grateful to Helen Land, Chair,
for her enthusiasm and scholarly advice; Robert Rueda, for his practical direction; and
Maura O'Keefe, for her technical direction. I thank Gregory Robinson and his staff, for
the hours of lab work. I am most grateful to my wife, Teresa Mercado-Cota, for her
endless belief in me and endless support in my quest to learn; and to my children, who are
my inspiration. This study would not have been possible without the participation of the
families who helped me, so that I may be able to help others. The blessings are mine.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. viii
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ABSTRACT............................................................ x
CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ..........................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Scope of the Problem ......................................................................................I
Background o f the Problem ...............................................................4
H istorical Perspective ......................................................................... 4
Demographic Data ...............................................................................4
Fam ily B ackground............................................................................... 5
Peer R elations ................................................................................... 6
School Factors ..................................................................................... 7
Economic F actors.................................................................................. 8
Individual Factors..................................................................................9
A Complicated Problem ................................................................... 10
M inority Background ...................................................................... 1 1
Latino Background ........................................................................11
Shortcomings in Research..................................................................13
Focus o f this Study ..................................................................................... 13
Implications o f the Study Results ...............................................................15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 16
Introduction ................................................................................................. 16
Conceptual O verview ......................................................................................16
Social Clim ate ............................................................................................... 17
Interpersonal Relationships: Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict .20
Personal Growth: Independence, Achievement Intellectual-Recreational,
Active-Recreational, M oral-Religious................................................ 21
System Maintenance: Organization, Control ...................................22
G eneration Status............................................................................................ 23
A cculturation ............................................................................................. 25
English Language Proficiency ...................................................................27
D iscussion........................................................................................................... 31
Conceptual Assumptions ............................................................................32
Research Q uestions .......................................................................................32
H ypotheses ...................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 36
D esign .............................................................................................................. 36
Sampling M ethod ......................................................................................... 36
Data C ollection................................................................................................ 39
Final Sample Size ........................................................................................39
Measurement o f M ajor Variables .............................................................. 41
Operationalization o f the Term Dropout ....................................................41
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Operationalization o f the Family Processes ................................................43
Other Variables o f Study .......................................................................... 44
Independent V ariables .......................................................................46
M ediating V ariables ........................................................................ 47
Dependent V ariable............................................................................. 47
Family Environm ent Scale ............................................................... 48
Interpersonal Relations .......................................................... 49
Personal Growth .................................................................... 49
Family System Maintenance ..................................................50
Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics .........................................54
Data Analysis An Overview .................................................................... 57
D elim itations .................................................................................................60
Lim itations ....................................................................................................60
Summary ....................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ..................................................................................... 61
Description of the Sample .........................................................................61
D escriptive Data ............................................................................................ 61
Demographic Characteristics ......................................................... 61
Student R espondents............................................................................61
Personal Features..................................................................... 61
G ender..............................................................................61
A ge....................................................................................61
Language of Questionnaire.......................................... 64
A bility to Speak English............................................. 64
E th n icity ..........................................................................64
Place o f Birth ...........................................................64
G eneration Status..........................................................65
R eligion............................................................................65
Church Attendance ....................................................65
D ating...............................................................................65
Fam ilial Features ................................................................. 66
Siblings ........................................................................ 66
B irth O rder....................................................................66
Living Arrangem ent..................................................... 66
H ousehold........................................................................66
Expected Contribution to Family Income...................... 66
Expected Care of Siblings ....................................... 66
Respondents Having Own Children ............................ 68
Academic Features .................................................................69
G rade Com pletion........................................................ 69
School Enrollm ent........................................................ 69
Grade Retainment ....................................................... 69
Siblings Who Dropped Out ........................................ 70
Plans o f Dropouts Returning to School........................ 70
Plans of Remainers Dropping Out............................... 71
Involvement in School Activities ...............................71
Conflict With School Officials.................................... 72
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Plans on Attending College ........................................72
O ther Features ........................................................................72
Level o f Acculturation ............................................... 72
Parent Respondents .........................................................................73
Personal Features..................................................................... 73
G ender..............................................................................73
A ge....................................................................................73
M arital Status ..............................................................73
Relationship to Student .............................................73
Number o f Children.....................................................73
E thnicity .....................................................................75
Place o f Birth .............................................................75
G eneration Status..........................................................75
Language o f Questionaire ...........................................75
Ability to Speak English............................................. 75
R eligion........................................................................... 75
Church attendance........................................................ 75
Fam ilial Features ....................................................................75
Fam ily Moving ........................................................... 75
Family Income ........................................................ 75
Number Living in the H ousehold............................... 76
Number Working Out of the Home ........................... 76
Academic Features ................................................................. 76
Grade Com pletion........................................................ 76
Other Children Who Dropped O u t..............................76
Importance of Child Graduating from High School 76
O ther Features ........................................................................78
Level o f Acculturation ............................................... 78
D escriptive Findings ...................................................................................79
Student Responses .......................................................................... 80
Why Students Dropped Out.................................................. 80
Why Others Drop Out........................................................... 82
Advice to Keep Others in School...........................................83
Parent Responses .............................................................................. 88
Why Child Dropped Out ..................................................... 88
Why Others Drop Out .........................................................90
Advice to Keep Students in School ..................................... 92
Analysis o f Hypotheses ............................................................................ 97
H ypothesis 1 ......................................................................................97
H ypothesis 2 ..................................................................................... 98
H ypothesis 3 ..................................................................................... 98
H ypothesis 4 ..................................................................................... 99
H ypothesis 5 ..................................................................................... 99
H ypothesis 6 100
H ypothesis 7 101
Hypothesis 8 102
Hypothesis 9 104
Hypothesis 10 104
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypothesis 11 105
Hypothesis 12 105
Hypothesis 13 106
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY ................................................. 108
Review o f Research Questions ...............................................................108
Questions Regarding Family Processes ...................................................108
Summary .................................................................................... 112
Compared to Normative Sample ................................................... 113
Compared to Distressed Sample ................................................... 114
Compared to Other Samples....................................................................... 115
Question Regarding the Importance of Graduating from High School............ 117
Questions Regarding Mediating Variables ...............................................118
Im plications for Social W ork..................................................................... 123
Recommendations for Future Research...................................................... 124
Summary ........................................................................................................ 126
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 128
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................ 137
Student Demographic Questionnaire (English) .........................................138
Student Demographic Questionnaire (Spanish) ...........................................143
APPENDIX B............................................................................................................ 148
Parent Demographic Questionnaire (English) ............................................149
Parent Demographic Questionnaire (Spanish).............................................. 153
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 157
Comparison of Families in the Study Sample to Normative Data
and D istressed Sample ............................................................................... 158
Comparison o f Homes of Dropouts and Remainers ..................................159
Comparison of Parents of Dropouts and Rem ainers................................... 161
Comparison o f Dropouts and Remainers ................................................... 163
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................ 165
Informed Consent: Parent (English) ....................................................... 166
Informed Consent: Parent (Spanish) ........................................................168
APPENDIX E ..................................................................... 170
Informed Consent: Young Adult 18 Years or Older (English)......................171
Informed Assent: Student Under 18 Years of Age (English) .......................173
Informed Consent: Young Adult 18 Years or Older (Spanish) .................... 175
Informed Assent: Student Under 18 Years of Age (Spanish).......................177
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. GENDER OF STUDENTS..................................................... 64
TABLE 2. AGE OF STUDENTS............................................................. 65
TABLE 3. NUMBER OF SIBLINGS...................................................... 67
TABLE 4. BIRTH ORDER........................................................................ 68
TABLE 5. RESPONDENTS HAVING CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN........69
TABLE 6. SIBLINGS WHO DROPPED OUT ....................................... 70
TABLE 7. INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL ACTIVITIES.........................71
TABLE 8. STUDENT LEVEL OF ACCULTURATION .........................72
TABLE 9. NUMBER OF PERSONS LIVING IN THE HOUSEHOLD
WITH THE PARENT ......................................................... 76
TABLE 10. IMPORTANCE OF CHILD GRADUATING
FROM HIGH SCHOOL ....................................................... 78
TABLE 11. PARENT LEVEL OF ACCULTURATION ........................... 79
TABLE 12. PLEASE GIVE US THE MOST IMPORTANT
REASON WHY YOU DROPPED OUT
(Student Questionnaire: Dropouts) ....................................... 81
TABLE 13. PLEASE GIVE US THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON
WHY YOU THINK STUDENTS DROP OUT OF SCHOOL
(Student Questionnaire: Remainers) ...................................... 83
TABLE 14. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US TO MOTIVATE
STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Student Questionnaire: Dropouts) ........................................85
TABLE 15. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US TO MOTIVATE
STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Student Questionnaire: Remainers) ...................................... 87
viii
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 16. PLEASE GIVES US THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON
WHY YOUR CHILD DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL
(Adult Questionnaire: Parents of Dropouts)........................... 89
TABLE 17. PLEASE GIVES US THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON
WHY YOU THINK STUDENTS DROP OUT OF SCHOOL
(Adult Questionnaire: Parents o f Remainers)..........................92
TABLE 18. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US TO MOTIVATE
STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Adult Questionnaire: Parents of Dropouts)...........................94
TABLE 19. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US TO MOTIVATE
STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Adult Questionnaire: Parents o f R em ainers)........................ 95
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION ABSTRACT
This empirical study compared die family processes and structural characteristics of 262
participants, including 113 students (52 high school dropouts and 57 remainers), 137
parents and 12 siblings. The respondents answered a demographic questionnaire-which
included measures of generation status and English-language proficiency-and scales of
acculturation (Short Acculturation Scale forHispanics) and family social climate (Family
Environment Scale). The respondents completed die instruments in face-to-face interviews,
by telephone, or by mail. They had choice o f answering in English or Spanish. Statistic
tests were run with and without the 12 siblings and there was no difference in the results.
The siblings were included in analyses of the results. The comparison in family
environment revealed differences in perceived family growth and cohesion. The families of
the remainers placed a greater degree o f emphasis on activities that enhanced familial
growth and support than the families of the dropouts. The parents of the remainers also
favored more structure and organization, especially control within the family. The parents
and the families of the remainers were also more moral-religious oriented. The students
were more alike than different, except that die remainers were more oriented towards
personal growth than the dropouts. Dropping out behavior among students was also
addressed, using the structural data. From die parents' results, a prediction model was able
to accurately classify the status of 67% of students (either as dropouts or remainers), based
on the parents' level of education, household income, level of acculturation, and English
language proficiency. From the students' data, die model was able to predict the status of
65% of the students, based on the students' last grade completed in school, English-
language proficiency, expected contribution to the family income, generation status, and
level of acculturation. In both instances, the model was better able to predict the status of
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the remainers. There were several statistically significant differences between the dropouts
and the remainers. More dropouts w oe boys, older, came from larger families, had more
younger siblings), had children of their own, and more siblings who had dropped out The
remainers were more involved in school activities. The parents o f the remainers reported
significantly smaller households and higher level of importance in having their children
graduate from high school. There w oe no significant differences between the groups with
regard to level of acculturation, English-language proficiency and generation status in the
United States. These findings may be of use in the effort to improve school attainment
among children o f Mexican descent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In tro d u ctio n
In the past three decades, there has been a marked interest in the study of high
school dropouts. Given the complexity of the problem of dropouts, there has been a
corresponding need to study the problem from various perspectives and with various
designs. There are some notable limitations to the research thus far and there exist several
conceptual gaps that need to be filled. The primary aim of this study was to compare the
characteristics of Latino youth who dropped out of high school with those who remained in
school, and to examine whether family dynamics bare an influence on dropping out or
staying in school. This study attempted to begin to close a conceptual gap that exists in the
literature-namely, that of observing how structural characteristics (demographic variables)
and family processes status (such an interpersonal relationships, personal growth and
family organizational structure) may affect the dropping out behavior of Latino youth;
further, it sought to examine how generation status in the United States, acculturation, and
English-language proficiency may serve as mediating effects.
Scope of the Problem
The high incidence of school dropouts constitutes a major social and educational
problem. Rumberger (1987) indicates that leaving school prior to high school graduation
is likely to create serious educational deficiencies that may severely limit a person's
economic and social well-being throughout her/his life-course.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School dropouts are potential victims of a multiplicity of social problems. Failure
to complete school tends to subject dropouts to substandard employment or
unemployment, poor health care, dilapidated housing and minimal social services. In turn,
the impact on society creates what Iatridis (1988) calls a social deficit; that is, a gap
between met and unmet human needs that has resulted in social neglect
Ironically, the only universal provision in America-compulsory education-is
failing the grade. The national high school dropout rate is about twenty-five percent, and
almost fifty percent in the inner cities, where die children of low income, ethnic and
linguistic minority, and poorly educated parents attend school (Brooks, 1989).
Dropping out of school is usually the culmination of a long pattern of poor school
adjustment (Barrington & Hendricks, 1989). Failure to complete school tends to culminate
in substandard employment or unemployment, poor health care, poor housing and limited
access to social services.
Education and social science researchers have devoted close attention in the past
three decades to die problem of school dropouts. Most of the literature has focused on the
individual dropout Some attempts have been made to compare dropouts and those who
face similar circumstances as the dropouts but remain in school (Alpert & Dunham, 1986;
Dunham & Alpert, 1987). Other research has observed the influence of schools and
families upon dropouts and those who remain in school, often called remainers. While the
school dimension has been explored at length (e.g., Fine, 1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986;
Rumberger, 1987), the family dimension has been virtually untapped. The family is
repeatedly listed in the literature as having both positive and negative influences on a
child's decision to stay in or leave school (Fernandez, Paulsen, & Hirano-Nakanishi,
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1989; Velez, 1989; Frank, 1990), but there is a paucity of research on the study of family
processes.
Recent literature suggests that parent-child interaction in the home may influence
behavior in the school (Forehand, Long, Brody, & Fauber, 1986). Both school
achievement (Hess & Holloway, 1984) and social functioning (MacDonald & Parke,
1984), particularly among young children, appear to be related to the relationship between
parent and child. The family serves as the primary initial context within which children
learn appropriate and inappropriate interaction styles (Forehand et al., 1986). Since
children acquire their most fundamental lessons in basic life tasks and human relationships
within the family, die family is thus seen as the primary educator of children (Darling,
1987). Hess and Howard (1981) argue that appropriate intervention requires attention to
all interacting variables in a child’ s environment
Traditionally, the study of how the school and the family affect the individual
child's education has been separate and differentiated. Those who have studied schools
have rarely studied how school practices affect family attitudes, interactions, and practices
(Epstein, 1990). This body of literature addresses either the study of the school or of the
family; where the school is considered the agent of education, but not of socialization, and
the family is considered the agent of socialization, but not of education (Darling, 1987).
The emphasis of this line of study has been on separateness or critical states and
sequencing. The emphasis here is in accepting developmental theory and placing the
responsibility for parents to be in charge of children in the early years and the school in the
later years (Kagan, 1980).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Background of the Problem
Historical Perspective
There is a historical perspective to account for the incidence of school dropouts.
The discourse on the dropout phenomenon has been undergoing an evolutionary transition
during this century (Petrovich, 1989). At the turn of the century, 80 to 90 percent of male
youths did not graduate from high school, but a diploma was not a prerequisite for most
employment It was not until the 1950s that over half of high school students began to
graduate, and not until the 1960s that the issue of school dropouts became a national
concern. Petrovich observed that inequities became obvious as data began to differentiate
between social classes, gender, and ethnic minorities, with respect to school attainment.
Since the 1960s there has been a proliferation of empirical research into the
question of school dropouts. The research has identified a wide range of factors that are
associated with this problem. Rumberger (1987) has grouped the factors into six
categories: demographics, family relations, peer relations, school relations, economics,
and individual factors. Much o f the research has focused on the dropouts' perspective,
with minimal attention given to the parents' or the family’ s perspective.
Demographic Data
Demographic data repeatedly indicate that dropouts are disproportionately from
ethnic minority groups. Subgroup data reveal in the "High School and Beyond" study, a
national longitudinal study of high school sophomore and seniors commissioned by the
National Center for Education Statistics in 1980, and similar studies, dropouts were more
likely to be older, to be males than females, and to attend public schools in urban areas and
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in the South or West (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack & Rock, 1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986;
Rumberger, 1987).
Careful attention to specific groups often reveals different results. For example, in
examining the "High School and Beyond” results, Velez (1989) and Fernandez et al.
(1989) found that among Latinos, there was a relatively small effect o f socio-economic
status on dropouts and that girls dropped out at a higher rate than boys. A possible
explanation given for the former is that the parents' level of education is a stronger
predictor for dropping out than socio-economic status (a similar conclusion reached by
Rumberger, 1983 and Frank, 1990). The latter difference was explained as possibly
occurring due to the effects of gender, suggesting that norms, beliefs, and values produce
parenting styles that have a differential impact on the educational achievement of Latinas
(Velez, 1989).
Family Background
The literature has also identified dropout factors associated wife family background
and structure. Again, fee principal factor listed in most studies is that dropouts dispro
portionately come from low socio-economic status families (Rumberger, 1983; Kolstad &
Owings, 1986). Other related factors include low educational and occupational attainment
levels of parents, lower educational expectation from parents, less parental monitoring of
fee youth's activities in and out of school, single-parent families, and fee absence of
learning materials and opportunities in fee home (Ekstrom et aL, 1986; Rumberger, 1987).
These family-related factors also appear to impact upon Latino dropouts. Velez
(1989) found that students from two-parent households tended to remain in school, while
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fernandez, Paulsen and Hirano Nakanishi (1989) found that nuclear family responsibilities
were likely to draw youth out of school
The literature suggests that a more detailed investigation of family variables in
research on the family should focus on family problems and stressors. Research has been
performed regarding chronic strains (Billings & Moos, 1982), traumatic events (McCubbin
& Figley, 1983), daily hassles (Delongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman & Lazarus, 1982),
and, pileup (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Pileup recognizes that families responding to
a stressor often encounter additional stressors during their coping efforts. However, none
of the detailed studies of family problems and stressors have related these variables to
educational outcomes of the children.
Some researchers (e.g., Casas & Furlong, 1986; Delgado-Gaitan, 1986; Delgado-
Gaitan & Trueba, 1991) have found that Latino parents fail to be involved in their
children's schooling due to lack of understanding the role that they can and are expected to
play in their children's school, lack of ability to translate their verbal support of education
to practice, lack of confidence and lack of skills in how to interact with school personnel.
Nonetheless, teachers often attribute the children's school failure (and dropping out) to the
perceived parental inability to help children in school matters (Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba,
1991).
Peer Relations
Peer relations have also been identified as potential predictors for dropping out of
school. The research is not conclusive in this area, however, although it is well known
that potential dropouts and dropouts tend to identify as friends those who are dropouts and
who have low educational aspirations and expectations (Rumberger, 1987), and are
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
alienated from school (Ekstrom et al., 1986). In contrast, Ekstrom and colleagues found
that having close friends who plan to attend college is a predictor of staying in school.
The literature on the factors leading Latinos to drop out is mixed in this area. As
has been identified above, accelerated role-taking and heavy sexual involvement are
predictors of dropping out, especially among Latinas (Velez, 1989). Bell (1990) found in
studying the "High School and Beyond” results that peer/friendship network was among
the five major predictors for dropping out among Latinos. However, Saenz (1990) found
in comparing Mexican American high school dropouts and remainers in Utah that peer
pressure was not as strong a predictor for dropping out as other factors, such as poor
teaching and poor relationships with teachers. The difference may be based on
heterogeneity versus homogeneity with regard to ethnic identity. Nonetheless, Trueba
(1988) found that positive peer socialization among minority youth in a dropout prevention
program had the potential for restructuring self-concept and engaging in social ventures for
academic achievement.
School Factors
School-related factors are often mentioned in the literature since the problem of
dropouts is an educational problem. There is ample documentation that poor academic
achievement, as measured by grades, tests scores and grade retention, and doing less
homework, is associated with dropping out (Ekstrom et a l, 1986; Wehlage & Rutter,
1986). The literature also identifies behavioral problems, such as absenteeism, truancy and
discipline problems, with dropping out (Wehlage & Rutter, 1986).
Most of the attention has been on the student's behavior and less on the influence of
the school on dropping out Fine (1986) and Wehlage and Rutter (1986) found that
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools do contribute to dropping out, given the poor facilities and inadequate teaching
personnel. Catterall (1986) has argued that dropping out itself may be viewed as a process
of disengagement from school, due to either academic or social reasons.
Among Latinos, school-related factors play an important factor in dropping out
Confrontation with school personnel, bad grades, disenrollment in academic curriculum,
and lack of participation in extra-curricular activities were major predictors for dropping out
(Fernandez et al., 1989; Velez, 1989).
Some critics (e.g., Arevalo & Brown, 1983; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986) argue that
the brunt of the problem of dropouts and low educational attainment rests with the
educational institutions. Williams (1990) claims that "education is culpable in the massive
undereducation of minority children" (p. 236). Trueba (1988) argues that academic
underachievement is a socio-historical phenomenon related to social factors that isolate
minority children, and not an attribute of the individual.
Economic Factors
Economic factors also play a part in dropping out Socio-economic status has
already been identified as a predictor for dropping. Rumberger (1987) reported that about
one-fifth of dropouts identified economic reasons for dropping out, as defined by desire to
work, financial difficulties and home responsibilities. Ekstrom et al. (1986) found that
dropouts were more likely than remainers to work during school (74% to 42%,
respectively), to earn more than the remainers, and to enjoy work more than school (66%
to 54%).
The literature indicates that it is unclear whether youths choose to work as a step in
the process of dropping out or whether experiencing the world o f work affects their
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
decision to dropout (Rumberger, 1987). Similarly, Frank (1990) argues that it is not
possible to draw conclusions about the relative importance of socio-economic or related
economic factors and their inverse correlation with dropping out, because there may be
other more significant factors other than socio-economic status leading to dropping out
Velez (1989) found that the correlation of socio-economic status and dropping out
can also be found among low socio-economic status Latinos. About 40% of Latino males
list economic factors are their primary reason for dropping out (Rumberger, 1987).
The "High School and Beyond" study showed that being poor and being Latino
doubled the odds of dropping out of school; yet being richer and being Latino did not
reduce the odds of dropping out nearly as much as for others at the same income level
(Fernandez & Shu, 1988).
Individual Factors
Individual factors also affect dropping out Among the reasons given by dropouts
for leaving school are low levels of self-esteem and less sense of control (Rumberger,
1987), poor attitudes about school and low educational and occupational aspirations
(Ekstrom et al., 1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986), and pregnancy or marriage (Ekstrom et
al., 1986; Rumberger, 1983). Debate exists in the literature whether these factors are
problems or symptoms of underlying problems.
Individual factors of dropping out are derived from several variables. These
variables include alienation, self-esteem, locus of control, participation in extra-curricular
activities, interest in school, satisfaction with the way education is going, whether the
youth like to work hard in school, whether they feel popular with other students, whether
they feel that others see them as good students, good athletes, or as important, and the
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perception that others seem them as a troublemakers (Ekstrom et al., 1986). Males are
more likely to leave school for these reasons than are females.
A Complicated Problem
The problem of school dropouts is so complicated that the compilation of factors,
correlations, and causes that contribute to dropping out yields no "typical" dropout
Instead, what exists is a picture of a dropout who stands amid a myriad of consequences,
most of which predict a troubling adulthood. Individual and collective disadvantages are
impossible to ignore in a society that is said to be committed to equality
o f opportunity and to the full participation of all in political, social and economic affairs
(Fine, 1986; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986).
In their study of "High School and Beyond," Wehlage and Rutter (1986) found at
the start of the study that few of the eventual dropouts and remainers saw themselves as
dropping out of school and most saw themselves as continuing their education beyond high
school. Something must have happened to prevent die dropouts from attaining their goals.
Wehlage and Rutter offer the following explanation:
One plausible explanation is that those who become dropouts
see all school in relation to their experiences in high school, and
in view of their lack of academic success and disciplinary
problems, opt to terminate this negative situation and thereby
foreclose opportunities to pursue formal schooling (p. 284).
The "High School and Beyond" study delineated several primary predictors for
dropping out These are confrontation with school officials (i.e., discipline problems,
suspensions, truancy), accelerated role taking (i.e., dating), expected educational
achievement, low socio-economic status, gender, single family units, residential mobility,
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
delays in schooling or behind in age group, lack of participation in extra-curricular
activities, previous academic performance, placement in particular curricular tracks, and
immigrant status (Velez, 1989).
M inority Background
Minority and poor children are proportionately over-represented nationwide among
school dropouts, those lacking literacy and numeracy proficiencies, pregnant teenagers,
discrimination in classification for special education, under-utilization in gifted programs,
bias in intelligence tests, disciplinary action, suspensions, expulsions, segregated schools,
among others (De La Rosa & Maw, 1990). Velez (1989) found in "High School and
Beyond" that the bottom one fourth in socio-economic status were three times more likely
to drop out than the top one-fourth. Williams (1990) argues that these problems exist
because the educational system is marred by the history of American race relations-racism,
class dominance, and conflict and power.
Latino Background
Various studies have placed dropout rates among African-American, Latinos and
Native Americans from 45 to 85 percent (The Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1988;
Orange County Human Relations Commission, 1988). The "High School and Beyond"
study found that Latinos have the highest dropout rate by population subgroup (Fernandez
et al., 1989). The dropout rate for Latinos was 18.3%, higher than rates for African
-Americans (16.8%) and Whites (12.2%). Puerto Rican youth had the highest dropout rate
among the Latinos (23.0%), followed by Mexican American (21.1%) and Cubans
(19.5%). Other Latin Americans had the lowest dropout rate (11.4%) among all
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
subgroups. Fernandez et al. (1989) suggest that this latter group o f Latinos dropped out at
a lower rate due to positive school experiences in their native countries that w oe carried
over into the American school system.
In his review of "High School and Beyond", Velez (1989) found several predictors
for dropping out behavior among Latinos. The most frequent predictors included
confrontation with school officials, dating, and background attributes (girls dropped out at
a higher rate than boys). Other predictors included less affluence of families; single-parent
homes; more mobility; delay in grades or older in age; poor academic performance; less
involvement in extra-curricular activities; lower higher education aspirations; and recent
immigration.
The problem of dropouts is also serious among older Latinos. The National Center
for Education Statistics indicates in The Condition of Education (1992) that 35.3 percent of
Latino youth ages 16 through 24 drop out Education specialists have questioned the
accuracy of the data by noting that the report does not consider immigrant youth who may
have either completed the required schooling in their native countries or who do not intend
to enroll in school in the United States. Of the 23 million Latinos in the U.S., those of
Mexican ancestry are the largest sub-group (65 percent) U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, 1990). Correspondingly, Mexican Americans represent the largest
group of school dropouts. In 1988,45 percent of Mexican Americans who entered high
school failed to complete it (Analysis Report, 1988; The Hispanic Policy Development
Project, 1988).
In California, where Whites comprise 45% of students in the public schools and
Latinos— most of whom are of Mexican American descent— represent 35%, Latinos are
twice as likely to dropout as Whites (California State Department of Education, 1992).
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Latinos have a 29.2% dropout rate as compared to 14.4% for Whites (California State
Department of Education, 1992).
Shortcomings in Research
Rumberger (1987) identifies three primary shortcomings in the research on
dropouts. First, he argues that much of the research has been largely correlational in nature
and shows only bivariate relationships between dropping out of school and a host of
independent variables. Second, the study is usually cross-sectional in nature while the
problem is longitudinal. Third, many of the factors associated with dropping out,
especially those related to family background, focus on structural characteristics rather than
family processes.
Therefore, a gap still exists in the study of family processes that may help define
the problem of school dropouts. The limited research on dropouts that has taken the family
into consideration has done no more than to ask dropouts about their perception of the
influence that the family plays in dropping out behavior. The dropouts' family members-
especially the parents-have not been included in describing their family dynamics, and
how these dynamics may influence the students' decision to stay in school.
Focus of this Study
This study will attempt to add and build upon the existing knowledge of school
dropouts. The current models have not been effective in studying family processes. Some
studies have undergone comparative analyses of dropouts and remainers (e.g., "High
School and Beyond"), but have not included their families in the analyses. Other studies
have sought the youths' perceptions of their parents' attitudes, values, and expectations
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about the child's education, but have not sought the parents' own perceptions. This study
will attempt to describe the mechanisms that families employ in helping their children stay
in school, and describe how these same mechanisms may break down in the homes where
children dropout out of school.
While not discounting important factors that lead children to drop out or remain in
school (e.g., school-related issues, peer pressure, poor instruction, literacy, drugs, gangs,
teenage pregnancy, and the like), this study will focus on identifying and describing
differences between the homes of dropouts and remainers. The findings of this study may
shed some light on how school and parents can work together in keeping
children in school, as well as promoting policies to combat the problem of school
dropouts.
This purpose of incorporating both characteristics and processes in the study is to
avoid creating deeper conceptual gaps instead of filling them. Knowing only the
background characteristics may not lead to an understanding of how current personal,
familial, school processes contribute to dropping out, or what to do about solving the
problem. Knowing only the processes that seem to lead to dropping out may ignore the
complex, transactional nature of the dropout phenomenon, and may ignore simple yet
powerful structural differences. Instead, a combination of lenses may help one focus more
clearly on the problem.
Given the multivariate nature of the dropout problem, it stands to reason that not all
researchers would agree with the virtue of studying family processes. Fernandez et al.
(1989), who have studied dropping out among Latino youth, are not convinced that
studying family processes is an effective mechanism for reducing the dropout rates. The
researchers argue that much of the observed dropout differential between minorities relative
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to Whites is due to differences in background characteristics. The researchers call for
equalising these characteristics to ensure beneficial consequences, and are doubtful that
addressing home effects will have as much impact as addressing school effects.
Nonetheless, there is a dearth of literature on the role of family processes in influencing
youth to stay in or drop out of school, and this study aims to fill this gap in the research.
Implications of the Study Results
The results of this study will be useful to those in school and social settings who
work with students who are at high-risk of dropping out of school or have dropped out
The results will be especially useful to those who work with Latino students, in particular
students of Mexican background. The results of this study will equip those working with
these students with useful tools of knowledge, from which strategies may be created to
help students remain in school or lure them back in. In particular, this study intended to
assess family dynamics and expand the knowledge of the problem of school dropouts to
the families, and enjoin the families in the solution of the problem. Ultimately, the solution
to the problem of school dropouts should be everyone's concern, because those who stand
to benefit from a solution are not only die students themselves and their educational
institutions, but the fabric of society as a whole.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The current literature on the problem of school dropouts has failed to focus
attention on the potential impact of family processes in a child's decision to stay in or leave
school prematurely. The literature has also not adequately addressed the impact of
mediating variables such as generation status, acculturation, and English-language
proficiency upon staying in or dropping out of school behavior.
This chapter will review the significant literature that addresses the principal
variables under study and how they may relate to dropping out behavior. The first section
defines defines and discusses the concept of social climate. The second section dicusses
and describes the major variables under study. The major variables are: 1 ) the
interpersonal relationships among family members, 2) the directions of personal growth
emphasized in the family, and 3) the family’ s organizational and system-maintenance
characteristics. Also described are the variables generation status, acculturation, and
English-language proficiency. The third section lists the variables under study. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the appropriateness of these variables for the study.
Conceptual Overview
This study is based on concepts drawn from family theory, acculturation theory,
and educational theory. Undo” family theory, this overview discusses social climate and its
essential elements, interpersonal relationships of family members, personal growth within
the family, and family system maintenance, primarily as operationalized by Moos ( 1974a).
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Under acculturation theory, this section discusses the effects o f generation status in the
United States and the process of acculturation on educational attainment Undo-
educational theory, the overview discusses the impact of English-language proficiency
upon dropping out behavior.
Social Climate
The social climate perspective assumes that environments have unique
"personalities” just as people do, and that the social climate in which an individual
functions may have an important impact on his/her attitude, behavior, health and overall
sense of well being and his/her social, personal and intellectual development (Moos,
1974a). Just as certain methods describe aspects of a person's personality (e.g., projective
test instruments such as the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory), the "personality" of a social environment can be similarly portrayed with
relative accuracy and detail. Methods that discriminate among environments and assess
social climate measure the social environment's "personality" traits or needs and provide
important information about the characteristics that describe people's way of living.
The concept o f social climate may be useful in understanding how some of the
observed relationships between other types of environmental dimensions and specific
outcome criteria are mediated; that is, how the social climate of an environment is related to
the other major ways in which that social environment can be assessed (Moos, 1974a).
For example, youth may drop out of school in direct relation to large class size and
diminished individualized instruction. Moos argues further that the social environment
may also be viewed as a moderator of various relationships. For example, youth who see
the school environment as deviant may be dissatisfied and drop out of that environment
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Therefore, a systematic description of the social and/or familial environment, or "ecological
niche" (Moos, 1974a), in which an individual functions may begin to answer why some
students drop out of school and others remain, and may have the potential for increasing
person-in-environment congruence.
Moos (1973) has identified six major methods by which characteristics of human
environments have been related to indices of human functioning. These methods are: 1)
Ecological dimensions, which include both geographic and meterological and architectural
and physical design variables 2) behavioral settings, which characterize ecological and
behavioral properties 3) dimensions of organizational structure, 4) dimensions identifying
the collective, personal and/or behavioral characteristics of the people living and
functioning in an environment, 5) variables relevant to the functional or reinforcement
analyses of environments, and, 6) dimensions related to the psychological characteristics
and social climates of environments.
The relationship between structure and process in the family is an interactive system
of reciprocal influences (Fowler, 1980). Therefore, the observation of structure and
process of the family can systematically assess the social or interpersonal climate of
families so that a taxonomy of family environments can be constructed (Grotevant &
Carlson, 1989; Caldwell, 1994).
For example, all schools o f family systems therapy pay close attention to the
structure and the processes of the family. These schools have a theoretical commitment to
working with the process of family interactions (Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). In the
therapeutic interaction, process means everything that can be observed to occur between,
and within, the patient and the therapist during their work together, as witnessed by the
participants themselves or by nonparticipant observers (Orlinsky & Howard, 1986).
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moos and Moos (1994) argue that the family environment and the individual
functioning of the family members mutually influence each other. The personal
characteristics, coping skills, and well-being of one individual— whether child or adult-and
the acute life crises and ongoing stressors and resources from settings outside the family
can have a direct effect on the family environment The authors define this environment by
the quality of the family's relationships, the family's emphasis on personal growth, and the
family's focus on maintaining its structure. For example, aspects of a parent's workplace
or a child's experiences at school can affect the family climate.
The measurement of the social environment of the family is a means toward
describing its structure and discovering its process. To determine how the family
environment shapes the sets of factors that shape it, the social climate of families can be
described along three conceptual domains, or dimensions: 1) the interpersonal
relationships among family members, 2) the directions of personal growth emphasized in
the family, and 3) the family's organizational and system-maintenance characteristics
(Billings & Moos, 1982). Each dimension is sub-divided and described using family
systems and social-ecological theories (Moos, 1974b; Moos & Moos, 1976; Billings &
Moos, 1982; Moos & Moos, 1994). The study of the social climate of families along the
aforementioned dimensions is important because it may help describe family processes,
which in turn may help predict the dropping out behavior of high school students. There
are no known studies that have applied these specific dimensions to study the family's
influence on dropping out behavior. However, children's experiences at school can affect
the family climate, the family can affect the children's behavior at school and their academic
success (Moos & Moos, 1994).
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moos and Moos (1976; 1994) developed the following descriptions and definitions
for the various dimensions.
Interpersonal Relationships: Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict
The relationship dimension assesses die involvement of individuals in the
environment and the extent to which they support and help one another. The dimension is
divided into cohesion, expressiveness and conflict Olson, Sprenkle and Russell (1979)
found that among those concepts used in the literature, cohesion and adaptability are the
best descriptors of families. The authors define cohesion as "the emotional bonding which
members have with one another" (p. 80). Elsewhere it is described as the degree of
commitment, help, and support family members provide for one another, and is said to be
reflected by the family's amount of enthusiasm, support and constructive activity (Moos,
1974b). Family adaptation, on the other hand, is determined by the balance between
normative life stressors and crises and the stress resistance afforded by the individual
members' and the family's responses and social resources (Moos & Billings, 1982).
Expressiveness is described by the extent to which family members are encouraged to act
openly and express their feelings directly. Conflict is described by the extent to which
open expression of anger and aggression and generally conflictual interactions are
characteristic of the family.
Interpersonal relationships may affect dropping out behavior by the degree to which
family members support and assist one another. Nelson (1984) found that cohesive,
socially integrated, and well-organized families tended to promote students' academics,
whereas highly conflicted and controlling families did not Emphasis on achievement has
been linked to expressiveness and independence (Radetsky, Handelsman & Brown, 1984).
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Personal Growth: Independence, Achievement, Intellectual-Recreational, Active-
Recreational, Moral-Religious
The personal growth, or goal orientation, dimension assesses the basic directions
along which personal growth and self-enhancement tend to occur in the family
environment The basic components of this dimension are: 1) independence, 2)
achievement orientation, 3) intellectual-recreational orientation, 4) active-recreational
orientation and 5) moral-religious emphasis. Independence is defined by the extent to
which family members are assertive, and are encouraged to be self-sufficient and make
their own decisions without social sanctions (Moos, 1974a). Achievement orientation is
described by how much activities (such as school and work) are cast into an achievement-
oriented or competitive framework, such as getting ahead in life and setting high goals.
Intellectual-cultural orientation is the level of interest in political, intellectual, and cultural
activities, such as going to lectures, plays, and concerts; reading books; playing musical
instruments; and engaging in artistic or craft activities (Moos, 1974b). Active-recreational
orientation is defined by the amount of participation in social and recreational activities,
such as hobbies and diverse interests. Moral-religious emphasis is the emphasis on ethical
and religious issues and values.
As this dimension stresses growth, its sub-scales play a role in academic
achievement, which may also affect dropping out behavior. High intellectual orientation
has been associated with high academic expectations and achievement (Staab, 1989), but
high recreational orientation has been related with a lower point average (Felner, Aber,
Primavera & Cauce, 1985). Wood, Chapin and Hannah (1988) found that underachieving
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students' families were less supportive, less socially integrated, and less organized, and
more achievement oriented than families of normal-achieving students.
Family System Maintenance: Organization, Control
The system maintenance dimension describe the way the family is structured and
operated. The subscales in this dimension are organization and control. Billings and Moos
(1982) argue that a certain amount of organization and control is necessary to maintain a
consistent family milieu. Organization is the degree of importance of clear organization and
structure in planning family activities and responsibilities, such as financial planning and
punctuality. Control is described by how much set rules and procedures are used to run
family life.
From a family systems perspective (Kaye, 1985), it is possible to view families as
open (exchanging) systems with both internal and external aspects of functioning. Internal
aspects include the family system's structure and the member’ s ways of relating and
interacting. External aspects include the family's interaction with outside social systems
and institutions in society.
Rueschenberg and Buriel (1989) found in their study of the Mexican American
family functioning and acculturation that the family social climate dimensions described
above can be subdivided along internal and external variables. The internal variables
include cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, organization and control. The external
variables include independence, achievement orientation, intellectual-cultural orientation,
active recreational and moral-religious emphasis.
Family organization and control may play a special role in children's decision to
stay in or leave school prematurely. Less organized and controlling families have been
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
found to not promote their students' education (Nelson, 1984). Whereas, gifted students
who reported more organization in their families, reported less academic distress (Rmian,
1988).
G eneration Status
The literature indicates that die orientation dissonance resulting from the mismatch
between family and environmental values triggers family disorganization and/or multiple
symptoms that affect the family and its members for several generations (Rivera &
Velasquez, 1983). Some researchers have found that students who have lived most of
their lives outside the United States are more apt to drop out of school (Rumberger, 1983;
Velez, 1989), but others have found that immigrant status is not a predictor of dropping out
(Fernandez et al., 1989).
Ogbu (1987) has observed that the study of immigration status is an important tool
used to compare minority children's cultural adjustment in school and their academic
success with the cultural adjustment and academic achievement of majority group children.
Generally, lower academic achievement of minority children is explained in tarns of
cultural discontinuities; that is, abrupt transitions from one mode of being and behaving
(e.g., learning styles) to another, accompanied by marked changes in social role
assignment and expectations (Ogbu, 1987). Furthermore, minority groups who do poorly
in school are compared with the majority group. Little has been done in terms of
comparing minority groups who do well with the majority group.
There is much variability in the academic success of children from different
minority groups. Ogbu (1987) has found that there is evidence that the lower academic
achievement of minorities is disproportionate and persistent only among some minority
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
groups, while it is transitory among others, and almost nonexistent among still others. The
evidence seems to indicate that minority groups who tend to do poorly in school appear to
be indigenous minorities. As nonimmigrant minorities, these groups tend to find a parallel
between schooling and assimilation into the dominant society which they consciously and
unconsciously resist.
Immigrant groups are heterogeneous and it cannot be assumed that all groups will
contain large numbers of dropouts (Suarez-Orozco, 1987). Ogbu (1987) has differentiated
between voluntary and involuntary immigrants and has found varying degrees of
educational attainment The voluntary immigrants have generally immigrated to the United
States with the desire to settle in this country, have higher levels of education and income,
and usually settle in enclaves and create a supportive environment for one another.
Voluntary immigrants often attain higher levels of education than involuntary immigrants
and mainstream, middle-class Whites.
Ogbu (1987) describes involuntary immigrants as castelike minorities. Castelike
minorities were originally incorporated into society against their will, or systematically
exploited over generations through slavery or colonization. Castelike minorities tend to
have lower levels of educational attainment, including a higher number of dropouts. Ogbu
adds that such a status creates barriers that cannot be overcome despite talent, motivation,
or achievement; therefore, minority youth see education as irrelevant to their social reality.
Latinos may qualify as both involuntary and voluntary minorities. For example,
some Latinos of Mexican heritage were involuntarily incorporated into American
citizenship through conquest while others have immigrated to the United States and
accorded the subordinate status of the conquered group. Therefore, among Mexican
Americans, some are immigrants and others are nonimmigrants.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ogbu's findings that immigrant children perform better academically than
nonimmigrant children do not hold true for some Latino children. For example, among
Latinos, more recent arrivals tend to drop out of school at a higher rate than later arrivals
and nonimmigrants (Velez, 1989). One explanation is that some Latino immigrants come
to the United States in search of a better economic life, to escape hardship in their
homelands, or to join relatives living in the United States, and unlike other immigrants,
have spent a significant portion of their educational lives in a less developed educational
system or a rural community (Straits, 1987) and are unable to adjust to the American
educational system.
Acculturation
The educational system is a primary agent of acculturation in society. Yet, the
literature has not paid attention to acculturation as a possible explanation for dropping out
behavior. Acculturation is generally defined as the adjustment of a minority group to the
culture of a dominant group (Sodowsky, Lai, & Plake, 1991) or changes in behavior and
values made by members of the minority group as a result of contact with the majority
culture (Bumam, Telles, Kamo, Hough, & Escobar, 1987).
The theory of acculturation has received growing attention in the relevant literature
because it accentuates the importance of cultural variables in psychological and educational
inquiry. For example, the level of acculturation of a patient may influence the effectiveness
of psychological services (Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980) and may affect a student's
educational attainment (Delgado-Gaitan, 1987). The study of levels of acculturation is a
promising approach to understanding the psychological stresses of minority individuals
(Lang, Munoz, Bernal, & Sorensen, 1982).
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Similarly, the measurement of acculturation is important because it may help
identify individual or personality differences (Torres-Matrullo, 1980) as well as other
important variables that may affect a child's decision of remain or drop out of school.
Several scales have been developed to study levels of acculturation. Some have measured
single index data such as language usage and others have measured multiple socio-cultural
characteristics such as nationality, occupational status, and language (Cuellar et al., 1980).
Likewise, some scales have measured single ethnic minority groups and others have
measured different groups (Sodowsky et al., 1991).
Some researchers have studied acculturation as a unidirectional process of
assimilation (e.g., Garcia & Lega, 1979), where an individual relinquishes his/her own
culture in favor of the majority culture. Others have studied it as a bidirectional adjustment
process (e.g., Berry, 1980; LeVine & Padilla, 1980), where an individual both assimilates
into a dominant culture and retains aspects of his/her minority culture. Berry (1980)
identified four options of acculturation with a bidirectional approach (assimilation,
integration, rejection, and deculturation). Mendoza (1984) argued that acculturation is a
multifaceted phenomenon. Sodowsky and colleagues (1991) argued that bidirectional and
multifaceted theories seem to have a common meeting ground.
The literature indicates that the more ethnic minorities resemble the background
characteristics of middle class Whites, the greater the likelihood that the minority students
will drop out at the same pace or less frequently than their White peers (Rumberger, 1983;
Fernandez et al., 1989; Frank, 1990). This finding of background characteristics does not
advance acculturation as a predictor for dropping out, however. Empirical research on the
theory of acculturation may help narrow this conceptual gap. The theory of acculturation
may be important in the study of school dropouts to help determine whether school
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attainment can be affected by a student's and his/her family's level or degree of
acculturation into the dominant society, and to help understand the psychological stresses
of the minority child and his/her family.
The measurement of acculturation of American ethnic minority groups has largely
focused on Mexican Americans (Olmedo, Martinez, & Martinez, 1978; Cuellar et al., 1980;
Padilla, 1980; Deyo, Diehl, Hazuda, & Stem, 1985). Only one scale has been developed
to measure the acculturation of all Latino groups (Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal,
& Perez-Stable, 1987).
Rueschenberg and Buriel (1989) argue that acculturation has an impact on family
functioning. Family functioning is defined as "the pattern of intraactions among family
members and also the family members' interactions with social systems outside the home"
(p. 233). In their study of the Mexican American family functioning and acculturation, the
authors found that as families of Mexican descent acculturate, they become increasingly
involved with social systems and institutions outside the family while the basic internal
family system remains essentially unchanged.
These findings support Ramirez’ (1983) bicultural model, which accounts for
differential patterns of acculturation. The model views acculturation as a multidimensional
process, unlike the assimilationist perspective (e.g., Glazer, 1985), which suggests that as
families adapt to life in the United States they should change in the direction of
Euroamerican culture.
E nglish-L anguage Proficiency
It has been argued by some educational scientists, although not always
substantiated, that the lack of knowledge of English constitutes a causative factor in the low
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scholastic achievement of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds (Trueba &
Bamett-Mizrahi, 1979). To learn a native language is to learn one's culture; to learn a
second language is to learn a second culture (Trueba & Bamett-Mizrahi, 1979), a process
that may have a direct impact on dropping out of school behavior.
Commings (1989) indicates that there a complex array of factors that impinge upon
the language minority students. Students who come from homes where a language other
than English is spoken must struggle non only with learning a new language, but with the
affective dilemmas present in becoming acquated with and pressured by adopting the
values of another culture. These linguistically different students must learn to negotiate the
environment of the home with that of the school. They quickly learn to negotiate a new
reality, such as what is, and is not rewarded, in the larger society. The decisions they
make on how to function in and out of school is likely to impact their possibilities for both
language development and academic achievement, according to Commings.
In order to determine whether English proficiency has a direct relationship with
dropping out of school behavior, the investigation of diverse modalities of social
communication in diverse populations may result in a more comprehensive understanding
of educational attainment and, as E. E. Garcia (1983) argued, of an individual's and a
family's linguistic character. Elsewhere, H. D. C. Garcia (1985) suggested that the role of
a family’ s linguistic socialization in the academic development of children is a very
complex, and worthy of further study.
The literature is divided on the positive effects of this variable upon dropping out
behavior. Some research has found that speaking a language other than English in the
home is a predictor for dropping out (Steinberg, Blinde, & Chan, 1984; Ekstrom et al.,
1986). Rumberger (1983) found that among the students who had lived most of their lives
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
outside the United States and dropped out, difficulty with the English language may have
been a stronger predictor for dropping out than immigration status. Maruca (1990) found
that sixty percent of the 25 dropouts studied in a California border town had learned
Spanish as their native language and that eighty percent predominantly spoke Spanish at
home when they dropped out of school. Phelan (1987) has suggested that language
barriers sometimes prevent effective communication between parents and school personnel,
which may contribute to a child's dropping out behavior.
However, others (e.g., Fernandez et al., 1989) have failed to find statistical
significance between English proficiency (as measured by a vocabulary tests) and dropping
out of school. Yet, Fernandez and colleagues found that when controlling for other
variables, male Latinos who are more proficient in Spanish (independent of the level of
English proficiency) are more likely to drop out than students who are less proficient in
Spanish. Laosa (1977) previously argued that non-English-language proficiency might
result in a lack o f fit in traditional schools. It is unclear why this effect does not surface for
females (Fernandez et al., 1989).
Valverde (1987) compared differences in the high school dropout rates of Latinos
with limited English proficiency (LEP) with those who were native speakers or whose
English proficiency was not limited (non-LEP), and the respondents' reasons for leaving
school or graduating, and found that non-LEPs dropped out at a higher rate than LEPs.
The LEPs were bom in Mexico and their families had emigrated to the United States, while
the non-LEPs were bom in the United States.
Ogbu's (1978) observation of the differences of attitudes and school performance
between native Mexican children and those of Mexican American children bom in the
United States offers an explanation for this unexpected finding. He argued that the
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
incidence of a greater dropout rate among the U.S.-born students may be explained by their
placing less value in education than the Mexico-born students. He stated that Mexican
Americans, as members of a castelike minority, have had access mainly to inferior
education, and have experienced other barriers that prevent them from maximizing their
educational efforts. On the other hand, the native-born Mexicans may have had a better
attitude toward school that resulted in more academic success. Valverde (1987) suggested
that the Mexican students may have dropped out at a lower rate because they were exposed
to a free public education which they and their parents may have longed for but may not
have received in Mexico.
In another study of educational attainment, this time of minority children as a
whole, Ogbu (1987) argued that language proficiency of the students and their parents may
be a factor adversely affecting the children’ s school performance. Limited English-
speaking capacity is a potential barrier to academic success because it places minorities in a
subordinate position in the prevailing educational system, he argued.
However, Trueba and Bamett-Mizrahi (1979) argue that English proficiency at
school entry does not correlate as high with academic success as do socio-economic status
and ethnic group membership. Therefore, limited English proficiency may serve as a
mediating factor for dropping out behavior only when controlling for these other variables.
Hence, generation status, acculturation and English-language proficiency share
common themes of cultural adjustment, cultural discontinuities, and marked social role
assignments and expectations, as they relate to dropping out behavior.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D iscu ssion
America's educational institutions face a serious dilemma. On the one hand, the
drastic cultural and ethnic change that has occurred in the past two decades has created a
need for radical and different means of teaching a heterogeneous student body. On die
other hand, many of these students cannot savor the benefits of these changes as they are
dropping out of school at alarming rates. The dropout problem disproportionately affects
poor and minority students, and those in urban settings (Rumberger, 1983; Brooks, 1989).
The consequences of dropping out of school, primarily from high school, affects not only
the human quotient, but may imperil the nation as well.
The dropout phenomenon has understandably caught the attention of education and
social scientists. Much of the research done in this area has focused on the problems and
perceptions of student dropouts and school personnel Further efforts are needed to
examine the behavioral processes that lead some children to drop out of school Similarly,
efforts are needed to try to understand what behavioral processes lead other children, who
may be exposed to seemingly insurmountable odds, to remain in school.
It is imperative to understand a family’ s social climate, in order to understand how
the family may affect a student’ s decision to stay in or drop out of schooL A microscopic
view along the dimensions o f family relationships, personal growth and system
maintenance, is a beginning effort in this endeavor.
Similarly, in order to understand the impact of family processes on culturally
diverse students, it is also important to know the effects of generation status, level of
acculturation, and English-language proficiency on dropping out behavior. Tapping this
virtually unexplored arena of behavioral processes was the purpose of this study.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conceptual Assumptions
For the purposes of this study, the following assumptions were made:
1. That obtaining a high school diploma is an individual and a social good.
2. That the problem of children leaving school prematurely is pervasive and multi
faceted, with no one sector of society is solely responsible for the problem or the solution.
3. That there does not exist a "typical" school dropout, but rather that given the
right combination of factors, all youth face the potential for dropping out of school.
Research Questions
From the review of the literature, the following research questions were generated.
The following set of questions tapped the families’ social environment.
1 . To what extent, if any, do significant differences occur in the parents'
perception of die family's interpersonal relationships between the homes of dropouts and
the homes of remainers? To what extent, if any, do significant differences occur in the
students’ perception of the family’ s interpersonal relationships between the homes of
dropouts and the homes of remainers? To what extent, if any, do significant differences
occur in the combined respondents' perception of the family's interpersonal relationships
between the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers?
2. To what extent, if any, do significant differences occur in the parents'
perception of personal growth between the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers?
To what extent, if any, do significant differences occur in the students' perception of
personal growth between the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers? To what
extent, if any, do significant differences occur in the combined respondents’ perception of
personal growth between the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers?
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. To what extent, if any, is the parents’ perception of the system maintenance (or
basic organizational structure) of the family significantly different from the homes of
dropouts and the homes of remainers? To what extent, if any, is the students’ perception
of die basic organizational structure of the family significantly different from the homes of
dropouts and the homes of remainers? To what extent, if any, is the combined
respondents' perception of the basic organizational structure of the family significantly
different from the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers?
4. To what extent, if any, do significant differences occur in the parents' perceived
value of their child completing high school between the homes o f dropouts and the homes
of remainers?
The following set of questions explored student dropping out behavior.
5. To what extent, if any, can dropping out behavior be predicted from the parents’
generation status, level o f acculturation, level of education, household income, and English-
language proficiency?
6. To what extent, if any, can dropping out behavior be predicted from the
students' last grade completed in school, English-language proficiency, expected
contribution to the family income, generation status, and level of acculturation?
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were generated.
Hypothesis 1. The level o f cohesion will be higher among (1) the homes of the
remainers than the homes of the dropouts, and will be higher among (2) the parents of the
remainers than the parents of the dropouts, and will be higher among (3) the remainers than
the dropouts.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypothesis 2. There will be no difference in the level of expressiveness between
(1) the homes of the remainers and die homes of the dropouts, or between (2) the parents
o f the remainers and the parents of the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the
dropouts.
Hypothesis 3. There will be no difference in the degree of conflict between (1) the
homes of the remainers and the homes o f the dropouts, or between (2) the parents o f the
remainers and the parents of the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the dropouts.
Hypothesis 4. There will be no difference in the level of independence between (1)
the homes of the remainers and the homes o f the dropouts, or between (2) the parents of
the remainers and the parents of the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the
dropouts.
Hypothesis 5. The level of achievement orientation will be higher among (1) the
homes of die remainers than the homes o f die dropouts, and will be higher among (2) the
parents of the remainers than the parents o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (3) the
remainers than the dropouts.
Hypothesis 6. The degree of intellectual-cultural orientation will be higher among
(1) the homes of the remainers than the homes of die dropouts, and will be higher among
(2) the remainers than the dropouts, and equal between (3) the parents of the remainers
than the parents of the dropouts.
Hypothesis 7. The emphasis on active-recreational orientation will be higher
among (1) the homes of the remainers than die homes o f the dropouts, and will be higher
among (2) the remainers than the dropouts, and equal between the parents of the remainers
than (3) the parents of the dropouts.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypothesis 8. The level of moral-religious emphasis will be higher among (1) the
homes of the remainers than the homes of the dropouts, and will be higher among (2) the
parents of the remainers than the parents of the dropouts, and will be higher among (3) the
remainers than the dropouts.
Hypothesis 9. There will be no difference in the level of family organization
between (1) the homes of the remainers and the homes of the dropouts, or between (2) the
parents of the remainers and the parents of the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and
the dropouts.
Hypothesis 10. There will be no difference in the level of control in the family
between (1) the homes of the remainers and the homes of the dropouts, or between (2) the
parents of the remainers and the parents of the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and
the dropouts.
Hypothesis 11. There will be a higher level of importance among the parents of the
remainers for their children to graduate from high school than among the parents of the
dropouts.
Hypothesis 12. The relationship between the parents' generation status, level of
acculturation, level of education, household income, and English-language proficiency will
more correctly classify the status of the remainers than the status of the dropouts.
Hypothesis 13. The relationship between the students' last grade completed in
school, English-language proficiency, expected contribution to the family income,
generation status, and level of acculturation will more correctly classify the status of the
remainers than the status of the dropouts.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
D esign
A cross-sectional comparative design was used for the study, in which family
environment and structural characteristics were used to predict dropout status. The study
was exploratory and descriptive in nature. Two groups of youths, high school dropouts
and remainers, and their respective families, were compared and contrasted in the search
for empirical differences between them. Direct and indirect observations wore used. The
direct methods included semi-structured interviews to elicit subjective responses to two
open-ended questions. The indirect methods included a questionnaire given to the families
and the review of student school records. The questionnaire combined items that elicited
demographic information and structured instruments. The review of records revealed
information on the student’ s grade level at the point of inquiry, gender, age, English-
language proficiency, and whether the student was retained or delayed in any grade.
Sam pling M ethod
The sample for this study was generated fron 1) youth who had dropped out from
high school and 2) youth who remained as students in the school year of 1994-1995 in one
o f the largest school districts in the State of California. The school district was located in
an urban setting in southern California. The district had a student enrollment o f48,897,
95.1 % of whom are minority children. Latinos comprised the largest minority group
(87%), the vast majority (85%) of whom were Mexican American. The latest district
dropout rate available, for school year 1992-1993, was 22.9%, above the State average of
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15.3%. In 1985-86, the first year the State Department of Education began collecting
dropout information, the dropout rate in the district was 41.8%, and in the State it was
25% (California State Department of Education, 1994). Statewide, Latinos had the highest
dropout rate among all ethnic groups at 22.3%. Officially, dropout rates only include
students in grades 10 through 12.
The goal was to generate a sample of half males and half females. It was
anticipated that the age range would be from 14 to 19. It turned out to be from 14 to 21. It
was also anticipated that the majority of subjects would be limited-English speakers, as
72% of the children in the district are categorized as Limited English Proficiency. This
found to be true. Spanish was spoken in 80% of the district households (Santa Ana
Unified School District, 1994). District records were checked to ensure that the youth had
been categorized as a dropout A youth was considered a remainer if he or she was
enrolled in school at the end o f the school year under study.
Systematic sampling was employed to identify the dropout sample. Only one of the
four comprehensive high schools was included in the sample. This selection was done to
attempt to control for threats to validity. Each high school (grades 9 through 12) had an
enrollment of about 3,000 students. A total of 498 students dropped out from the school in
question.
The study was to include a random sample of 50 from the total number of Mexican
American dropouts. However, given the difficult nature of locating the dropouts, the entire
list o f498 was used to reach the final sample of 52.
Individual matching was conducted to obtain a comparable group of remainers.
Once the characteristics o f the dropouts were established, a proportionate sample of
remainers was sought in an effort to draw a "partner" (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). The
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
investigator reviewed a standard academic guidance report of as many remainers as
necessary to collect the required sample. In constructing the appropriate matched group,
remainers were selected for the study upon matching the characteristics of the dropouts
group. The characteristics which were found to be the highly correlated predictors of
Latino dropouts (see Fernandez et aL, 1989; Velez, 1989) and which were obtained from
the academic guidance report were: age, gender, grade in school, birth order, child care
duties, place of birth, English-language proficiency, and ethnic identity (e.g., Mexican,
Mexican American, Chicano(a). Upon finding a match, the remainer's parents were be
asked to participate in the study. The student and the family then underwent the full battery
of tests utilized for this study. Only those students who were enrolled at the selected
school and either dropped out or remained in school during the year of the study were be
considered for the study.
Since the study examined the profile of the students' families, total number of
participants was 262. This number included the student subject, one or two parents or
guardians, and some siblings who the parents or guardians asked to participate in the study
to help create a more accurate family profile. There were a few student participants who
were of adult age and who did not have a parent or guardian participate with them.
A pilot study was be administered to about 10% of the proposed sample of
dropouts and their families (N=5) and about 10% of the remainers and their families
(N=5). Participants in the pilot study responded without confusion to stated the questions.
The only change made was the restructuring of some of the categorical questions on the
questionnaire from a horizontal layout to a vertical layout
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection
The same data were gathered face-to-face from the subjects in their homes, at a high
school, or by mail. A non-standardized questionnaire was written in English and Spanish
to gather demographic information from the subjects. Two standardized questionnaires,
the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1994) and the Short Acculturation Scale for
Hispanics (Marin et al., 1987), were also be used. A cover letter accompanied the
questionnaire, explaining the purpose of the study, and ensuring confidentiality and the
protection of human subjects (see Appendix H.) The subjects signed informed consents
agreeing to participate in the study. The questionnaires, the letter, and the informed
consents underwent a double-translation procedure (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973).
In this procedure, material is translated from one language to another by one party, and
back to the original language by a second party, to ensure that the essence of the original
material is kept in tact The reliability and usefulness of the double-translation with the
intended subjects was verified through the pilot study.
It was anticipated that some of the student and parent respondents would have
literacy limitations, be suspicious of the study, or be uncertain about answering the
questionnaire by themselves. Therefore, the researcher offered assistance in completing
the questionnaire. All subjects were informed from the onset that their participation was
voluntary, and that they may refuse to answer any question or refuse to complete the study,
without negative consequences to them and without affecting their relationship with the
youth's school.
F inal Sam ple Size: A total of 262 individuals participated in the study, including 113
students (52 dropouts and 61 remainers), 137 parents or guardians and 12 siblings of the
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. The student participants were referred directly by the high school selected for the
study. They were identified by the K-12 Computerized Accounting and Student Terminal
Systems (KCASTS) at the school. The first group identified was that of the students who
had dropped out during the 1994-95 school year and their parents or guardians. Siblings
o f the dropouts participated if the parents or guardians opted to have them participate.
Sibling participation was useful in creating a family climate profile and family acculturation
levels. The siblings' responses were only included in analyses concerning family
processes. There were a total o f498 dropouts identified in the selected school. In order to
reach the final sample o f 52, the dropouts were set in random order. The list was
exhausted. The second group identified was that of remainers. In order to secure a
matched sample, the KCASTS was asked to randomly identify several students with
similar characteristics as the dropouts. A total of 248 homes were contacted in order to
arrive at the final remainer sample of 61. The remainer sample is larger than the dropout
sample because several dropouts opted to not participate at the last minute and his or her
match had already been identified and contacted. Given the large sample of respondents in
both groups, a difference of nine would not affect the statistical analysis. All respondents
are included in the description of the sample and the descriptive findings.
The youth who participated had signed parental permission. Among the dropouts
and their parents, 30 were interviewed in their homes, 4 were interviewed by telephone, 6
were interviewed at a high school, and 15 responded by mail. (The total includes three
parents who participated in the study without the dropout) Among the remainers and their
parents, 32 were interviewed in their homes, 1 1 were interviewed by telephone, 3 were
interviewed at a high school, and 15 responded by mail.
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The interviews or mail responses occurred between May and December, 1995,
mostly due to the difficulty in locating the dropouts. In several instances, the dropouts did
not have an active telephone number. The emergency numbers were called and messages
were left, but seldom returned. A total o f 15 letters in English and Spanish were sent to
invite prospective participants who did not have telephone numbers or were not located at
existing numbers to participate in the study, but the strategy was abandoned after no cards
accepting the invitation were returned. None of the letters were returned to the sender.
One can only speculate as to why there were no responses: Perhaps there was a lack of
interest, a failure to understand the purpose of the study, illiteracy, a refusal to participate
in anything related with the school, among other reasons. Among die participants, the vast
majority found the study interesting and fun, were happy to be o f service, and shared
satisfaction that someone cared about the children's or own education. A handful of
respondents requested information on how to return to high school or to attend college.
They were given referrals to knowledgeable school personnel.
M easurem ent of M ajor V ariables
Operationalization of the Term Dropout
The term dropout has gradually crept into the everyday educational language, yet a
precise definition has been difficult to obtain. There is no consensus definition of a
dropout, nor a standard method for computing a dropout rate.
Typically, there are two approaches to the measurement of dropping out of school
(Natriello, Pallas & McDill, 1986). The first is an individual approach. It measures
dropout rates through die use of surveys of individuals and households. The other
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
approach is organizational. This approach assesses dropout rates involving calculations of
statistics from aggregates of schools, such as school districts. Both approaches have
particular benefits in measuring the dropout problem, yet tabulations of dropouts by
individuals and schools differ so much that difficulties arise in comparing the statistics.
In an effort to tease out differences and reach some agreement, the term dropout has
been defined in legal terms. The federal government has approved the following definition:
A school dropout is an individual who was enrolled in school at some time during the
previous school year, was not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year, has not
graduated from high school or completed an approved educational program, and does not
meet any of the following exclusionary conditions-death; temporary absence due to
suspension or illness; or, transfer to another public school district, private school or a State
or District approved educational program (Quality of U.S. Education Information, 1989).
The legal definition as set forth by the California State Department of Education is:
"A dropout is a student who is enrolled in grades 10,11, or 12 who leaves school prior to
graduation or the completion of a formal education, or its legal equivalent A dropout is
also a student who does n o t within 45 school days, enter another public or private
educational institution or school program as documented by written request for a transcript
from that institution" (School Dropouts in Orange County, 1987, p. 6).
The term dropout is further defined to measure different facets of dropping o u t
which in turn creates further computational problems. Event dropout rates measure the
proportion of students who drop out in a single year without completing high school; status
dropout rates measure the proportion of the population who have not completed high
school and are not enrolled at one point in time, regardless of when they drop out; and
cohort rates measure what happens to a single group of students over a period of time
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Quality of U.S. Education Information, 1989). Dropout rates are also measured by the
power of schools to keep children in school. This is a measure of attrition.
Similarly, quantifying dropout rates is a difficult process. See Rumberger (1987)
for a delineation of several factors that need to be considered in deriving at suitable and
accurate statistics for measuring dropouts.
For the purposes of this study, a dropout was defined as a student who was
enrolled in grades 9 through 12 when he or she left school, and who otherwise fit the
California State Department of Education definition of a dropout
Operationalization of the Term Family Processes
Family process is fined as die way families function. It describes what happens
within family functioning, how family members relate to one another, how they
communicate with one another, and how they interact with one another (Nichols &
Schwartz, 1991). As such, the interactional processes in the family affect individual
expressions.
The process of family interactions is central to family systems and social-ecological
theories. These theories call attention to the structure, or demographic characteristics, and
the means, or processes, by which a family organizes and maintains itself as a social unit
(Billings & Moos, 1982). The structure o f the family is measured by variables such as the
number of members, level of income, level of education, living arrangement, and the like.
It is also measured by the social climate o f the family. The social climate of a family is its
"personality", which gives it unity and coherence (Moos & Moos, 1994), and which
attempts to capture the essential elements of the family environment which may be
responsible for the achievements of the family members (Moos, 1974a).
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other Variables of Study
The variables of interest in this study were generated from the following categories:
(1) structural characteristics of the student, (2) structural characteristics of the family, (3)
English-language proficiency of the student, (4) English-language proficiency of the
parents, (5) generation status of the student, (6) generation status of the parents, (7) level
of acculturation of the student, (8) level of acculturation of the parents, and (9) the social
environmental characteristics of the families. For the purposes o f this study, the term
"parents" represented the student’ s parents or guardians.
(1) The structural characteristics of the student included the following variables:
age, gender, place of birth, grade in school, academic performance, whether the child had
been held back in school, involvement in extra-curricular activities, confrontation with
school officials, the child's position in the family, dating, and whether the child had
responsibility for contributing to family income, child care, or his/her own childrearing
(and pregnancy if the respondent is a girl).
(2) The variables to describe family characteristics were: parent's age and gender,
their place of birth, whether both parents live in the home, number of family members,
number of persons living in the household, annual income, employment status, religious
status, mobility, parent's educational attainment, and older siblings' educational attainment
(3) The English-language proficiency status of the student was measured according
to the student's self-reported assessment of his/her ability to speak the language.
(4) The English-language proficiency status of the parents was measured according
to their own perception of their ability to speak the language.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(5) The generation status of the student was measured according to length in the
United States, as operationalized elsewhere (see Cuellar et al., 1980; Marin et al., 1987).
A first-generation student was defined as a student who was bom in Mexico or outside of
the United States. A second-generation student was the student who was bom in the
United States, and either of his/her parents was bom in Mexico or outside the United
States. A third-generation student was the student who was bom in the United States and
both parents were also bom in the United States, and all grandparents were bom in Mexico
or outside the United States. A fourth-generation student was the student who was bom in
the United States and both parents were also bom in the United States, and at least one
grandparent was bom in Mexico or outside the United States with the remaining
grandparents bom in the United States. A fifth-generation student was the student who
was bom in the United States and whose parents and all grandparents were also bom in the
United States.
(6) The generation status of the parents will be measured using the same definition
as was used for the student, only substituting the parent for the student
(7) This study measured the students' level of acculturation. Acculturation is the
gradual adoption of a foreign culture by a person or group as a result of residing in that
culture for an extensive period of time while maintaining behaviors and artifacts from their
culture of origin (Trueba & Delgado-Gaitan, 1988). This study included only persons who
identify themselves as having a history rooted in Mexico. The respondents needed to
identify themselves as Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano(a). The term Latino refers
to a heterogeneous and pluriverse amalgamation o f people from different nationalities and
is too expansive for the purposes of this study. The students' level of acculturation was
measured by the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (Marin et al., 1987).
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(8) The parents level of acculturation was measured by the Short Acculturation
Scale for Hispanics (Marin et al., 1987). The measurement of acculturation was important
because it describes how a minority group modifies its values, norms, attitudes and
behaviors when it comes in contact with a majority group, and because it has been reported
to be related to other important variables when studying individual and family differences,
according to the authors.
(9) The study also assessed the social environment characteristics of families, as
measured by the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1994). The authors argue that
assessing family environment is important to understand the family’ s current situation, to
plan for change, and to anticipate potential problems.
Two subjective questions regarding dropping out behavior were asked o f the
respondents. The dropouts were asked to give the most important reason to explain why
they dropped out of school. The remainers were asked to give the most important reason
to explain why they thought students dropped out Both the dropouts and the remainers
were asked for their advice on how to motivate students to stay in school.
The parents of the dropouts were asked to give the most important reason to explain
why their child had dropped out of school. The parents of the remainers were asked to
give the most important reason to explain why they thought students dropped out Both
the parents of the dropouts and the parents of the remainers were asked for their advice on
how to motivate students to stay in school.
Independent Variables: Three variables served as independent variables. These variables
were drawn from the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1994). The variables
included:
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Interpersonal Relationships
2. Personal Growth
3. Family System Maintenance (or Basic Family Organization Structure)
Mediating Variables: Three variables served as mediating variables. These included:
1. Generation Status
2. Level of Acculturation
3. English-language proficiency
Dependent Variable: One variable served as the dependent variable. The variable was:
1. Dropping Out Behavior
Instruments that measure family processes and level of acculturation were used.
The tool for measuring family processes was the Family Environment Scale (Moos &
Moos, 1994). The tool for measuring acculturation was the Short Acculturation Scale for
Hispanics (Marin et aL, 1987). The tool used to measure generation status was created by
the researcher. The question asked the respondent to answer whether he or she, both
parents and both sets of grandparents were bom in the United States. The tool to measure
English-language proficiency was also created by the researcher. It asked the respondent
to answer a categorical question on their perceived level of language proficiency, on a self-
report scale from 1 ("Not at all”) to 5 ("Very w ell").
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Family Environment Scale
The FES is one of 10 Social Climate Scales (Moos & Moos, 1994). The Scales are
measure social milieus in four major categories. The categories include: 1) Treatment
environments, e.g., hospital-based treatment programs, 2) total institutions, e.g.,
correctional institutions, 3) educational environments, e.g., schools, and 4) community
settings, e.g., families. The FES falls within the last category. It combines the views of
several family members who form durable impressions of die social climate from their
daily experiences to create an overall picture of the family. For example, a child's
experiences at school or after leaving school prematurely can affect a family's climate.
The FES has three forms: The Real Form (Form R), the Ideal Form (Form I) and
the Expectations Form (Form E). Form R measures people's perceptions o f their current
family environment; that is, it helps people to describe their current family as they perceive
i t Form I taps people's preferences about an ideal family environment. It allows people to
describe the type of family they prefer. Form E taps people's expectations about family
settings. It helps people to describe their expectations of what a family will be like. Form
I and Form E are parallel to Form R. Form R will be used for this study. Form R is
composed of 90 items scored on a two-point (true/false) response format Each of the 10
subscales has an approximately equal number of items scored true and false to control for
acquiescence response set Some investigators have used a multi-point response format
(four- to six-point) but both formats have comparable reliability and subscale
intercorrelations (see Moos & Moos, 1994). There is also a Children's Version of the
FES. It is a 30-item pictorial adaptation for use with children between the ages of 5 and
11. The FES has been adapted and translated into Spanish (Moos, Moos, & Trickett,
1984) among other languages.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The FES assesses social environment in three dimensions. These dimensions are
interpersonal relationships, personal growth (or goal orientation), and system maintenance
(or basic organizational structure). The interpersonal relationships dimension includes the
subscales of cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict The personal growth dimension
includes the subscales of independence, achievement orientation, intellectual-cultural
orientation, active-recreational orientation, and moral-religious emphasis. The basic
organizational structure includes the subscales of organization and control.
Interpersonal Relationships: The relationship dimension assesses how involved people are
in their family and how openly they express both positive and negate feelings. As part of
this dimension, the cohesion subscale measures the degree of commitment, help, and
support family members provide for one another. The expressiveness subscale measures
the extent to which family members are encouraged to act openly and to express their
feelings directly and support and help one another. The conflict subscale taps the amount
of openly expressed anger, aggression, and conflict among family members.
Personal Growth: The personal growth dimension taps the major ways in which a family
encourages or stifles personal growth and self-enhancement The independence subscales
taps the extent to which family members are assertive, self-sufficient, and decisive. The
achievement orientation subscale measures how activities, such as school and work, are
cast into an achievement-oriented or competitive framework. The intellectual-cultural
orientation subscale assesses the degree of interest in political, social, intellectual, and
cultural activities. The active-recreational orientation subscale measures how much
participation there is among family members in social and recreational activities. The moral-
religious emphasis subscale taps the amount of focus on ethical and religious issues and
values.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Family System Maintenance: The system maintenance dimension assesses the family's
emphasis on clear organization, structure, rules, and procedures in conducting family life.
Within this dimension, the organization subscale taps the importance o f clear organization
and structure in planning family activities and responsibilities. The control subscale
assesses the extent to which set of rules and procedures are used to run family life.
The FES describes family typologies. Family typologies allows for a
multidimensional and more complex view of families (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979).
The typologies organize information from the various dimensions into smaller
configurations, or family types. These typologies are: Independence oriented,
achievement oriented, intellectual-cultural oriented, moral-religious oriented, support
oriented, conflict oriented, and disorganized (Moos & Moos, 1994). Billings and Moos
(1982) argue that each family type may have implications for members1 patterns of
personal and social adaptation and health outcomes.
Each of the subscales is composed of nine true/false items. The scoring range is
summative, from 0 ("considerably below average") to 9 ("considerably above average").
In between, the subscales may yield scores that are "well below average", "below
average", "average", "above average", and "well below average." Each subscale has a
different scoring range, based on the normed population scores. For example, in the
Relationship Dimension, the subscale Cohesion has the following range: 0-4.5 is
"considerably below average", 5.0 is "well below average", 5.5 is "below average", 6.0-
7.0 is "average", 7.5 is "above average", 8.0-8.5 is "well above average", and 9.0 is
"considerably above average". The subscale Conflict has the range: 0-0.5 is "considerably
below average", 1.0-1.5 is "well below average", 2.0 is "below average", 2.5-4.0 is
"average", 4.5-5.0 is "above average", 5.5-6.0 is "well above average", and 6.5-9.0 is
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
"considerably above average". The nine items are added together for all family members
and an average score for the family is computed and compared against the scores of normal
families.
The extent to which there is disagreement among family members with regard to
their perception o f their family climate is indexed by the Family Incongruence Score, which
is obtained by averaging the discrepancies between each pair of family members' 10 sub
scale scores.
Normative data for Form R were obtained for 1,432 normal and 788 distressed
families. This sample included 1,067 respondents in 285 families (of which 42 were
distressed) who completed Form A, the initial form of the FES. The sample included
families from three church groups, from a newspaper advertisement, and from contact with
students at a local high school. A sample of racial minority families was selected from
these sources and from research done by African American and Latino research assistants
(Moos & Moos, 1994).
The normal families included families from all areas of the country, dual- and single
parent and multigenerational families, families of all age groups, families of racial minority
groups, families whose children had left home, and families of retired adults (Moos &
Moos, 1994). The sample also included families that were normal comparison groups in
studies of alcoholic (Moos, Finney, & Cronkite, 1990) and depressed (Moos, 1991)
patients.
The distressed families came from a family clinic and a probation and parole
department, families of alcoholic patients, depressed patients, psychiatric patients, and
families in which an adolescent or younger child was in a crisis situation, had run away
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
from home, had a conduct disorder, or was being placed into a foster home (Moos &
Moos, 1994).
The internal consistencies (Cronbach's Alpha) o f the 10 FES subscales of Form R
from the original sample of 1,067 respondents are reported to be in the acceptable range.
The internal consistencies vary from moderate for independence (.61) and achievement
orientation (.64) to substantial for cohesion (.78), intellectual-cultural orientation (.78),
moral-religious emphasis (.78), and organization (.76). A two-month test-retest of 47
respondents showed all 10 subscales in an acceptable range, varying from a low of .68 for
independence to a high of .86 for cohesion. A four-month test-retest of 35 respondents
also showed subscale stability, with a low of .54 for independence to a high of .91 for
moral-religious emphasis. These latter results need to be interpreted with caution due to the
low response rate.
As part of two longitudinal projects on psychiatric patients and case controls
(Moos, 1991; Moos, Finney, & Cronkite, 1990), information was obtained on subscale
stabilities for sample of individuals who were in the same family for 1 year, 3 to 4 years, 6
years, and 9 to 10 years. These samples included depressed patients and their spouses,
alcoholic patients and their spouses, and case controls and their spouses. The coefficients
were moderately high for the 1-year interval (N=529), with moral-religious emphasis
(.84), and organization (.78), and intellectual-cultural orientation (.77) as the most stable.
The lowest coefficients were recorded by independence (.53) and cohesion (.58). As
expected by the researchers, the stability decreased somewhat over longer time intervals but
remained moderately stable (Moos & Moos, 1994).
With respect to discriminant validity, it was shown to exist by the lack of
correlations between cohesion in the FES and the Family System Test (FAST) dyadic
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
power and between control in the FES and cohesion in the FAST (Feldman & Gehring,
1988; Gehring & Feldman, 1988); and by the lack o f correlation between cohesion and
control in the FES, but the high correlation of the same two subscales in both the Family
Assessment Device (FAD) and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales
(FACES) (Dickerson & Coyne, 1987). Further, Russell (1980) found relatively little
association between cohesion in the FES and cohesion in the Family Sculptures and Bahr
Identification Scale.
Edman, Cole and Howard (1990) found good convergent validity between the FES
and FACES-m both for measures of cohesion (as defined by cohesion and independence
in the FES) and adaptability (as defined by organization and control in the FES). Perosa
and Perosa (1990) found that cohesion in the FES was strongly related to cohesion as
measured by the FAD and the revised version of the Structural Family Intraaction Scale.
Also, Feldman and Gehring (1988) found convergent validity on cohesion between the
FES and the FAST and between control in the FES and dyadic power in the FAST.
Comparisons have been made between racial minority subjects and Caucasians, to
search for the possibility of differences in climate. For example, when compared with the
overall sample o f normal families (N=1,432), a sample of Latino and African-American
adults from normal families (N=454) saw their families as putting more emphasis on
achievement, moral-religious values, organization, and control, and less on expressiveness
and independence (Moos & Moos, 1994). Compared with Caucasian families and the FES
norms, Latino families were higher on achievement orientation, moral-religious emphasis,
and organization, were less expressive, and may be more cohesive and lower on conflict
(Arnold & Orozco, 1989; Staab, 1989). Caution should be exercised in interpreting these
results because the sample size was small, the families were from middle class
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
backgrounds, and the groups were not matched on family background factors such as size
and socio-economic status.
There may be some limitations to the use of the FES. For example, sample size
tapping racial minority samples has consistently been small; key demographic
characteristics such as socio-economic status and family size have not been adequately
considered; the possible confusion in interpreting FES scores when the unit of
measurement changes from families to individuals; and the technical implication arising out
of the instrument's authors' assumption that the instrument measures attributes o f the
family environment when the FES may measure the perceptions of family members about
their family (Grotevant & Carlson, 1989; Caldwell, 1994).
Short Acculturation Scale fo r Hispanics
The Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics was developed to obviate the problems
of previous scales that had been developed to tap acculturation among Latinos. The
limitations of previous studies included the creation of scales for use with specific Latino
subgroups, the lack of appropriate or extensive psychometric analyses, and the use of
socio-demographic characteristics as a measurement rather than as a correlate of
acculturation, according to Marin et al. (1987). The long form of the acculturation scale
included a 16-page questionnaire that included items measuring behavioral acculturation,
demographic questions, and cultural values (Marin et aL, 1987). The respondents included
363 Latinos and 228 non-Latino Whites who agreed to be interviewed or to answer the
questionnaire. Of the Latino sample, 44% (N=160) were Mexican American, 6% (N=21)
were Cuban Americans, and 47% (N=175) were "other" Latinos. The questionnaire was
self-administered and respondents answered it individually or in groups in various
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
locations of San Francisco, California; with a small number also answered in Miami,
Florida and Green Bay, Wisconsin. The questionnaire was answered anonymously and in
either English or Spanish, according to the respondent's wishes.
Factor analyses w oe generated for both the Latino and the non-Latino white
samples. Both factor analysis produced three similar factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.0, and from these the 12-item short scale was produced. The Latino factor analysis
produced three factors that together accounted for 67.6% of the total variance. The three
factors were labeled "Language Use and Ethnicity Loyalty", "Media", and "Ethnic Social
Relations". The first factor, "Language Use and Ethnicity Loyalty", accounted for 54.5%
of the variance and was made up of seven items that measured language use as an adult and
as a child, language used when interacting with friends or at work, the ethnicity of lovers,
and the ethnicity of neighbors when growing up. The second factor, "Media", accounted
for 7% of the variance and included four items tapping the use o f and preference for
electronic and printed media. The third factor, "Ethnic Social Relations", accounted for
6.1 % of the variance and included four items measuring the ethnicity of friends for self and
for one's children.
The non-Latino factor analysis produced three factors (accounting for 64.4% of the
total variance) and labeled "Language Use", "Ethnic Social Relations", and "Media".
In creating the short scale, the authors 12 items that had similar factor structures for
Latinos and for non-Latinos. Using a weight of .60 as a cutoff score and deleting items
that loaded heavily in more than one factor, the following items were found: five items
from the "Language Use" factor; three items from the "Media" factor, and, four items from
the "Ethnic Social Relations" factor.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The scoring range of all 10 items is on a five-point Likert-type scale. The eight
language items ranged from 1 ("Only Spanish") to 5 ("Only English"). The four items that
measure the respondent’ s ethnic self identification range from 1 ("Very Latino/Hispanic")
to 5 ("Very American"). The respondent's scores are summed to yield mean scores.
Marin et al. (1987) used four different validation criteria. Validity was analyzed by
taking die subject's total score on die scale and on each of the three factors and correlating
them with the subject's generation, proportion of time spent living in the United States, and
the subject's own evaluation of his or her level of acculturation. The validity coefficient for
the 12 common items and the subject's generation was .65 ip < .001), for the proportion
of time spent living in the United States was .70 ip < .001), and the subject's own
evaluation of his or her level of acculturation was .76 ip < .001). These three variables
were combined into an acculturative index, and the correlation between it and the common
items was .83 ip < .001). Age of arrival in the United States was also correlated with the
common items and correlated significantly at -.69 ip < .001). Marin et al. (1987) also
computed the validity coefficients of the various scales and found all to be statistically
significant at p < .001.
There are some apparent strengths in the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics.
The reported levels of reliability and validity for the factors extracted from these data appear
to be comparable to if not higher than those reported for previously published scales (Marin
et aL, 1987). The results of the reliability and validity coefficients of the 12 items
(especially the results of the five common items in the factor labeled "Language Use/Ethnic
Loyalty", which accounted for 54.5% of the total variance) suggest that the scale can be
used comfortably within the context of a larger study where acculturation is one of several
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
measures to be studied. The 12 items together should explain a larger proportion of the
variance than the five items of the "Language Use/Ethnic Loyalty" factor.
There may be some limitations to the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics. The
sample used by Marin et al. (1987) was primarily Mexican American and Central American
in origin. Further research with representantive numbers o f other Latino subgroups is
necessary to be able to generalize die results to all Latinos. Another limitation was the
possible problem with self-selection as the respondents w oe all volunteers, possibly
limiting the representativeness of the results.
D ata Analysis: An Overview
This comparative analysis compared youths who had dropped out against youth
who had remained in school, as well as their respective families. Only one ethnic group
and one high school was used to approximate demographics and control for intervening
variables. Data analysis included frequencies, measures of central tendency, standard
deviation, and percentages to describe the characteristics of the major variables and
demographic factors. Where applicable, Pearson's chi-square, f-tests, and logistic
regression procedures were used to answer the research questions. For variables with
missing values, the analyses only included the valid responses.
Frequency tables or percentages w oe tabulated for the following variables, each of
which consisted of two nominal or ordinal categories in the student questionnaire: gender,
ethnicity, school enrollment, last grade completed in school, language used in answering
the questionnaire, ability to speak English, religious preference, church attendance,
whether respondent had siblings who dropped out, whether respondent lived with both
parents, place of birth, generation in the United States, dating, contribution to family
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
income, contribution to taking care of younger siblings, involvement in school activities,
conflict with school officials, interest in attending college, and whether dropouts expected
to return to school or remainers expected to drop out
The mean, standard deviation and range were calculated for each of the following
variables in the student questionnaire: age, number of siblings, birth order, number living
in the household, whether respondent had children of his or her own, number of siblings
who may have dropped out whether respondent was held back a grade, the grade the
respondents may have been held back, and scores for the Short Acculturation Scale for
Hispanics and the Family Environment Scale.
Frequency tables or percentages were tabulated for the following variables, each of
consisted of nominal or ordinal categories in the parent questionnaire: gender, ethnicity,
language used in answering the questionnaire, ability to speak English, relationship to
student, marital status, last grade completed in school, whether respondent had other
children who dropped out, religious preference, church attendance, place
of birth, generation in the United States, change of residence, family income, and
importance of child graduating from high school
The mean, standard deviation and range were calculated for each of the following
variables in the parent questionnaire: age, number of children the respondent ever had,
number of children living with respondent, number living in the household, number
working outside of the home, and scores for the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics
and the Family Environment Scale.
Three questions tested the family processes of the respondents. One question
asked the parents to report how important it is for them to have their children graduate from
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
high school. Two other questions asked whether several independent variables were
predictors o f dropping out behavior.
The first question, whether significant differences occurred in the family’ s
interpersonal relationships between the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers,
was tested by the use of a r-test.
The second question asked whether significant differences occurred in the family's
personal growth between the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers. It was also
tested by the use of a r-test.
The third question, whether the system maintenance of the family significantly
differed from the homes of dropouts and the homes of remainers, was tested by the use of
a r-test
The fourth question, whether significant differences occurred in the parents'
perceived value of their child completing high school between the homes of dropouts and
the homes o f remainers, was tested by the use of a r-test
Another question asked whether dropping out behavior could be predicted from the
parents' generation status, level of acculturation, level of education, household income,
and English-language proficiency.
A related question asked whether dropping out behavior could be predicted from
the students' last grade completed in school, English-language proficiency, expected
contribution to the family income, generation status, and level of acculturation. The same
statistical test— logistic regression— used was for the last two questions.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Delimitations
There were some delimitations and limitations to the study. Among the
delimitations, this study only used sample of children and households with a history rooted
in Mexico (a homogeneous group), rather than to use sample of Latinos (a heterogeneous
group), only used one of the four comprehensive high schools in the school district in
question, and the study was limited to respondents who voluntarily agree to participate in
the study.
Limitations
Among the limitations of the study included a limited sample size, a lack of
representation of all Latino or other ethnic groups, the use of only one comprehensive high
school in only one urban school district, potentially limited internal and external validity
depending on the instruments used, and the lack of generalizability beyond the one
comprehensive high school or the school district where the study was conducted.
Summary
In summary, this study attempted to describe the variables which best predict the
behavior of Mexican American youth who may be prone to dropping out of high school,
and the behavior of Mexican American youth who may likely succeed in remaining in and
graduating from high school.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
D escriptive Data
Demographic Characteristics
The description of the demographic characteristics is reported in two categories:
Students and parents. The student category includes the dropouts and the remainers. The
parent category includes the parents or guardians of the dropouts and the remainers.
Pearson chi-square tests for independence, f-tests for difference in means, and non-
parametric tests for independent random samples were used to compare the corresponding
groups on all variables.
S tu d en t R espondents
Personal Features
Gender: The total student sample of 113 was almost equally divided, with 57 males (or
50.4%) and 56 (or 49.6%) females. Most of the dropouts were males (53.8%). Most of
the remainers were females (56.1%).
Age: The respondents' mean age was 17.06. The standard deviation was 1.64. Their
ages ranged from 14 to 21 years. The mean age for the dropouts was 17.46 and 16.72 for
the remainers.
Chi-square statistic was used to compare the bivariate relationship between the
groups of respondents on gender, ethnicity, language of questionnaire, religion, whether
they had siblings who had dropped out of school, whom they lived with, birthplace,
generation in the United States, whether they had their own children, and whether they
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were held back in any grade in school. Only the following variables were statistically
significant: whether the respondents had siblings who had dropped out of school and
whether they had their own children. On whether they had siblings who dropped out, the
chi-square significance of .014 at the p .05 level indicates that there is a relationship
between the sample of dropouts and their having siblings who also dropped out. Of 50
dropouts who answered the question, 27 (or 54%) indicated that they had at least one
sibling who had dropped out Almost a third of the remainers (30.4%) said they had at
least one sibling who dropped out The mean number o f siblings who dropped out was
1.93 with a standard deviation of 1.37, and range from 1 to 8. On whether they had their
own children, the observed significance level of .000 suggests there is a relationship
between a student having her/his own children and dropping o u t Eleven (or 21.6%) of the
dropouts reported having their own children. Only 1 remainer reported having children.
The average number o f children that the student respondents had was 1.25.
Two-tail f-tests were used to compare the groups on age, number of siblings, birth
order, and level of acculturation. Two-tail tests were used because there were no
anticipated results. The following variables statistically differentiated dropouts from
remainers: age, number of siblings, and birth order. The pooled variance estimate-which
indicates that the variance was equal— was used when comparing the means of age and the
number of siblings, as the two-tail F value probabilities were .374 and .181, greater than
alpha .05, respectively. With this sample, the results suggests that the older a student is
and the larger his or her family, the greater the chance of dropping out of school. The
mean age difference between the groups was .76 years, or almost one year (17.46 years
for the dropouts and 16.70 for the remainers). The dropouts had an average of 4.83
siblings, while the remainers had an average of 3.75 siblings, for a mean sibling difference
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was 1.08. For the f-test on birth order, the separate variance estimate-which indicates that
the variance was unequal— was used because the F value two-tail probability was .046, less
than alpha .05. This statistically significant results suggests that students who come later
in a family's birth order, have a greater tendency to drop out o f school. Rounding off to
whole numbers, on the average, the dropouts came from a family of six children and the
remainers from a family o f five. The dropouts were, on the average, the third bom and the
remainers were the second bom. (The actual mean for the dropouts was 3.20 and 2.40 for
the remainers, a difference of .8.) When comparing the groups' means by the level of
acculturation, there was no statistical significance that one group differed from the other.
Their mean difference was only 2.39. The remainers had a higher level of acculturation
with a mean of 32.55, as compared to the dropouts' mean of 30.17.
The Mann-Whitney U test for independent random samples was used to detect
significant differences on ordinal level variables at the p .05 level. These variables were:
last grade completed in school, how often the students went to church, their perceived
ability to speak English, their dating patterns, their expected level of contribution to the
family income, their expected level of care for younger siblings, their involvement in
school activities and their conflict with school officials. Only the variable describing the
students' involvement in school activities was statistically significant (.006). Among the
remainers, 79.7% were involved in school activities to some degree, while only about half
o f the dropouts where involved (51.9%). This suggests that in this sample, those students
who were involved in school activities to some degree (from "very little" to "a great deal")
were more inclined to remain in school than those who were not involved at alL Tables 1
and 2 summarize gender and age.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 1. GENDER O F STUDENTS
Frequency Percent
Female 56 49.6
Male 57 50.4
Total: 113 100
D ropouts Remainers
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Female 24 46.2 32 52.5
Male 28 53.8 29 47.5
Sub-Total: 52 100 61 100
Language o f Questionnaire: More respondents answered the questionnaire in English
(52.1%) than Spanish. More dropouts answered in Spanish (55.8%).
A bility to Speak English: As for their perception of how well they felt they spoke English,
only six said they did not speak the language at all. Four of them were dropouts. On a
five-point scale, from (1) "not at all" to (5) "very well," the median response among the
remainers was (4) "fairly well" and for the dropouts it was (3) "well."
Ethnicity: More than two-thirds identified their ethnicity as Mexican (63.7%), with 18.6%
describing themselves as Mexican American and 15% as Chicano(a).
Place o f Birth: Slightly more students were born in the Mexico (54.9%) than in the United
States (44.2%). One student was bom elsewhere.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 2. AGE O F STUDENTS
Frequency Percent
14 5 4.4
15 15 13.3
16 25 22.1
17 24 21.2
18 24 21.2
19 9 8.0
20 9 8.0
21 2 1.8
Total: 113 100
Mean: 17.1 Minimum: 14
Standard Deviation: 1.64 Maximum: 21
Dropouts Remainers
Sub-Total 52 61
Mean: 17.46 16.72
Std. Dev.: 1.72 1.51
Minimum: 14 14
Maximum: 21 20
Two tail t-test significance: .016
Generation Status: The majority (58.3%) of the respondents were first generation
immigrants to the United States, 37.2% were second generation, and 2.8% were third
generation.
Religion: Regarding their religiosity, the vast majority identified themselves as Catholic
(76.1%).
Church Attendance: About the same number (77.7%) had gone to church at least once in
the three months prior to answering the questionnaire.
Dating: Regarding dating, 82.9% said they dated to somewhat On a summative scale of 1 -
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5, with (1) being "a great deal" and (5) "not at all," both groups reported a median score of
(4) "very little."
Familial Features
Siblings: There were several familial features. The mean number of siblings the
respondents had was 4.26. The standard deviation was 2.19. The range was from 0 to 9
for the dropouts and 0 to 11 for the remainers. The categorical breakdown was: a mean of
4.83 for the dropouts and a mean o f 3.85 for the remainers.
Birth Order: The birth order mean of the respondents was 2.77 with a standard deviation
of 1.9. The range was from first-born to tenth. For the dropouts, the mean was 3.16; for
the remainers, it was 2.40. Details on the number of siblings and the respondents’ birth
order are provided in Tables 3 and 4.
Living Arrangement: More than half of the respondents lived with both parents (58.6%).
However, among the dropouts, 50% lived with both parents and 25% lived with their
mother. Among the remainers, the majority (62.3%) lived with both parents, while 29.5%
lived with their mother.
Household: The mean number of people living in the household with the respondent was
7.02, with a standard deviation of 2.96, and a range from 1 to 16. The mean for the
dropouts was 7.52; and for the remainers it was 6.61.
Expected Contribution to Family Income: Almost two thirds were expected to contribute to
the family income (61.5%). On a scale of 1-5, with (1) "a great deal" and (5) "not at all,"
both groups reported a median score of (4) "very little."
Expected Care o f Siblings: A larger number (85.6%) were expected to care for younger
siblings or their older siblings' children.
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 3. NUMBER O F SIBLINGS
Frequency Percent
0 2 1.8
1 10 8.8
2 10 8.8
3 21 18.6
4 24 21.2
5 17 15.0
6 13 11.5
7 4 3.5
8 4 3.5
9 7 6.2
10 0 0.0
11 1 .9
Total: 113 100
Mean: 4.3 Minimum: 0
Standard Deviation: 2.25 Maximum: 11
Dropouts Remainers
Sub-Total: 52 57
Mean: 4.83 3.75
Standard Deviation: 2.31 1.92
Minimum: 0 0
Maximum: 9 9
Two tail t-test significance: .021
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 4. BIRTH ORDER
Frequency Percent
1 32 29.4
2 27 24.8
3 19 17.4
4 15 13.8
5 6 5.5
6 5 4.6
7 1 .9
8 1 .9
9 1 .9
10 1 .9
Total: 109 100
Mean: 2.77 Minimum: 1st bom
Std Dev.: 1.83 Maximum: 10th bom
Dropouts Remainers
Sub-Total: 50 58
Mean: 3.16 2.40
Standard Deviation: 2.05 1.54
Minimum: 1st bom 1st bom
Maximum: 10th bom 7th bom
Two tail t-test significance: .025
Respondents Having Own Children: Twelve reported having their own children. Eleven
of those respondents were dropouts. No student had more than two children of her or his
own. Table 5 summarizes the difference between the groups.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 5. RESPONDENTS HAVING CHILDREN
OF THEIR OWN
Frequency Percent
Yes 12 10.8
No 99 89.2
Total: 111 100
Dropouts Remainers
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Yes 11 21.6 1 1.6
No 40 78.4 59 98.7
Sub-Total: 51 100 60 100
Chi-square significance: .001
Academic Features
Grade Completion: The highest grade completed by both groups of respondents was 11th
grade (39.3%). Four dropouts reported that they had dropped out at one point during the
school year of the study but had returned to and graduated from high school.
School Enrollment: Twenty of the identified dropouts (40%) reported enrollment in high
school (either at a comprehensive or continuation high school). One other dropout reported
receiving home instruction. Nine of the ten remainers who were not enrolled had
graduated.
Grade Retainment: About one-third of the respondents (33.6%) said they had been held
back at least one grade in school. Among the dropouts, there were 38.5% who had been
retained one or two grades. Among the remainers, 29.5% had be retained one or two
grades.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Siblings Who Dropped Out: Forty-four (41.5%) respondents reported they had an older
sibling who had dropped out of high school. Among the dropouts, 54% had siblings who
dropped out Among the remainers, 30.4% had siblings who dropped o u t The mean
number of siblings who had dropped out was 1.93, with a standard deviation of 1.37. The
range was from 1 to 8. Among the dropouts, the mean was 1.96, with a range from 1 to
8. Among the remainers the mean was 1.88, with a range from 1 to 4. Table 6 describes
the difference between the groups.
TABLE 6. SIBLINGS WHO DROPPED OUT
1 Dropped out
Yes
No
Total: 106
D ropouts-
Frequency
14
2 Dropped out 7
3 Dropped out 2
4 Dropped out 1
5 Dropped out 1
8 Dropped out 1
Sub-Total: 26
Chi-square significance: .014
Frequency Percent
44 41.5
62 58.5
100
R em a in ers
Percent Frequency Percent
53.8 7 41.2
26.9 6 35.3
7.7 3 17.6
3.8 1 5.9
3.8 0 0.0
3.8 0 0.0
--- --- ---
100 17 100
*One dropout did not report how many siblings had dropped out
Plans o f Dropouts Returning to School: The dropouts were asked if they planned on
returning to high school to get a diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma (G.ED.).
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Thirty-one of 37 dropouts (83.8%) who answered the question said they did plan on
returning to school or getting a G.E.D.
Plan o f Remainers Dropping Out: The remainers were asked if they thought they might
ever drop out of school. The vast majority (98.2%) said they did not think so.
Involvement in School Activities: When asked how involved they were in school
activities, one-third of the respondents (33.3%) said they were not involved at all. Twenty-
five (48.1 %) of the dropouts reported no involvement in school activities. Another 12
(23.1%) said they were involved very little. Among the remainers, 79.7% were involved
to some extent Table 7 summarizes the difference between the groups.
TABLE 7. INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
Frequency Percent
1. A great deal 19 17.1
2. A fair amount 15 13.5
3. To some extent 14 12.6
4. Very little 26 23.4
5. Not at all 37 33.3
Total: 111 100
Median; 4. Very little
Mode: 5. Not at all
Sub-Total:
Median:
Mode:
D ro p o u ts
52
4. Very little
5. Not at all
Mann-Whitney U statistical significance: .006
R em ainers
59
3. To some extent
4. Very little
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conflict With School O fficials: As for conflict with school officials, more than half of the
respondents (53.7%) reported not having any conflict at all with the officials. Exactly half
of the dropouts reported no conflict at all, and another 30.8% reported very little conflict
Almost two-thirds of the remainers (57.1 %) reported no conflict at all.
Plans on Attending College: Finally, the respondents were asked if they planned on
attending college. Among the dropouts, 71.4% said they planned on attending college.
Among the remainers, 93% answered "yes".
Other Features
Level o f Acculturation: The students did not differ statistically in their level of
acculturation, although the remainers were more acculturated, with a mean of 32.55. The
dropouts had a mean of 30.17, a mean difference o f only 2.39 between the groups. Table
8 sumarizes the student acculturation levels.
TABLE 8. STUDENT LEVEL O F ACCULTURATION
Total: 101
Mean: 31.42
Standard Deviation: 8.59
Minimum: 14
Maximum: 52
D ropouts R em a in ers
Sub-Total: 48 53
Mean: 30.17 32.55
Std. Dev.: 8.65 8.45
Minimum: 14 16
Maximum: 47 52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P arent R espondents
Personal Features
Gender: The total parent sample was 137. There were more female respondents (52.1%)
than male. This was also the case for both the parents of the remainers and the dropouts.
While most of the respondents were the students' parents (56.9% mothers and 34.3%
fathers), there were some extended family members who participated in the study as
guardians. Given the small percentage of guardians and the lack of statistically significant
difference between them and the parents, all respondents were combined into one unit
(called "parents") for further analysis.
Age: The parents' mean age was 42.44. The standard deviation was 7.58. Their ages
ranged from 20 to 64 years.
Marital Status: The majority of the respondents were married (72.2%). There were more
single parents of dropouts (11.1%) than of respondents (4.3%).
Relationship to Student: The vast majority of the respondents were the biological parents
of the students (57.8% mothers and 31.9% fathers). Ten respondents (7.4%) were
partners or family members of the students, other than parents or step-parents.
Number o f Children: The mean number of children the respondents ever had was 5.8,
with a standard deviation o f 2.39. The mean number of children living with the
respondents was 4.11, with a standard deviation of 1.89.
Chi-square statistic was used to compare both groups of respondents on gender,
ethnicity, language of questionnaire, relationship to student, marital status, religion,
whether they had other children who had dropped out of school, number of people in
household working out of the home, birthplace, and generation in the United States. Only
the variable-that which described whether the parents had other children who had dropped
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
out— was statistically significant at the p .05 level. The .000 result suggests that there is a
positive relationship between parents having other children who drop out and the identified
student also dropping out
Two-tail f-tests were used to compare the groups on age, number o f children ever
had, number of these children living with the respondents, number of other children who
had dropped out of school, number of people living in the household, and level of
acculturation. Only one relationship was statistically significant Number of people living
in the household. The pooled variance estimate was used as the F value two-tail
probability was .214, greater than alpha .05. The .031 result suggests that living in a
household with a large number of persons is associated with students to drop out of
school. The homes of the dropouts had a mean of 7.5 residents, while the homes of the
remainers had a mean of 6.5; a difference of 1 person, but still indicating a rather large
number of people living in the respondents' homes. For those variables where no
statistical significance was found, both groups appear to have similar means and do not
differ from each other.
The Mann-Whitney U test for independent random samples was used for
differences on ordinal level variables. The variables included the parents' last grade
completed, their church attendance, how well they perceived themselves speaking English,
how often their family had moved since the student subject had altered school for the first
time, and family income. None of the variables w oe statistically significant, suggesting
that the two groups did not differ from each other. Another ordinal level variable— the
parents' description of the importance of their child completing high school— was answered
as one of the study's research questions. It was found to be statistically significant at .006.
See Analysis of Hypotheses below for details.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ethnicity: More than 90% of the parents identified their ethnicity as Mexican (91.2%).
Only 7 (5.1%) identified themselves as Mexican American, and 2 (1.5%) as Chicano(a).
Place o f Birth: 94.8% were bom in Mexico. Only 6 (4.4%) were bom in the U.S., and
one was bom elsewhere.
Generation Status: 96.3 % were first generation immigrants. There was 1 respondent who
was second generation and 4 (3%) who w oe third generation.
Language o/Questionnaire: Most answered the questionnaire in Spanish (91.2%).
Ability to Speak English: As for their perception of how well they felt they spoke English,
more than half (53%) said they did not speak the language at all.
Religion: Regarding their religiosity, the majority identified themselves as Catholic
(86. 1%).
Church attendance: Church attendance in the three months prior to answering the
questionnaire was well spread out, from not having gone to church at all to having gone
" 13 or more times." The median number of times both groups had gone to church was "4-
6 times."
Familial Features
Family Moving: There were four family-related questions. When asked how many times
the family had moved since the student had started school for the first time, the majority
said less than five times (66.4%). The parents of the dropouts said less than five times
(65.6%) and the parents of the remainers said the same number of times (67.1 %).
Family Income: The family income for most respondents was considerably low: less than
SI 1,000 per annum for 44.8% and from $11,000 to $21,999 for 33.6%. The median for
the parents of both groups was $11,000 to $21,999.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Number Living in the Household: The mean number of people living in the household
with die parent was 6.99, with a standard deviation of 2.77, and a range from 2 to 15.
Table 9 describes the difference between the groups.
Number Working Out o f the Home: The median number o f people working out of the
home was two (40.4%). Both groups reported the same median number of two people
working ouf the home.
TABLE 9. NUMBER O F PERSONS LIVING
IN THE HOUSEHOLD W ITH THE PARENT
Total: 135
Mean: 6.99
Standard Deviation: 2.77
D rop o uts R em a in ers
Sub-Total: 63 72
Mean: 7.54 6.51
Std. Dev.: 2.94 2.53
Two tail t-test significance: .031
Academic Features
Grade Completion: The respondents were asked a combination of questions regarding
their own education and their child's education. Almost half o f the parents had completed
five or less years of school (41.3 %). The same response held true for the parents of the
dropouts (38.6%) and the remainers (43.5%).
Other Children Who Dropped Out: One-third of the respondents (33.8%) reported that
they had other children who had dropped out of high school. Among the parents of the
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dropouts, 53.2% had other children who dropped o u t Among the remainers, 16.2% had
children who dropped out The mean number of children (other than the student in
question) who had dropped out was 1.52, with a standard deviation of .80.
Importance o f Q uid Graduating from High School: When asked how important it was for
the respondents to have their child graduate from high school, they overwhelmingly said,
"A great deal" (81.3%). However, there was a statistical difference of .006 at the .05
leveL The difference was that more parents of the respondents (90.1%) reported "a great
deal" of importance to have their child graduate than the parents of the dropouts (71.4%).
Details are found in Table 10 below.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 10. IM PORTANCE OF CHILD GRADUATING
FROM HIGH SCHOOL
Frequency Percent
1. A great deal 109 81.3
2. A fair amount 22 16.4
3. To some extent 3 2.2
4. Very little 0 0.0
5. Not at all 0 0.0
Total: 134 100
Median: 1. A great deal
Mode: 1. A great deal
D ro p o u ts R em a iners
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1. A great deal 45 71.4 64 90.1
2. A fair amount 16 25.4 6 8.5
3. To some extent 3 3.2 1 1.4
4. Very little 0 0.0 0 0.0
5. Not at all 0 0.0 0 0.0
Sub-Total: 63 100 71 100
Median: 1. A great deal l.A great deal
Mode: 1. A great deal 1. A great deal
Mann-Whitney U statistical significance: .006
Other Features
Level o f Acculturation: As a group, the parents reported a low level of acculturation, with
a mean of 19.85 and standard deviation of 7.52. The minimum score was 12, and the
maximum was 55. The parents of the remainers had a higher level of acculturation, with a
mean o f20.06. The parents of the dropouts had a mean of 19.63. See Table 11 for
details.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 11. PARENT LEVEL OF ACCULTURATION
Total: 124
Mean: 19.85
Standard Deviation: 7.52
Minimum: 12
Maximum: 55
D ro p o u ts R em ainers
Sub-Total: 59 65
Mean: 19.63 20.06
Std.Dev.: 6.19 8.58
Minimum: 13 12
Maximum: 43 55
D escriptive F in d in gs
The respondents were asked two subjective questions regarding their views on the
problem o f dropping out of school. The first question asked the respondents to opine why
they believe students drop out, and the second question asked the respondents to give an
idea on how students can be motivated to stay in school. To embrace the two groups-
dropouts and remainers— the first question was worded differently for each group.
The dropout respondents were asked to give the most important reason that explained why
they themselves dropped out: "Please give us the most important reason why you dropped
out of school." The dropout parents were asked: "Please give us die most important reason
why your child dropped out of school." The remainer respondents were asked to give the
most important reason they could think of to explain why students drop out. The remainer
parents were also asked to give the most important reason they could think of to explain
why students drop out
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The second question asked: "What advice would you give us to motivate students
to stay in school?" The same wording was used for all groups, dropouts and remainers
and parents o f dropouts and parents of remainers. Although the respondents were asked to
give the most important reason for explaining the dropping out behavior and for their most
important piece of advice on how to keep students from dropping out, many offered more
than one answer. All answers were tabulated and considered to be relevant. Therefore,
some tabulations may include more answers than the total number of respondents. Since
the respondents were given the option of answering the questions by mail, by telephone or
in person, it was not possible to explore the respondents' answers in depth.
S tu d en t R esponses
Why Students Dropped Out: The dropouts were asked to give the most important reason
why they dropped out of school. Again, more than one answer may have been given. A
total of 32 respondents answered the question. Twenty did not answer. The answers
generated four categories: Economic, Personal, Interpersonal Relations and Academic.
The top reasons given were to work (n=6; Economic category), to return to Mexico (n=4;
Personal category), pregnancy (n=4; Personal), and because the student lost interest/got
frustrated in school (n=3; Personal). See Table 12 below for the top two answers per
category.
Sixteen dropouts opted to answer Question 26 ("Please give us the most important
reason why you think students drop out of school."), which was asked of a remainer,
instead of Question 22 ("Please give us the most important reason why you dropped out of
school."), which was asked of a dropout Eleven of the dropouts answered the question,
"Are you presently enrolled in high school?", with a "yes" answer. The remaining five
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students gave a "no" answer to the question, but still answered as a remainer. Since the
study did not allow for more in-depth questioning, one can only speculate as to why this
occurred. One plausible explanation for why a larger number of dropouts did not answer
Question 22 may be that they did not identify themselves as dropouts. Another possible
reason for the answers listed in the wrong place is human error. Among this group, the
most prominent answer was that they believe students do not think they need to be in
school (n=4; Personal category). A sampling of the full responses is found below.
TABLE 12. PLEASE GIVE US THE MOST IMPORTANT
REASON WHY YOU DROPPED OUT
(Student Q uestionnaire: D ropouts)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Influenced by friends 2
They (unspecified) wanted to kill me 1
Got in a fight 1
Others judging me 1
Economic
Work 6
Personal
Pregnancy 4
Left/was leaving to Mexico 4
Lost interest/got frustrated 4
Academic
Got expelled 2
Overage 2
I lost interest I got into some problems with people at school so I decided to leave
school. They (unspecified) started judging me.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I really don’t have a reasonable answer. I was just short 15 credits to graduate. I
got frustrated and tired of school Work was a major factor in th is. I hardly had
time for anything.
Porque tenia que trabajar para ayudar en la casa y a mis padres que estan en
Mexico. Because I had to work to help at home and my parents who are in
M exico.
Why Others Drop Out: The remainers were asked for their opinion as to why students
drop out of school Their answers generated five categories: Economic, Personal,
Familial, Intrapersonal Relations and Academic. All 57 remainers responded. The most
stated reasons were to work (n=25; Economic), to join gangs (n=9; Interpersonal
Relations), lack of interest (n=7; Personal), lack of parental support (n=7; Familial), and
family problems (n=6; Familial). A summary of the answers is found in Table 13.
Examples:
I think they drop out because of family problems.
Most of the cases I’ve heard of or reasons I’ve heard of for kids dropping out of
school is to either help the household income by working or because they have kids
to take care of.
Girls, because they get pregnant and have to drop ou t Guys, because some have to
work, but most of them drop out because they are not interested in school and they
don’t get enough attention at home.
Because they don’t life it (school); they probably think teachers expect too much of
them.
Per our race, they come from outside the U.S. and they need money. Others,
they're just lazy; they don't have support from their families.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 13. PLEASE GIVE US THE MOST
IMPORTANT REASON WHY YOU THINK
STUDENTS DROP OUT O F SCHOOL
(Student Q uestionnaire: Rem ainers)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Gangs 9
To Ire with their friends 4
Economic
Work 25
Lack of economic resources 1
Personal
Not interested 7
Get bored 5
Personal
Get tired of it 1
Don’ t think about themselves or their
families 1
Academic
Teachers don't help them well enough 3
Dress code 2
Familial
Lack of support from parents 7
Have family problems 6
Advice to Keep Others in School: Both groups were asked to give advice on how to
motivate students to stay in school. A total of 34 dropouts gave responses. Eighteen did
not answer. The answers were combined into the same five categories. The top answers
were: To forge ahead ("Para seguir adelante", n=9; Personal Benefit), for a better future
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(n=5; Personal Benefit), and to get a better job (n=5; Economic). See a summary of
additional answers on Table 14. Text examples are found below:
A lot of teachers were very caring and they were involved with me. Let the
teachers get involved with you. Trust them. Give them a chance to help you feel
comfortable. Most teachers listen to you and you can talk to them.
Get closer to your teachers and peers. Take advantage of your education, because it
will eventually benefit you.
Don’t drop out, even if you are a girl and got pregnant Stay in school and do the
best.
Que le hechen ganas y que no sigan a las pandillas; estudien, y que le hagan caso a
sus padres. To put forth a greater effort and notfollow the gangs; study, and listen
to your parents.
It is noteworthy that 18 of the dropouts responded to Question 29 on the
questionnaire ("What advice would you give us to motivate students to stay in school? ”),
which was asked of a remainer, instead of answering Question 25 (same question), which
was asked o f a dropout Twelve of them answered the question, "Are you presently
enrolled in high school?", with a "yes" answer. The remaining six students gave a "no"
answer to the question, but still answered as a remainer. Among this group, the only
prominent answer given was that students should stay in school for a better future (n=6;
Personal Benefit category).
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 14. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US
TO M OTIVATE STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Student Q uestionnaire: D ropouts)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Don't follow the gangs 2
Don't listen to those who say you won't
amount to anything 1
Economic
Better job 5
Personal Benefit
Para seguir adelante (forge ahead) 9
Better future 5
Academic
Let the teachers get involved with you 3
Finish high school and go to college 2
Familial
Talk to parents so they know where
their kids are at 2
Listen to your parents 2
On the same question, the remainers' answers also were combined into the same
five categories. Fifty three remainers responded. Four did not answer. The top three
answers were: Stay in school for a better future (n=15; Personal Benefit) and for a better
job (n=9; Economic), and get involved in activities or clubs at school (n=5; Academic).
The answers can be found in Table 15.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Below is a list of the advice given by the respondents to help motivate students to
stay in school.
No advice. I think everybody does what they want and if they care then they stay
and ask for help.
The advice that I would give to motivate students to stay in school is for teachers to
be involved with students, like giving more attention to the ones that need it or
seem to have problems.
The advice I would give would be to the teachers because they're the ones who
work with the students. If they see any student who starts the year with good
grades and suddenly their grades are lowering down and stops coming to school,
that's a notice that something is wrong with that student Right away call their
parents and tell them they would like to have a parent conference with their child.
Ask the parents questions such as why they think their child is like this, do they
have problems that is affecting the student's life.
Just show students that you care about them and that they can do something with
their lives.
El futuro depende de ellos. Elios tienen que pensar y decidir porque no todo el
tiempo sus padres les van a dar todo. Algun dia ellos se iran y que seri de sus
vidas si no saben trabajar. La escuela es una buena crpcidn para ellos. Tienen que
estudiar para superarse, para si algun dia se casan y tienen hijos, tengan algo que
ofrecerles.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 15. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US
TO MOTIVATE STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Student Questionnaire: Remainers)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Get counseling re: problems stopping
them from finishing high school 1
Show them you care about them 1
Economic
Good job 9
More money 2
Personal
Future 15
You'll regret it 2
Never give up; there's always hope 2
Think twice 2
For better care of their own children 2
Academic
Get involved in activities or clubs 5
Teachers should give more attention to
those who need it 2
Familial
To better help your parents 3
You're parents won't always be there
for you 2
The future depends on them. They have to think and decide because their parents
aren't always going to give thwm everything. Some day they'll leave and what
w ill be o f their lives i f they don't know how to work. School is a good option fo r
them. They have to study to improve them selves, so i f some day they get married
and have children, they'll have something to offer them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P arent R esponses
Why Child Dropped Out: A total of 43 parents of the dropouts answered the question of
why their child dropped out of school Eighteen did not answer. Three disputed their
child's identification as a dropout A factoring o f the various answers produced five
categories: Interpersonal Relations, Economic, Personal, Academic and Familial.
The most prominent reasons given by the parents for their child's decision to drop
out of school were the influence of a girlfriend or boyfriend (n=6), marriage (n=5),
pregnancy (n=5), problems with other students (n=5) or to work (n=5). The top two
reasons given by parents of dropouts explaining why their child dropped out is listed in
Table 16.
Below is a sampling of answers that accentuate the responses given the by parents
o f the dropouts.
Porque tenia novia y la mama de su novia le dijo que se casara con ella porque el
padrastro de la muchacha no la queria mantener mils. Because he had a girlfriend
and the girlfriend's mother told him to get married -with her because her stepfather
didn't want to take o f her.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 16. PLEASE GIVES US THE MOST IM PORTANT
REASON WHY YOUR CHILD DROPPED OUT O F SCHOOL
(Adult Q uestionnaire: P arents of D ropouts)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Influenced by girl/boyfriend 6
Marriage 5
Pregnancy 5
Problems with other students 5
Economic
To work 5
Lack of financial support 2
Personal
Didn't want to go 3
Went to Mexico 2
Placed in juvenile hall 2
Academic
Lack of interest 3
Didn't like to study 2
Repeated expulsions 2
Familial
Due to the little schooling that I
(parent) received 1
La raz6n de que mi hija se salio de la escuela fue porque ella quiso trabajar porque
yo no le podia comprar todo lo que nesesitaba. The reason my daughter left school
was because she wanted to work because I couldn't buy her everything she
needed.
Pot causa de tantos amigos que hay; porque lo invitavan a salirse de la escuela.
Tambi6n le influencid la poca escuela que yo tuve. As a result o f so many friends;
because they would invite him to leave school He also was influenced by the little
schoo ling that I had.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mi hija se salio de la escuela por motivos. El primero, por el novio. Segundo, por
el embarazo. Tercero, ella ya no quiso seguir estudiando. My daughter left school
fo r reasons. The fir s t was her boyfriend. Second, because o f the pregnancy.
Third, she didn't want to continue studying.
A handful of respondents argued that their children had been misidentified as a
dropout Two respondents reported that their children had moved out the high school's
jurisdiction and had enrolled elsewhere. One respondent simply said that his/her child had
never dropped out Another respondent said that his/her child had a foot injury and could
not attend school, but had not dropped out
Why Others Drop Out: The parents of the remainers were asked for similar information:
"Please give us the most important reason why you think students drop out of school." A
total of 64 parents responded. Nine did not respond. The various answers produced the
same five categories: Interpersonal Relations, Familial, Academic, Personal and
Economic. The most widely given reasons by the remainers1 parents to explain why
students drop out of school were found in the Familial, Academic, and Interpersonal
Relations categories. In the Familial category, the answers included: Lack of parental
attention (n=l 1) and lack of parental support (n=7). Under Academic, the respondents’
primary response was that students do not want to study (n=9). In the Interpersonal
Relations category, the reasons included lack of communication (the source was
unspecified (n=7) and influence of friends (n=6). The Economic and Personal categories
were cited less often. Under Economic, five respondents said that students leave school to
work to help the family. Under Personal, the respondents said that students drop out
because they join gangs (n=4) and do not think about their future (n=4). Additional
answers can be found in Table 17. Below are some key points raised by the respondents.
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Not enough support from parents and teachers, school staff or community.
Harassment, dress codes, homework and long hours.
Muchos de ellos lo hacen por problemas familiares, por influencias negativas,
drogadiccidn, vandalismo, por no tener suficiente recursos economicos. Many do
it because o f fam ily problems, because o f negative influences, drugs, vandalism,
lack o f economic resources.
Creo que hay muchos papas que no llegan a conocer a sus hijos; es falta de
comunicacidn y si nosotros no sabemos que hacen o que les gusta, no sabremos
como actuar dentro de la escuela.
Porque estamos en un paiz donde menos relacionamos a los estudiantes; le
ponemos m is tiempo al trabajo, y cada quien llega a casa con una negatividad de
cada sea su experiencia (ya sea de escuela o de trabajo). Because we're in a
country where we don't socialize our students; we give more time to work, and
everyone gets home carrying a negativity with them, given their own experience
(whether it's a t school or work).
A veces los maestros son un poco duros con ellos y ellos se aburren y mejor se
van. Sometimes teachers are a little rude with them and they get bored and they
leave.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 17. PLEASE GIVES US TH E MOST
IMPORTANT REASON WHY YOU THINK
STUDENTS DROP OUT OF SCHOOL
(A dult Q uestionnaire: P arents of Rem ainers)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Lack o f communication 7
Influenced by friends 6
Economic
Work to help the family 5
Financial problems 2
Personal
Don't think about the future 4
Gangs 4
Lack of motivation 3
Drugs 3
Academic
They don't want to study 9
Not enough support from teachers 2
Teachers have a poor attitude (are rude) 2
Teachers are condescending 2
Dress code 1
Homework (excessive) 1
Long hours 1
Familial
Lack the attention of the parents 11
Not enough support from parents 7
Advice to Keep Students in School: Both sets of parents were asked to give advice on how
to motivate students to stay in school. Answers from the parents of the dropouts generated
the same five categories. A total of 54 parents responded. Ten did not respond. Under
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Personal Benefit, the respondents' advice for students was to stay in school because it is an
investment in their own future (n=16); to be somebody in life (n=8); and to forge ahead
("salir adelante" (n=7). Under Interpersonal Relations, the respondents' prominent citation
was to communicate with students, both regarding their personal problems and the
importance of school (n=10). The top two answers in all categories is found in Table 18.
Below are some complete examples:
Parents should make their kids study and make sure they attend school. Make sure
they have communication with children.
(Diganles a los estudiantes) que tienen que estudiar y ser alguien en la comunidad;
ser un estudiante y graduarse, para que cuando esten mayores, tengan un fiituro
mejor que el de sus padres. (Tell the students that) they have to study and be
somebody in the community; be a student and graduate, so when they're older,
they can have a better ftuure than their parents.
Que de alguna forma los jovenes entiendan, que sin educacidn acaddmica, no hay
foturo para si mismos, ni para ayudar a otros. That somehow the youth realize,
that without a form al education, there's no foture fo r themselves, nor to help
others.
Pasar a las casas y hablar con los estudiantes y decirles que no sean tontos porque
viene una vida larga y difitil. Porque si no regresan a su escuela, la vida serii mds
dificil. Go to the homes and speak with the students and tell them not to be dumb,
because there's a long and difficult lifo ahead. Because i f they don't return to their
school, their life w ill be more difficult.
Yo soy una mujer sola y quisiera lo mejor para mi hijo; y sd que la escuela es lo
mejor. Tm a single mom and I would want the best fo r m y son; and I know that
school is the best thing.
El consejo que yo doy es que los jovenes sigan estudiando porque la preparatidn el
lo mds importante en la vida. Con preparacidn valen el 100% en todo lugar. Sin la
preparation, valen 10%. The advice that would give the youth is to continue
studying because preparation is the most important thing in lifo. With preparation,
they're worth 100% everywhere. W ithout the preparation, they're worth 10%.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 18. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US
TO MOTIVATE STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Adult Q uestionnaire: Parents of D ropouts)
Interpersonal Relations
Communicate with them regarding their
personal problems/importance of
Frequency
school 1 0
Give them advice/counseling 2
Economic
Better job 2
Give them jobs (now) 1
Help their families 1
Personal
Better future 16
Be somebody 8
Academic
To remain in school 3
Not to take problems to school 1
Need more conferences with parents 1
Help them do better in classes 1
More sports 1
Need more security at school 1
Familial
Parents to watch over them
Parents to communicate with their
2
children 2
The advice from the parents of the remainers generated six categories. These were:
Personal Benefit, Academic, Interpersonal Relations, Familial, Economic and
Environmental. Only twice did more than two respondents give the same response.. Under
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Personal Benefit, most respondents said that students should be told that staying in school
is a benefit for their future (n=14), and in the Academic category, five respondents said that
students should be motivated to participate in school activities. The remaining top answers
are found in Table 19. Below is a sampling of answers.
TABLE 19. WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE US
TO M OTIVATE STUDENTS TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(A dult Q uestionnaire: Parents of Rem ainers)
Interpersonal Relations Frequency
Encourage the student 2
More compassion, more understanding 1
Help them resolve personal problems 1
Send them to counseling, don't punish
them 1
Give them examples of those who
succeeded 1
Teach them how to work and study 1
Economic
Good job 2
Have work programs for them 1
Personal
Your own future 14
Que le hechen ganas (exert effort) 2
Seguir adelante (forge ahead) 2
Don't lose their lives on the streets 2
Academic
Motivate them to participate in school
activities 5
Separate students from friends in class 1
Avoid truancy and suspensions 1
Offer them a behavior modification
program in exchange for their
education 1
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE 19. (Cont.) WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU
GIVE US TO MOTIVATE STUDENTS
TO STAY IN SCHOOL?
(Aduit Questionnaire: Parents of Remainers)
Academic
Explain to them that they can receive
financial aid 1
Don't sit opposite gender near each other 1
Encourage them with their studies 1
Familial
Parents be more understanding 1
To become more than your parents 1
Parents be conscious of students to be
prepared academically 1
Parents demand more of your children 1
Motivate the parents 1
Show students that they're worth more 1
Tell students they can count on their
parents' support 1
Environmental
One is bom with the desire to study 1
Try to understand why they need school. For their own purpose in life, teach them
how to work and what it means to help them study so they can be somebody in
their grown life.
More compassion, more understanding. Treat each student and family member as
an individual; each case is different Do not pattern out a rule or punishment for all
students, but as individuals to their needs. No detention. Send them to a parent
counseling session and (explain to them) why they have to be at this session— for
understanding not punishment
El consejo que yo puedo dar es que primero motivemos a los padres para que a su
vez ellos motiven a sus hijos, dindoles m is apoyo en sus estudios, diciendoles, tu
puedes, tu eres un campidn. The advice I could give is to first motivate the parents
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
so they in m m can motivate their children, giving them more support in their
studies, telling them, you can do it, you're a champion.
ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES
The following hypothesis were explored. Each of the hypothesis was answered by
comparing all of the respondents, the parents, and the students, at the p .05 significance
level. Statistic tests were run with and without the 12 siblings and there was no difference
in the results. Therefore, the siblings were included in analyses of the results.
Hypothesis I
The level o f cohesion w ill be (I) higher among the homes o f the remainers than the homes
o f the dropouts, and w ill be (2) higher among the parents o f the remainers than the parents
o f the dropouts, and w ill be (3) higher among the remainers than the dropouts.
Test Statistic: A r-test was employed to answer the questions. (1) There was
statistical significance of .005 found on the combined respondents' perception o f the
family's cohesion. The Pooled Variance Estimate-which indicates that the variance was
equal— was used as the one-tail probability o f. 198 exceeded alpha .05. (2) There was also
statistical significance of .001 found on the parents’ perception of the family's cohesion.
The Pooled Variance Estimate was used as the two-tail probability of .091 exceeded alpha
.05. (3) There was no statistical difference when comparing the students.
Conclusions: (1) This finding suggests that in this sample, the homes of the
remainers (n=130) had a more cohesive family environment than the homes of the dropouts
(n=l 13); that is, the homes of the remainers had a higher degree of commitment, help and
support among its family members than the homes o f the dropouts. There was a mean
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
difference of .7, in favor of the homes o f the remainers, who had a mean of 6.66. The
homes o f the dropouts had a mean of 5.96. The FES's normative data revealed a mean of
6.73 (Moos & Moos, 1994). (2) This finding suggests that the parents of the remainers
(n=72) perceived a more cohesive family environment than the parents of the dropouts
(n=64). The parents of the remainers posted a mean of 7.06, as compared to the parents of
the dropouts, who had a mean of 5.97. The mean difference of -1.09 significantly
separated the two groups.
Hypothesis 2
There will be no difference in the level o f expressiveness between (I) the homes o f the
remainers and the homes o f the dropouts, or between (2) the parents o f the remainers and
the parents o f the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the dropouts.
Test Statistic: A f-test was used to answer the questions. There was no statistical
difference found on (1) the combined respondents' perception o f the family's
expressiveness, nor on (2) the parents' perception, nor on (3) the students' perception.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted. There is no difference between the
groups; they appear to come from die same population.
Hypothesis 3
There will be no difference in the degree o f conflict between (I) the homes o f the remainers
and the homes o f the dropouts, or between (2) the parents o f the remainers and the parents
o f the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the dropouts.
Test Statistic: A f-test was used to answer the questions. A significant finding of
.026 was revealed using the Pooled Variance Estimate, when comparing (2) the parents.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The two-tail probability was .345. There was no statistical difference found on (1) the
combined groups and (3) the student groups' perception of the family's degree of conflict
Conclusions: (2) The parents o f the remainers reported a lower degree of conflict
in their families (mean of 1.96) than the parents o f the dropouts (mean of 2.63), a mean
difference of -.67, or less than half of a point on a scale with low mean scores. There
appeared to be a higher level of expressed anger and dispute among the parents of the
dropouts. The lack of difference in (1) and (3) suggests that the dropouts and the
remainers and their families, come from the same population, when measuring against die
subscale conflict
Hypothesis 4
There will be no difference in the level o f independence between (1) the homes o f the
remainers and the homes cfthe dropouts, or between (2) the parents o f the remainers and
the parents o f the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the dropouts.
Test Statistic: A r-test was employed to answer the questions. There was no
statistical difference found on the combined respondents' perception of the family’ s degree
of independence, nor on the parents' perception, nor on the students' perception.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted. T helackofdifferencein(l)and(2)
and (3) suggests that the dropouts and the remainers, their parents and their families, come
from the same population, when measuring against the subscale independence.
Hypothesis 5
The level o f achievement orientation will be higher among (1) the homes o f the remainers
than the homes o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (2) the parents o f the remainers
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
than the parents o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (3) the remainers than the
dropouts.
Test Statistic: A r-test was employed to answer the questions. There were no
statistical differences between any o f the three groups.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was rejected. There were no differences in (1) and
(2) and (3); the three groups appear to come from the same population. Differences were
expected in the three groups because the literature indicates that Latino groups who have
shown a higher degree of achievement orientation than the normal FES population and a
higher level than Caucasian families (Moos & Moos, 1994).
H ypothesis 6
The degree o f intellectual-cultural orientation will be higher among (1) the homes o f the
remainers than the homes o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (2) the remainers than
the dropouts, and equal between (3) the parents o f the remainers than the parents o f the
dropouts.
Test Statistic: A f-test was employed to answer the questions. There was
statistical significance of .001 found on the (1) combined respondents' perception of the
family's intellectual-cultural orientation. The Fooled Variance Estimate was used as the
one-tail probability of .069 exceeded alpha .05. (3) A significant difference was found
when comparing the student groups. Using the Fooled Variance Estimate, because the test
produced a one-tail probability of .467 (more than alpha .05), a significant result of .002
was found. (2) There were no statistical differences between the parents.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted with regard to (1) the homes of the
remainers having a higher level of intellectual-cultural orientation than the homes of the
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dropouts and (3) the remainers having a higher degree of intellectual-cultural orientation
than the dropouts, but it was rejected with regard to (2) die parents of the remainers having
a higher level of intellectual-cultural orientation than the parents of the dropouts. (1) This
finding suggests that in this sample, the homes of die remainers (n=130) had a greater
sense of intellectual-cultural orientation than the homes of the dropouts (n=l 13); that is, the
homes of the remainers had a higher level o f interest in political, intellectual and cultural
activities than the homes of the dropouts. The homes of the remainers had a mean of 4.60
and the homes of the dropouts had a mean o f 3.92. There was a mean difference of .68.
The FES's normative population had a mean of 5.56. (3) The result indicated that the
remainers, with a mean of 4.76, had a higher level of intellectual and cultural disposition,
than the dropouts, with a mean of 3.88. (2) The lack of difference between the parents
suggests that they come from the same population.
H ypothesis 7
The emphasis on active-recreational orientation will be higher among (I) the homes o f the
remainers than the homes o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (3) the remainers than
the dropouts, and equal between the parents o f the remainers than (2) the parents o f the
dropouts.
Test Statistic: A r-test was employed to answer the questions. There was
statistically meaningful difference of .009 between (1) the combined respondents. The
Separate Variance Estimate was used because the one-tail probability was .007, less than
.05. (3) There was a significant difference of .010 found between the sets of students.
The Separate Variance Estimate was used because the one-tail probability of .027 was less
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
than the alpha limit of .05. (2) There were was no statistical difference between the
parents.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted with regard to (1) the homes of the
remainers having a higher level of active-recreational orientation than the homes of the
dropouts and (3) the remainers having a higher degree of active-orientation than the
dropouts, and (2) with no difference between the parents o f the two groups. No difference
was expected between the parents because it was anticipated that they would have similar
income levels and be less acculturated than their children, and thus less able or willing to
become active in social and recreational activities. (1) This result suggests that the homes
of the dropouts, with a mean of 3.24, were less inclined to be involved in social and
recreational activities than the homes of the remainers, with a mean of 3.75. The mean
difference of -.52 was large, considering the low means o f the groups. (3) The results
suggest that the dropouts, who had a mean of 3.24, were less active in social and
recreational activities than the remainers, who had a mean of 4.03. The difference between
the means was -.79, a large separation between the groups. (2) The lack of difference
between the parents suggests that they come from the same population are more alike than
different.
H ypothesis 8
The level o f moral-religious emphasis will be higher among (1) the homes o f the remainers
than the homes o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (2) the parents o f the remainers
than the parents o f the dropouts, and will be higher among (3) the remainers than the
dropouts.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Test Statistic: A r-test was employed to answer the questions. There was
statistical significance of .006 found on (1) the combined respondents' perception of the
family's perception of moral-religious emphasis. The Pooled Variance Estimate was used
as the one-tail probability o f. 109 was greater than alpha .05. (2) There was also a
significant difference between the parents of the remainers and the parents of the dropouts.
Using the Separate Variance Estimate, there was a one-tail significance of .020. (3) There
were no statistical difference between the students.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted as the (1) the homes of the remainers
and (2) the parents of the remainer had a higher level of moral-religious emphasis than the
homes and the parents o f the dropouts, respectively. The hypothesis was rejected with
regard to (3) the remainers having a high degree of moral-religious emphasis than the
dropouts. (1) This finding suggests that in this sample, the homes of the remainers
(n=130) had a higher degree of ethical and religious issues and values than the homes of
the dropouts (n=l 13). The homes of the remainers had a mean of 6.27 and the homes of
the dropouts had a mean of 5.73, with a mean difference of .54. This data reveal that both
of the families in this study had a higher degree of moral-religious emphasis than the
normative sample, which had a mean of 4.75. (2) The parents of the remainers reported a
higher degree of moral and religious emphasis, with a mean score of 6.45, as compared to
the parents of the dropouts (Af=5.88). Therefore, the parents of the remainers adhered to a
higher standard of ethics in their homes than the parents of the dropouts. (3) Again, the
students did not differ in this sub-scale.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
H ypothesis 9
There will be no difference in the level o f family organization between (1) the homes o f the
remainers and the homes o f the dropouts, or between (2) the parents o f the remainers and
the parents o f the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the dropouts.
Test Statistic: A f-test was employed to answer the questions. There was no
statistical difference found on (1) the combined respondents' perception of organization in
the home, (2) the parents, or (3) the students.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted. The lack of difference in (1) and (2)
and (3) suggests that the dropouts and the remainers, their parents and their families, come
from the same population, when measuring against the subscale organization.
H ypothesis 10
There will be no difference in the level o f control in the family between (I) the homes o f
the remainers and the homes o f the dropouts, or between (2) the parents o f the remainers
and the parents o f the dropouts, or between (3) the remainers and the dropouts.
Test Statistic: A r-test was employed to answer the questions. There was no
statistical difference found on (1) the combined respondents' perception of control in the
family, nor on (2) the parents, nor on (3) the students.
Conclusions: The hypothesis was accepted. The lack of difference in the three
groups suggests that (1) the dropouts and the remainers, (2) their parents and (3) their
families, come from the same population, and perceived their family environment as
composed of a similar amount of control.
Appendix C summarizes the differences among the groups, the study sample and
the normative sample, and the study sample a distressed sample.
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypothesis 11
There will be a higher level o f importance among the parents o f the remainers fo r their
children to graduate from high school than among the parents o f the dropouts.
Test Statistic: The test statistic used was the Mann-WhitneyU. With correction
for ties, the one-tail probability of .003. The z approximation is -1.38.
Conclusion: The hypothesis was accepted. There is enough evidence to indicate
that in this sample the parents of the remainers differed from the parents of the dropouts in
terms of their perceived value of their child completing high school The parents of the
remainers (n=71) recorded a mean rank of 61.63, as compared to a mean rank of 74.11 for
the parents of the dropouts (n=63), a sizeable difference of 12.48. This result suggests
that the parents of the remainers tended to have a higher level of perceived value of their
child completing high school A closer examination of this variable indicates that the vast
majority of the parents of both groups (81.3%) reported "a great deal" of importance in
their child graduating from high school, and all of the respondents found it important at
least "to some extent". The difference was that more parents of the respondents (90.1 % )
reported "a great deal" of importance to have their child graduate than the parents of the
dropouts (71.4%).
Hypothesis 12
The relationship between the parents' generation status, level o f acculturation, level o f
education, household income, and English-language proficiency mU more correctly
classify the status o f the remainers than the status o f the dropouts.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Test Statistic: The test statistic employed was logistic regression. Upon review of
the data, a decision was made to drop the variable "generation status" from the question
because there was virtually no variance found in the results. A total of 96.3% of the
respondents were first generation immigrants to the United States. The question, then,
was: To what extent, if any, can dropping out behavior be predicted from the parents'
level of education, household income, level of acculturation, and English language
proficiency?
This prediction model was able to correctly classify 67.33% of the cases, at the .05
level. The model was able to predict that 42 o f55 (76.36%) of the respondents' children
were remainers, and that 26 o f20 (56.52%) of the respondents' children were dropouts.
Conclusion: The hypothesis was accepted. The results indicate that the model can
predict the dropout status of two-thirds o f the respondents given the parents' level of
education, household income, level of acculturation, and English language proficiency.
The only statistically significant result in the equation was the variable household income,
with a difference of .01 at the .05 level. The model is not able to predict the status of about
one third of the respondents. The chi-square result of the model was .057. Although not
statistically significant, the difference between the groups may have practical importance.
The results indicate that given the variables in the model, one can predict the membership
of three fourths of the students as remainers. Conversely, one can only predict slightly
over half of the dropouts; not much better than by chance alone.
The bivariate analyses between dropout status and the variables in the equation did
not reveal any statistically significant results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hypothesis 13
The relationship between the students' last grade completed in school, English-language
proficiency, expected contribution to the family income, generation status, and level o f
acculturation will more correctly classify the status o f the remainers than the status o f the
dropouts.
Test Statistic: The test statistic employed was logistic regression. This prediction
model was able to correctly classify 64.95% of the cases. The model was able to predict
that 33 o f50 (66%) of the respondents were remainers, and that 30 o f47 (63.83%) of the
respondents were dropouts.
Conclusion: The hypothesis was accepted. The model can predict the membership
status of slightly less than two-thirds of the respondents given the students’ last grade
completed in school, English language proficiency, expected contribution to the family
income, level of acculturation, and generation status, with almost equal prediction of
remainers and dropouts. Nonetheless, the model is not able to predict the status of about
one third of the respondents.
None of the variables in the equation when measured independently against dropout
status w oe statistically significant
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Review of R esearch Q uestions
The study attempted to answer three sets of questions. The first set dealt with
perceived family processes, as described by students (both dropouts and remainers), their
parents and their families. The second set of questions concerned die importance that
parents gave to having their children graduate from high school. The third set concerned
the effect of culturally-related mediating variables upon dropping out behavior.
Q uestions R egarding Fam ily Processes
There were several levels of comparison used to help identify family processes.
First, the families of the students were compared on die three dimensions and the
corresponding scales of the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1994). Second,
the parents of the two groups were compared against each other. Then, the dropouts were
compared against the remainers. Fourth, a comparison was made between the study's
sample against the FES's tested samples, a normative group and a distressed group. The
last comparison was made against data from prior research with the use of the FES,
especially that which studied Latino families, large families, and parents and adolescents.
The students' siblings were only included in the tests comparing the homes.
Because there were only 12 siblings, there was a conceptual concern that the low number
would artificially change the test results. Statistic tests were run with and without the
siblings and there was no difference in the results. Therefore, the siblings were included in
the analyses of the results.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To what extent, i f any, do significant differences occur in the parents'
perception o f the fa m ily's interpersonal relationships between the homes o f
dropouts and the homes o f remainers? To what extent, i f any, do
significant differences occur in the students' perception o f the fam ily's
interpersonal relationships between the homes o f dropouts and the homes
o f remainers? To what extent, i f any, do significant differences occur in
the combined respondents' perception o f the fam ily's interpersonal
relationships between the homes o f dropouts and the homes o f remainers?
When observing the dimension as a whole, there was no statistical significance
found on any of the three questions. This suggests that in this sample, there is no
statistical difference between the dropouts and the remainers, their parents, and their
families, when measuring against the interpersonal relationship dimension. There were
some differences when comparing the sub-scales, though.
The families and the parents of the remainers were reportedly more cohesive than
the families of the dropouts. That is, these two groups had a higher degree of commitment,
help and support among family members, than their counterparts.
To what extent, i f any, do significant differences occur in the parents'
perception o f personal growth between the homes o f dropouts and the
homes o f remainers? To what extent, i f any, do significant differences
occur in the students' perception o f personal growth between the homes o f
dropouts and the homes o f remainers? To what extent, i f any, do
significant differences occur in the combined respondents' perception o f
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
personal growth between the homes o f dropouts and the homes o f
remainers?
Statistical significance was found in the personal growth dimension between the
combined respondents’ results and the students' results, but not in the parents' results.
This results suggest that die families of the remainers and the remainers themselves were
more inclined toward personal growth, than the families of the dropouts or the dropouts
themselves. The lack of statistically significant difference between the parents indicates that
the two groups appear to come from die same population, and perceive relatively equal
amount of personal growth within their families.
The personal growth, or goal orientation, dimension assesses the basic directions
along which personal growth and self-enhancement tend to occur in the family
environment; that is, it taps the major ways in which a family encourages or stifles personal
growth and self-enhancement. The families of the remainers reportedly placed a greater
degree of emphasis on intellectual-cultural oriented activities, active-recreational oriented
activities, and moral-religious emphasis than the families of the dropouts.
When the student groups were compared against each other, they were more alike
than different The only differences occurred in the personal growth dimension, and two
o f its five subscales, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, and
moral-religious emphasis. The remainers appear to be more personal-growth oriented than
the dropouts, especially with regard to interest in political, intellectual and cultural activities
and participation in social and recreational activities.
To what extent, i f any, is the parents' perception o f the system
m aintenance (or basic organizational structure) o f the fam ily significantly
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
different from the homes o f dropouts and the homes o f remainers? To what
extent, i f any, is the students' perception o f the basic organizational
structure o f the fam ily significantly d ifferen t from the homes o f dropouts
and the homes o f remainers? To what extent, i f any, is the combined
respondents' perception o f the basic organizational structure o f the fam ily
significantly different from the homes o f dropouts and the homes o f
remainers?
A significant difference was found when comparing the parents along the system
maintenance dimension. The score suggests that the parents of the remainers perceived
their families to be more organized and in control than the parents of the dropouts. There
were no statistically significant results found when comparing the combined respondents
and the students. This suggests that the dropouts and the remainers and their families,
come from the same population.
Most notably, the two groups of parents differed in the system maintenance
dimension and in one of its two subscales, control. The system maintenance dimension
assesses the family's emphasis on clear organization, structure, rules, and procedures in
conducting family life. The control subscale assesses the extent to which a set of rules and
procedures are used to run family life. The parents o f the remainers reported a higher
emphasis on family structure, especially control within the family, than the parents of the
dropouts. The parents of the remainers also had a higher level of moral-religious
emphasis, suggesting that they paid more attention given to ethical and religious issues and
values than their counterparts.
I l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary: The most notable difference between the groups was in the moral-religious
emphasis subscale. Two of the three comparison groups revealed a statistically significant
difference between them. The homes of the remainers and the parents of the remainers had
a higher level of moral-religious emphasis than their counterparts. This suggests that
ethical and religious issues are of greater importance to the families and the parents of the
remainers than the families and die homes of the dropouts. See Appendix C for details.
The descriptive data supports how the study sample highly views moral and
religious issues. The vast majority of both the students and their parents reported religious
affiliation and had regularly gone to church.
This finding also suggests that the practice of moral and ethical standards in the
homes of the remainers may be a predictor for dropping out behavior. One can speculate
that there is a stronger moral obligation found in the homes of the remainers than the homes
o f the dropouts to have their children stay in school.
The family processes data also revealed that, in some instances, the parents of the
two groups thought alike, but their children and their families thought differently. This
phenomenon occurred in the personal growth dimension, intellectual-cultural orientation,
and active-recreational orientation. In all instances, the parents' mean scores were lower
than their childrens' and families'. The families differed the most in the personal growth
dimension, while the students differed more in the intellectual-cultural orientation and
active-recreational orientation subscales. In each case, the remainers or their families had
higher mean scores than the dropouts or their families. These results suggest that the
parents of both groups perceived their family environment alike, and less self-sufficient and
less active than did their children and families.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The students agreed on the degree of cohesion in their family environment, but the
parent and family groups differed significantly between each other. This suggests that the
students believe that their families were more cooperative than do their parents and family
members. The parents disagreed the m ost In all cases, the remainers and their families
perceived a greater amount of cohesion than did the dropouts and their families. Yet, all
groups except the parents of the remainers reported less cohesion than did the normative
sample.
No statistical differences were found on any of the groups on several subscales.
These included expressiveness, independence, achievement orientation, and organization.
Compared to Normative Sample: When compared against the normative sample, the
study's families were more moral-religious oriented than the normal group, most of which
was Euro-American. The difference suggests that the study population expressed a higher
degree of moral and religious values. Looking at other results found in this study suggests
that this difference may be due to the high religious affinity found in this Latino group, or
the emphasis on family cohesion and structure, or the high aspiration of this predominantly
immigrant Latino group of parents for their children to succeed in a foreign land. Yet, the
study's families were less expressive and independent than the normal group. These
results support the literature on Latinos (in particular those of Mexican descent) that
suggests that Latinos tend to emphasize behavior over verbal expression (see Arnold &
Orozco, 1989; Brooks, 1989; Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba, 1991) and appear to be more
interdependent than independent or dependent (see Bumam et al., 1987; Delgado-Gaitan,
1986,1987; Ramirez, 1983). However, the families in the study were more achievement
oriented and organized than the normative sample. The descriptive data provides support
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for these results. Regarding achievement, the parents said overwhelming that it was very
important to have their child graduate from high school. When the students were asked if
they planned on attending college, almost three-fourths said they did. Yet, the descriptive
data— regarding family organization— indicates die great importance die respondents placed
upon certain family responsibilities. For example, two-thirds of the students needed to
contribute to the family income and more than three-fourths had some degree of obligation
to help with the care of their siblings. This combination of results suggests that the
students and their parents alike had high aspirations for a successful academic life, but the
every-day pressures of needing to secure income for their highly-dense families, may
prohibit them from realizing those dreams.
Compared to Distressed Sample: The FES also calculated scores for a distressed sample.
The distressed families included 42 families from a family clinic and a probation and parole
department; 220 families of patients with alcohol abuse problems; 288 families of
depressed patients; 77 families of psychiatric patients; and 161 families in which an
adolescent or younger child was in a crisis situation, had run away from home, had a
conduct disorder, or was to be placed into a foster home (Moos & Moos, 1994). A
comparison against the study families may be appropriate, especially if one were to
consider the families of the dropouts as distressed.
The study sample scored higher than the distressed sample on cohesion,
achievement orientation, moral-religious emphasis, organization, and control; and lower in
expressiveness, independence, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational
orientation, and conflict. These data reveal one change from the comparison to the normal
sample. The study sample had a higher degree of cohesion than the distressed sample.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This result suggests that the study sample finds more support among family members than
the distressed sample.
In those subscales where the study sample scored lower than distressed sample
(except conflict, where a lower score is more favorable), it can be argued that the study
sample either feces more stress than the distressed sample or more research is needed to
help explain the disparity. As stated above, literature on Latinos has shed some light on
issues of expressiveness and independence. Using data from this study may help
understand die low degree of intellectual-cultural orientation. When 72.3% of the parents
possess eight years or less of education, and the student respondents are either in high
school or have dropped out of high school, it is not surprising that participating in the
"intellectual" activities found in the FES (e.g., attending concerts and playing musical
instruments) is not a common practice for these respondents. The low participation in
social and recreational activities may be explained by the participants* economic inability to
do so. When the median family yearly income is $11,000 to $21,999 for an average
household of seven, and almost two-thirds of the students report their need to contribute to
the family income, there may not be enough resources to afford such activities. Similarly,
it is possible that the respondents may not have been involved in political activities, such as
voting, because they were recent arrivals in the United States and possibly were not
American citizens. Another plausible explanation for the low scores on intellectual-cultural
orientation is the poor social integration of immigrant families (Arnold & Orozco, 1988).
Compared to Other Samples: Latino families have been compared against Caucasian
families with the use of the FES, and have been found to be higher on cohesion,
achievement orientation, moral-religious emphasis, and organization; and lower on
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
expressiveness, conflict, independence, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational
orientation, and control (Arnold & Orozco, 1989; Staab, 1989). When the families in this
study were compared against the normative sample (most of whom were Caucasian), the
families in the study (practically all of whom were of Mexican descent) were also found to
be higher on achievement orientation, moral-religious emphasis, and organization; and
lower on expressiveness, conflict, independence, intellectual-cultural orientation, and active
recreational orientation. Unlike other findings, the families in this study were higher in
control and lower in cohesion. This difference suggests that the families of both groups in
the study used more set rules and procedures in running family life than the normal sample,
and thus may be 1) more structured than the normal sample or 2) more rigid. On the
cohesion subscale, the normative sample had a slightly higher mean than the families in the
study. This result suggests that the families in the study had a slightly lower degree of
commitment, help, and support among family members than the normal sample.
When compared against other research, most of the low scores by the study's
sample remain low. Measured against families with six or more members (see Moos &
Moos, 1994), the study sample (M=6) had lower means on independence, intellectual-
cultural orientation, and active-recreational orientation. However, the study's sample was
higher on expressiveness. Moos and Moos (1994) report that large families tend to be
lower on independence and expressiveness, as well as cohesion and organization. In this
study, the study sample was higher than comparable size families on expressiveness,
cohesion and organization
When compared against a group o f parents and adolescents from the same family
(see Moos & Moos, 1994), the study sample had lower scores on all of the above-
mentioned subscales. According to Moos and Moos (1994), adolescents tend to report
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lower scores on cohesion, expressiveness, independence, and intellectual and religious
orientations and higher scores on conflict The study sample differed in that adolescents
scored higher than their parents on independence and intellectual orientation.
The results of these comparisons show that the study sample was consistently
below other comparable groups. At face value, this suggests that the sample respondents
perceive low levels of independence, participation in intellectual and cultural activities,
participation in recreational activities, and expressiveness in their families. Caution should
be exercised in interpreting the results because further analysis to control for critical
variables such as ethnicity, socio-economic status, language proficiency, and the like, in
the comparison samples was not possible.
Question Regarding Importance of Graduating from High School
To what extent, i f any, do significant differences occur in the parents'
perceived value o f their child completing high school between the homes o f
dropouts and the homes o f remainers?
The parents of the remainers indicated a higher level of importance in seeing their
child completing high school. The difference between the groups was minimal. The
majority of the parents of both groups reported that it was of "a great deal" of importance to
see their child graduate from high school, and all o f the respondents found it important at
least "to some extent". The main difference was that more parents of the respondents
reported "a great deal" of importance to have their child graduate than the parents of the
dropouts.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Questions Regarding Mediating Variables
To what extent, i f any, can dropping out behavior be predicted from the
parents1 generation status, level o f acculturation, level o f education,
household income, and E nglish-language proficiency?
The second set of questions addressed the effect of culturally-related mediating
variables upon dropping out behavior. An effort was made to determine whether the group
of variables generation status, level of education, income, level of acculturation, and
English language proficiency, would help predict dropping out behavior. First, the
variables were tested comparing the parents of the dropouts and the remainers. Generation
status was dropped from the equation because there was virtually no variance in the results
of both groups. The remaining combination of variables was able to correctly classify
slightly more than two-thirds of the cases. The prediction model was able to predict that
76.36% of the respondents' children were remainers, and that 56.52% of the respondents'
children were dropouts. That the model was not able to predict die status of about one third
of the respondents may suggest that the variables in the equation are poor measures for
determining dropping out behavior. But when one observes that the model was able to
predict that over three-fourths of the remainers belonged in that group, perhaps the
collective of variables is a good indicator for determining staying-in-school behavior.
Certainly, the variables in this equation model were not very helpful in predicting
dropping out behavior. Nonetheless, this type of analysis may lend itself for further
scientific exploration, using some other combination of categorical variables.
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To what extent, i f any, can dropping out behavior be predicted from the
students' last grade completed in school, English-language proficiency,
expected contribution to the fa m ily income, generation status, and level o f
acculturation?
When comparing the dropouts and remainers, this model was able to correctly
classify almost two-thirds of the cases, given the students' last grade completed in school,
English language proficiency, expected contribution to the family income, level of
acculturation, and generation status. The model was able to accurately predict that 66% of
the respondents were remainers and that 63.83% of the respondents were dropouts. The
model’ s ability to predict about two-thirds of the respondents’ categories suggests that the
variables may serve as potentially useful predictors of both staying-in-school and dropping
out behavior. As was the case with the parent data, the model was more precise in
predicting the remainers than the dropouts.
These results suggest that knowing something about a parent's English-language
proficiency, family income, level of education and level of acculturation, and knowing
something about a student's English-language proficiency, generation status, need to
contribute to the family income, level of education and level of acculturation may help
predict whether the student is a remainer or a dropout These results may be especially
helpful in predicting the remainers. The next step would be to find ways and means to
keep the remainers in school, such as promoting school-work partnerships that emphasize
staying in school, offering basic English courses at school for die parents, and the like; and
if the dropouts could be predicted, to encourage them to continue their education, but
providing counseling and guidance, and activities as indicated above.
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Further credence is given to the possibility that the collective of variables is a good
predictor of students remaining in school by the fact that, when the groups (parents and
students) where measured independently against each of the variables, none of the
comparisons were found to be statistically significant That is, the bivariate relationships
showed that the groups appear to come from the same population. But the multivariate
relationships showed the groups to be distinctive. Thus, the observation of the relationship
of collective variables may be more useful than the observation of individual variables in
the effort to improve school attainment among children of Mexican descent
Although the groups appear to come from the same population, in every bivariate
comparison where some difference was found, the remainers and their parents showed
higher means and medians than their counterparts. For example, the parents of the
remainers had a higher level o f acculturation than the parents of the dropouts and the mode
level of income was also higher. In the student group, the remainers reported higher scores
in the ability to speak English, grade completion, level of acculturation, and had a larger
number of second and third generation residents. Further study with a larger sample may
detect and accentuate these subtle differences.
G eneral Findings
For the most part, the two groups were more alike than different When analyzing
the bivariate relationships, the student groups differed slightly, but the parent groups were
virtually indistinguishable. These differenees-looked at individually or collectively-may
serve as warning signals for dropping out behavior.
The results revealed that the dropouts were older than the remainers. Therefore, the
older the students got, the greater the chance of them dropping out Schools may need to
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consider alternative curricula for the older students to prevent them from dropping out
That the dropouts came from larger families and were lower in the birth order than
the remainers, suggests that families may have less ability to guide their younger children,
or need more financial assistance. The family environment results buttress this speculation,
indicating that the families of the dropouts were less structured and organized. It is also
possible that limited financial resources compel the students to drop out to work. The
subjective responses indicated that students and parents believed that students drop out of
school because their families have a real or perceived need to have them work. Schools
may be able to identify the students who meet this profile and investigate whether parental
monitoring or finances are truly lacking, or whether students have a misperception of their
family environment, which may be corrected.
The most striking piece of evidence from the student comparisons, was the finding
that 11 of the dropouts reported having their own children, some as many as two. Only
one remainer reported having a child. When 21.6% of your dropouts have their own
children, this fact calls out to schools and social agencies to create and implement curricula
that addresses the needs of "student parents"; perhaps through child care, medical care,
independent study, and the like. This evidently troublesome fact prompted one girl
respondent who had dropped out, to implore other girls to stay in school, through their
pregnancy and after their child was bom, lest they find themselves undereducated and
poor.
Another potential predictor for dropping out is to have siblings who have dropped
out Again, the dropouts reported that a larger number of their siblings had left school
prematurely than siblings of the remainers. Again, this trend may identify poor family
organization and structure, or perhaps it may speak to learned behavior. Therefore,
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools should pay close attention to students who have siblings who have dropped out,
and find ways to connect with the affected families to break the cycle.
Also, the results revealed that lack of personal involvement in school activities may
trigger dropping out behavior. While schools make certain activities available to all
students, perhaps they need to consider alternatives that may be more appealing to a larger
number of students. At minimum, schools may need to identify students who show little
or no interest in activities, and reach out to them, and possibly their families as well, in
order to retain them in school.
The parents differed little in their responses. The only significant differences were
in the size of their households and their aspirations for their children to graduate from high
school. The larger the household, the more likely it was for students to be dropouts.
Again, large families and large households, tend to suggest less organization and structure,
or the need for working students.
Another possible predictor for dropping out is parental aspirations. The parents of
the remainers were significantly more inclined than the parents of the dropouts to state how
important it was for them to see their children graduate from high school. To corraborate
this finding, the FES results indicated that the parents of the remainers were more
achievement oriented than the parents of the remainers. This finding does not suggest that
the parents of the dropouts did not care about their children graduating from high school,
because all reported importance to some extent What it may suggest, is that the parents of
the dropouts were less optimistic in believing that their dropout children would return to
school.
When the respondents were given the opportunity to opine about why students drop
out, many were inclined to single out economics and family disorganization, as the main
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
predictors. The primary reason given by the students for their own early departure or for
others leaving school was to work. Yet, when the parents were asked the same question,
they down-played economics in favor of the influence that other students have on the
dropouts and lack of parental attention. This discontinuity again suggests that students may
have a distorted view of the family resources and their need to contribute, or that they
simply find the "need to work" response as an answer to excuse their dropping out
behavior. Whether fact or fiction, the perception in students of needing to work should
alert schools, because it may have high predictor value.
When asked to give advice on how to motivate students to stay in school, both
students and parents overwhelmingly suggested that students be counseled on how staying
in school may lead to personal benefit (such as "a better future"). Some respondents
connected personal gain with familial gain, indicating that by staying in school, students
would be able to provide more for themselves and for their families; and by succeeding in
school, the students would also make their families proud.
Im plications for Social W ork
Social work has historically and traditionally responded to society in time of need.
Given the grave consequences that may affect those who fail to complete at least a high
school education, dropping out of school constitutes both an educational problem and a
social problem. Gird with experience and dedication, social work can help define the
ecological interaction effects of this phenomenon, especially the impact that families have
upon their children's education. It is in empowering families that social workers have
proven to be most effective. Yet, despite the fact that social workers have been at work in
schools since the early 1900s, they have seldom been included in the development or
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
implementation of dropout prevention efforts (Frank, 1990). Frank believes the trend is
changing, as social workers are demonstrating their ability as researchers and practitioners.
Chavkin and Garza-Lubek (1990) argue that social workers can be facilitators between
home and school, and can perform the role of trainers o f preventive mechanisms, resource
developers, family educators and consultants, advocates, administrators and therapists,
among others. That is why social work-especially school social w ork-is becoming an
arm of education, trying to foster in children and families the wherewithal to succeed in
academia.
While the problem of school dropouts affects most demographic and ethnic groups,
it is the Latino population that is most adversely affected and requires special attention.
Yet, the state of political affairs is diametrically opposed, vent on limiting access to public
education to immigrant populations-many of whom are Latinos. Therefore, social work
faces an untoward challenge. On the one hand, it is called to advocate for systemic change
that will help increase the academic success of all children who are at risk of dropping out
of school. On the other hand, it is also called to represent a disenfranchised, immigrant
population with a history of school failure which is under attack. The time seems
propitious for making systemic changes, because as Schorr (1990) argues, efforts to build
on past successes will fail because they cannot operate in a hostile climate.
Recom m endations for F u tu re R esearch
It is inevitable that children will dropout out of school. When they do so in high
numbers, a singular problem becomes a social problem. The problem is intensified when
the equation includes poor and minority children, who tend to drop out at alarming rates
and are predisposed for a tumultuous life after their school years. Researchers have begun
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to explore, describe and explain the forces at play that contribute to students dropping out
of school. For the most part, this research focused on comparing die characteristics of
children of Mexican descent who were enrolled in an urban high school in southern
California with a group who had dropped out, and on comparing the family processes of
both groups.
Given the results found in this study, a duplication of it with a larger sample may
help validate these findings and tease out the subtle differences between the groups, to
determine whether in feet these groups come from the same population or are different from
each other.
The study that was begun with this research would unequivocally be uplifted by the
exploration of family processes among other specific groups. For example, it would be
helpful to include a comparison group from a rural school, or to tap the unique differences
between males and females, or to compare families of students who drop out before
entering high school with families of remainers. Similarly, it would be useful to study fee
mediating variables used in this research with a different set o f students of Mexican descent
whose generational status in the United States, language proficiency and level acculturation
were known at the onset to be different from the participants in this research.
Further study is required to understand fee dynamic role that families play in either
perpetuating a decision to remain in or to drop out of school In order to better understand
family dynamics, further inquiry is needed at fee micro level of family interaction. This
objective can be attained through the use of observational tools and a combination of
objective rating scales and self-reporting instruments. Single system research designs and
ethnographic studies would further aid in this exploration.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research on the ability of families to successfully guide their children through a
basic course of education and on those who have failed to do so is of utmost importance.
Research is also needed to compare families from a variety of backgrounds (e.g., different
ethnic and socio-economic groups, constituted families with different types of families, to
name a few). Furthermore, additional study is needed to measure both the potentially
negative impacts of substance abuse, gang involvement, crime, and the like, against the
positive impact that role models, health clinics, and remedial programs, and the like, have
on the potential for helping families help their children succeed in school. Cross-
disciplinary efforts are essential, not only to study the problem, but to reach a consensus on
solutions. Saenz (1990) has called for multivariate analysis of inter-factor and intra-factor
assessment, especially the cultural variables involved in locus of control. Indeed,
multivariate analysis are needed to compensate for the complexity of research questions that
are posed by this complex problem.
Considering that the identification of many complicated inter-relationships of
variables (especially those that are so relevant to students of Mexican descent, such as level
of acculturation, generation status, and English-language proficiency) needs to be better
understood, it is recommended that further research be done with these variables to assess
the various predictor categories where students may belong.
Summary
The findings in this study revealed that the families of students of Mexican descent
from one urban center in southern California who had dropped out and those who had
remained in school look more alike than different They also looked much like one another
when compared against a normative sample. The families differed only in a limited way.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The similarity between families helps to dismiss the myth families are solely responsible for
students dropping out of school Rather, families should be given credit for empowering
their children to stay in school, even when facing difficult odds.
The dropouts and the remainers were also more alike than different. Again, the
sameness challenges the notion that there is something inherently wrong with students of
Mexican descent and that is why so many from their ethnic group drop out o f school. The
group differences were minimal.
Clearly, this study is a microcosm of a macrocosm. It is hoped that the findings of
this study will continue to promote the understanding of student characteristics, but more
importantly, to increase the interest of the scientific community to incorporate family
processes into the understanding o f school dropouts.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFEREN CES
Alpert, G. P. & Dunham, R. G. (1986). Keeping academically marginal youths in school.
Youth and Society, 1 7 (4 ), 346-361.
Arevalo, R. & Brown, J. A. (1983). Educational abuse of Chicano youths. Social Work
in Education, 5, 156-163.
Arnold, B. R. & Orozco, S. (1989). Physical disability, acculturation, and family
interactions among Mexican Americans. Journal o f Applied Rehabilitation Counseling,
20, 28-32.
Barrington, B. L. & Hendricks, B. (1989). Differentiating characteristics o f high school
graduates, dropouts, and nongraduates. Journal o f Educational Research, 82 (6), 309
-319.
Bell, M.S. (1990). Effects of an urban alternative high school dropout prevention and
rehabilitation program on the attendance, attitide and academic achievement of at-risk
students. (Doctoral dissertation, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International 57 (1) 4-A.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.),
Acculturation: Theory, M odel, and Some New Findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Billings, A. G. & Moos, R. H. (1982). Family environments and adaptation: A clinically
applicable typology. The American Journal o f Family Therapy, 10 (2), 26-38.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, E. M. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research
M ethods. New York: Wiley.
Brooks, B. K. (1989). A comparison o f the characteristics and perceptions of Hispanic
female high school dropouts and persisters. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona
University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts Imemational, 51 (I), 128A
Biimam, M. A., Telles, C. A., Kamo, M., Hough, R. L, & Escobar, J. I. (1987).
Measurement of acculturation in a community population of Mexican Americans.
Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, 9 (2), 105-130.
Caldwell, J. R. (1994). Family environment scale. [Review o f Family Environment
Scale]. In E. Keyser & R. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critiques, (pp. 263-274). Kansas
City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
California State Department of Education. (1992). A Report on the Status of Education in
California. Sacramento, CA.
California State Department of Education. (1994). A Report on the Status of Education in
California. Sacramento, CA.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Casas, J. & Furlong, M. (1986). Santa Barbara Student Success Story: A Final Report.
(Available from the Santa Barbara School District, Santa Barbara, CA.)
Catterall, J. S. (1986). A Process Model o f Dropping Out: Implications fo r Research and
Policy in an Era o f Raised Academic Standards. Los Angeles: University of California,
Colter for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education.
Chavkin, N. F. & Garza-Lubeck, M. (1990). Multicultural approaches to parent
involvement Research and practice. Social Work in Education, 13, 22-33.
Commings, N. L. (1989). Language and affect: Bilingual students at home and at school.
Language A rts, 66 (1), 29-43.
Cuellar, I, Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican
American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, 2,
199-217.
Darling, A. (1987). Family life education. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.),
Handbook o f Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press.
De La Rosa, D. & Maw, C. E. (1990). Hispanic Education: A Statistical Portrait 1990.
Washington, D.C.: National Council of La Raza.
Delongjs, A., Coyne, J. D., Dakof, G., Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1982).
Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health
Psychology, I (2), 119-136.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1986). Adolescent peer influence and differential school
performance. Journal o f Adolescent Research, 1 (4), 448-462.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987). Traditions and transitions in the learning process of Mexican
children: An ethnographic view, hi G. Spindler & L. Spindler, Interpretive
Ethnography o f Education: A t Home and Abroad (j)p. 333 - 359). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1988). Sociocultural adjustment to school and academic
achievement Journal o f Early Adolescence, 8, 63-82.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. & Trueba, H. T. (1991). Crossing Cultural Borders: Education fo r
Immigrant Families. New York: The Falmer Press.
Deyo, R. A., Diehl, A. K., Hazuda, H., & Stem, M. P. (1985). A simple language-based
acculturation scale for Mexican Americans: Validation and application to health care
research. American Journal o f Pacific Health, 7 5 ,51-55.
Dickerson, V. C. & Coyne, J. C. (1987). Family cohesion and control: A
multitrait/multimethod study. Journal o f M arital and Family Therapy, 13, 275-285.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dunham, R. G. & Alpert, G. P. (1987). Keeping juvenile delinquents in school: A
prediction model. Adolescence, 22 (85), 45-57.
Edman, S. O., Cole, D. A., & Howard, G. S. (1990). Convergent and discriminant
validity ofFACES-m: Family adaptability and cohesion. Family Process, 2 9 0 ,95-103.
Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out
of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87
(3), 356-373.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications
for integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage and Family Review, 15
(1/2), 99-126.
Feldman, S. S. & Gehring, T. M. (1988). Changing perceptions of family cohesion and
power across adolescence. Child Development, 59, 1034-1045.
Felner, R., Aber, M., Primavera, J. & Cauce, A. (1985). Adaptation and vulnerability in
high risk adolescents: An examination of environmental mediators. American Journal o f
Community Psychology, 13, 365-379.
Fernandez, R. M. & Paulsen, R., & Hirano-Nakanishi, M.. (1989). Dropping out among
Hispanic youth. Social Science Review, 1 (18), 21-52.
Fernandez, R. R. & Shu, G. (1988). School dropouts: New approaches to an enduring
problem. Education and Urban Society, 20 (4), 363-386.
Fimian, M J. (1988). Predictors of classroom stress and burnout experienced by gifted and
talented students. Psychology in the Schools, 2 5 ,392-405.
Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high school.
Teachers College Record, 8 7 (3), 393-409.
Forehand, R., Long, N., Brody, G. H. & Fauber, R. (1986). Home predictors of young
adolescents' school behavior and academic performance. Child Development, 5 7 ,1528-
1533.
Fowler, P. (1980). Family environment and early behavioral development: A structural
analysis of dependencies. Psychological Reports, 47, 611-617.
Frank, J. R. (1990). High school dropout: A new look at family variables. Social Work in
Education, / , (1), 34-47.
Garcia, E. E (1983). Early Childhood Bilingualism: With Special Reference to the
Mexican-American C hild Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Garcia, H. D. C. (1985). Family and offspring language maintenance and their effects on
Chicano college students' confidence and grades. In E. E. Garcia & R. V. Padilla
(Eds.), Advances in Bilingual Education Research (pp. 226-243). Tucson, AR.: The
University of Arizona Press.
Garcia, M., & Lega, L. I. (1979). Development o f a Cuban ethnic identity questionnaire.
Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, 1 ,247-261.
Gehring, T. M. & Feldman, S. S. (1988). Adolescents’ perceptions of family cohesion
and power A methodological study of the Family System T est Journal o f Adolescent
Research, 3, 33-52.
Glazer, N. (1985). The political distinctiveness of the Mexican Americans. In W. Conner
(Ed.), Mexican-Americans in Comparative Perspective (pp. 207-224). Washington,
D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Grotevant H. D. & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family Assessment: A Guide to Methods and
Measures. New York: The Guildford Press.
Hess, P. & Howard, T. (1981). An ecological model for assessing psychosocial
difficulties in children. Child Welfare, 60, 499-518.
Hess, R. D. & Holloway, S. D. (1984). Behavioral family therapy with conduct disorders
in children. Behavior Therapy, 24, 73-75.
Iatridis, D. S. (1988). New social deficit: Neoconservativism's policy of social
underdevelopment Social Work, 11-15.
Kagan, J. (1980). Perspectives in continuity, hi O.G. Brim & J. Kagan (Eds.), Constancy
and Change in Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kaye, K. (1985). Toward a developmental psychology of the family, hi L. L'Abate
(Ed.), The Handbook o f Family Psychology and Therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 38-72).
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Kolstad, A. & Owings, J. (1986, April). High School Dropouts Who Change Their
M inds About School. Paper presented at die Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Lang, J. G., Munoz, R. F., Bernal, G., & Sorensen, J. L. (1982). Quality of life and
psychological well-being in a bicultural Latino community. Hispanic Journal o f
Behavioral Sciences, 4 ,433-450.
Laosa, L. M. (1977). Inequality in the classroom: Observational research on teacher-
student interactions. Aztlan: International Journal o f Chicano Studies Research, 8, 51-67.
LeVine, E., & Padilla, A. (1980). Crossing Cultures in Therapy: Pluralistic Counseling
fo r the Hispanic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MacDonald, K. & Parke, R.D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and
peer interactive competence. Child Development, 55, 1265-1277.
Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B. V., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987).
Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal o f
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183-205.
Maruca, J. R. (1990). Dropouts of El Centro, California. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 ( 1),
41 A.
McCubbin, H.I. & Figley, C.R. (eds). (1983). Stress and the Family, VoL 2: Coping
With Catastrophe. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
McCubbin, H.I. & Patterson, J.M. (1982). Family adaptation to crises. In H.I.
McCubbin, A.E. Cauble & J.M. Patterson (Eds), Family Stress, Coping, and Social
Support. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Mendoza, R. H. (1984). Acculturation and sociocultural variability. In J. L. Martinez,
Jr., & R. H. Mendoza (Eds.), Chicano Psychology (pp. 71-82). New York: Praeger.
Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environments: An overview.
American Psychologist, 28, 652-665.
Moos, R. H. (1974a). The Social Climate Scales: An Overview. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Moos, R. H. (1974b). Evaluating Treatment Environments: A Social Ecological
Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Moos, R. H. (1991). Life stressors, social resources, and the treatment of depression. In
J. Becker & A. Kleinman (Eds.), Psychosocial Aspects o f Depression (pp. 187-214).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moos, R. H. & Billings, A. G. (1982). Conceptualizing and measuring coping resources
and processes. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook o f Stress: Theoretical
and Clinical Aspects. New York: Macmillan.
Moos, R. H., Finney, J., & Cronkite, W. (1990). Alcoholism Treatmem: Context,
Process, and Outcome. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moos, R. H. & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family
Process, 15, 357-371.
Moos, R. H. & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual: Development,
Application, Research (3rd Ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moos, R. H., Moos, B. S., & Trickett, E. J. (1984). Escalasde Gima Social: Familia
(FES), Trabajo (WES), Instituciones Penitenciarias (GES), Centro Escolar (CES).
Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones, S.A.
Natriello, G., Pallas, A. M. & McDill, E. L. (1986). Taking stock: Renewing our
research agenda on the causes and consequences of dropping ou t Teachers College
Record, 87(3), 430-440.
Nelson, G. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of classroom and family
environments and the self-concept, satisfaction and achievement of grade 7 and 8
students. Journal o f Community Psychology, 1 2 ,276-287.
Nichols, M.P. & Schwartz, R.C. (1991) Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods. (2nd
Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ogbu. J. U. (1978). M inority Education and Caste. New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J.U. (1987). Variability in minority responses to school: Nonimmigrants vs.
immigrants. In G. Spindler & L. Spinder (Eds.), Interpretive Ethnography o f
Education: A t Home and Abroad. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Olmedo, E. L., Martinez, J. L., & Martinez, S. R. (1978). Measure o f acculturation of
Chicano adolescents. Psychological Reports, 4 2 ,159-170.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979), Circumplex model of marital
and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical
applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28.
Orange County Human Relations Commission and National Conference o f Christians and
Jews. (1987). School Dropouts in Orange County: Focus on Hispanic Students
(Report on a Public Forum).
Orlinsky, D. E. & Howard, K. L (1986). Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In S.
L. Garfield & A. E Bergin (Eds.), Handbook o f Psychotherapy and Behavior Change
(pp. 311 - 381). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Padilla, A. M. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation.
In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings (pp. 47-
84). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Perosa, L. M. & Perosa, S. L. (1990). Convergent and discriminant validity for family
self-report measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 855-868.
Petrovich, J. (1989). Hearing Before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and
Families. House o f Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Phelan, W. T. (1987). Obstacles to high school graduation: The real dropout problem.
Journal o f Educational Equity and Leadership, 7, 223-234.
Quality of U.S. Education Information. (1989). Information Bulletin. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ramirez, M. (1983). Psychology o f the Americas. New York: Pergamon Press.
Rivera, J. M. & Velazquez, J. (1983). Therapy with minority families. In B. B. Wolman
& G. Strieker (Eds.), Handbook o f Family and M arital Therapy. New York: Plenum
Press.
Radetsky, D., Handelsman, M. & Browne, A. (1984). Individual and family environment
patterns among Jews and non-Jews. Psychological Reports, 55, 787-793.
Rossi, P. H. & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury
Park,CA: Sage Publications.
Rueschenberg, E & Buriel, R. (1989). Mexican American family functioning and
acculturation: A family systems perspective. Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences,
(3), 232-244.
Rumberger, R.W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex, and
family background. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 199-220.
Rumberger, R. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review
o f Educational Research, 57, 101-121.
Russell, C. (1980). A methodological study of family cohesion and adaptability. Journal
o f M arital and Family Therapy, 6 ,459-470.
Saenz, H. (1990). Perceptions toward school of Mexican-American secondary school
leavers and remainers in Utah public schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (1), 47A.
Santa Ana Unified School District (1994). At-A-Glance Facts. Santa Ana, CA.
Schorr, L. B. (1990). Improving programs for disadvantaged families: From moving
models to moving mountains. Families in Society, 71, 500-503.
Sodowsky, G. R., Lain, E W. M., & Plake, B. S. (1991). Moderating effects of
sociocultural variables on acculturation attitudes of Hispanics and Asian Americans.
Journal o f Counseling and Development, 70, 194-204.
Staab, D. E (1989). The relationship of family environment to school achievement in low
income Mexican American and Anglo junior high school students. (Doctoral dissertation,
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School of Human Behavior, United States International University, San Diego, CA,
1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2827A.
Steinberg, L., Blinde, P.L., & Chan, K. S. (1984). Dropping out among language
minority youth. Review o f Educational Research, 54, 113-132.
Straits, B. C. (1987). Residence, migration, and school progress. Sociology o f
Education, 60, 34-43.
Suarez-Orozco M. (1987). Toward a psychosocial understanding o f Hispanic adaptation
to American schooling. In. H. Trueba (Ed.), Success or Failure? Learning and the
Language M inority Student. New York: Newbury/Harper & Row.
The Hispanic Policy Development Project (1988). Hearing Before the Select Committee
on Children, Youth, and Families. House o f Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Torres-Matrullo, C. M. (1980). Acculturation, sex-role values and mental health among
mainland Puerto Ricans. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and
Some New Findings (pp. 111-137). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Trueba, H. T. (1988). Peer socialization among minority students: A high school dropout
prevention program. In H.T. Trueba & C. Delgado-Gaitan (Eds.), School and Society:
Learning Content Through Culture. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Trueba, H. T. & Bamett-Mizrahi, C. (Eds.). (1979). Bilingual M ulticultural Education
and the Professional: From Theory to Practice. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House
Publishers, Inc.
Trueba, H.T. & Delgado-Gaitan, C. (eds.)(1988). School and Society: Learning Content
Through Culture. New York: Praeger.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1988). Analysis
Report. Washington, DC: Author
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). The
Condition o f Education. Washington, DC: Author.
Valverde, S. (1987). A comparative study of Hispanic high school dropouts and
graduates: Why da some leave school early and some finish? Education and Urban
Society, 19(3), 320-329.
Velez, W. (1989). High school attrition among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white youths.
Sociology o f Education, 62, 120-131.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wehlage, G. G. & Rutter, R.A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute
to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87, 374-392.
Williams, L. F. (1990). The challenge o f education to social work: The case of minority
children. Social Work, 35 (3), 236-242.
Wood, J., Chapin;, K, Hannah, M. E. (1988). Family environment and its relationship to
underachievement. Adolescence, 23, 283-290.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Student Demographic Questionnaire (English)
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Case Number___________ Date
Instructions: Below is a series of questions that ask for information about
yourself. Please place a circle around the most appropriate answer— the one that
you think describes you the best
1. Sex:
: 1 : 2
Female Male
2. Age at your last birthdate: _____
3. How do you best describe yourself? (please choose one):
1 : 2 _ : 3 _ _: ____ 4_____
Mexican Mexican Chicano(a) Other
American (specify)_____________
4. Are you presently enrolled in high school?
: _ J L _ • _ J t _
Yes No
5. What was the last grade you completed in school?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade
6. What is your religious preference?
: 1 : 2 : 3 _ : 4
Catholic Protestant None Other
(specify)
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7. I n the last three months, how often did you go to church?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4_____ : ____ 5-------- : -------§------
I didn’ t go I went 1 I went 4 I went 7 I went 10 I went 13
at ail to 3 times to 6 times to 9 times to 12 times or more
times
Now, we would like to know more about you and your family.
3. How many brothers and sisters do you have? ____
9. What is your birth order in the-famiiy (i.e., are you the first or oldest, the second or
second oldest, the third or third oldest, and so forth)?: __________
10. If you have older brothers or sisters, have any of them dropped out of high
school?
: 1
Yes No
If yes, how many brothers or sisters have dropped out? _____
11. Do you live with both parents?
: 1 : 2
Yes No
If no, who do you live with? _____________
12. How many people do you live with? (please count all the people you live with
even if they are not your relatives) _______
13. Tell us where the following people were bom. Place a check mark (X) in the most
appropriate blank.
USA Mexico Other (specify)
Yourself _____ _____ ___________
Your father _____ _____ ___________
Your father's father _____ _____ ___________
Your father's mother _____ _____ ___________
Your mother _____ _____ ___________
-2- 139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
USA Mexico Other (specify)
Your mother's father _____ ______ ___________
Your mother's mother _____ ______ ___________
14. How well do you feei you speak English?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4_____ : ____ 5_____
Not at ail Somewhat Weil Fairly well Very well
well
15. How much do you date?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
A great deal A fair To some Very little Not at all
amount extent
16. How much are you expected to contribute to the family income?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
A great deal A fair To some Very little Not at all
amount extent
17. How much are you expected to contribute to taking care of your younger brothers
and sisters (or your relatives' children)?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 . . .
A great deal A fair To some Very little Not at all
amount extent
18. Do you have children of your own?
: 1 : 2
Yes No
If no, go to question 19.
If yes, how many children do you have? _____
Do these children live with you?
: _ a _ , .
Yes No
-3-
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I f no, how often do you see them?
1 : 2 : 3 4 5 6
Never A t least once A t least once A t least once A t least once Lass than
per week every 2 every 3 every 4 once every
weeks weeks weeks 4 weeks
Ptease tell us about your schooling.
19. Were you ever held back a grade?
Yes No
If yes, what grade(s) were you held back? _______
20. How involved would you say you are/were in high school activities (for example,
athletics, school government, club associations, band)?
1 2 : 3 4 5
A great deal A fair To some Very little Not at ail
amount extent
21. How much conflict or "run-ins" would you say you have/had with high school
officials (for example, teachers, aides, counselors, vice principals, principals)?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
A great deal A fair To some Very little Not at ail
amount extent
I f you have dropped out of high school, please answer questions 22 through 25.
I f you are enrolled in high school, go to Question 26.
22. Please give us the most important reason why you dropped out of school.
23. Do you plan on returning to school to get your high school diploma or the G.E.D.?
: _,1 . _ : _ .2_ .
Yes No
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24. Do you plan on attending college?
: _J__
Yes No
25. What advice would you give us to motivate students to stay in school?
if you are currently enrolled in high school, please answer questions 26 through
29.
26. Please give us the most important reason why you think students drop out of
school?
27. Do you think you might ever drop out of school?
: 1 : 2
Yes No
28. Do you plan on attending college?
, : _ 2_
Yes No
29. What advice would you give us to motivate students to stay in school?
-5-
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Student Demographic Questionnaire (Spanish)
CUESTIOWARIO: ESTUOIANTE
Numero dei c a s o __________ Fecha
Instrucciones: Debajo se encuentra una serie da preguntas que pide informacidn
de tf. Por favor de poner un cfrcuio en ef rengion apropiado. Marca soiamente un
renolon por pregunta-el que tu piensas que te describe mejor.
1. Sexo
: 1 : 2
Mujer Hombre
2. Edad en tu ultimo cumpleaflos: _____
3. iComo te describes tu mismo(a)? (por favor escoge uno):
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4
Mexicano(a) Mexico Chicano(a) Otro
Americano(a) (especifica)_______________
4. ^Al presente, estas matricuiado(a) en la escuela secundaria (high school)?
: _1 : 2
Sf No
5. iCual fue el ultimo grado que terminastes en la escuia?
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
Octavo (8°) Noveno (9°) D6cimo (10°) D6cimo D6cimo
grado grado grado Primer (11°) Segundo(12°)
grado grado
6. ^Cual es tu preferencia religiosa?
: 1 - : 2 : 3 : 4
Catdlico(a) Protestante Ninguno Otro (especifica)__________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7. En los uitimos tres meses, £que tan seguido fuiestes a la igiesia?
• j . 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 5_____
No fuf Fuf 1 a 3 Fuf 4 a 6 F u f7 a9 Fuf10a12 Fuf13
ningunavez vecas voces veces voces voces o mas
Ahora, quisieramos saber m as de tu familia.
8. iCuantos hennanos y hermanas tienes? _____
9. iCuaJ es tu lugar en ei orden de la famifia (eras el primero o mayor, el segundo o
segundo mayor, tercero o tercero mayor, consecutivamente)?: _______________
10. Si tienes hennanos o hermanas mayores, ialguno de ellos se saiid de la escueia
secundaria (high school) antes de graduarse?
Sf No
Si sf, icuantos de tus hermanos se salieron de la escueia? _____
11. i Vives con am bos padres?
: .1 . _ : 2
Sf No
Si no, icon quien vives? ________________
12. iCuantas personas viven an tu hogar? (por favor de contar toda la gente con la
que vives aunque no sean familiares) _____
13. Dinos donde nacieron las siguientes personas.
Persona Luaar de Nadmierrto
E.E.U.U. Mexico Otro lugar (especifica)
Tu mismo(a) _____ _____ ________________
Tu padre _____ _____ ________________
EI padre de tu padre _____ _____ ________________
La madre de tu padre _____ _____ ________________
Tu madre _____ _____ ________________
El padre de tu madre _____ _____ ________________
La madre de tu madre _____ _____ ________________
- 2- 144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14. ^Que tan bien sientes que hablas ingl6s?
: 1 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
Nadadebien Mas o menos bien Bien Bastantebien Muy bien
15. iQue tan seguido sales de cita?
: 1 2 :______ 3_______ 4_ _ : ____ §------
Muy seguido Bastante Hasta un Un poco Nunca
cierto punto
16. ^Que tan seguido tienes que contribuir a los ingresos de lafamiiia (o dar dinero a
la famiKa)?
: 1 _______: 2 : 3 : 4 :5
Muy seguido Bastante Hasta un Un poco Nunca
cierto punto
17. tQue tan seguido tienes que contribuir ai quidado de tus hermanos o hermanas
menores (o los hijos de tus famiiiares)?
: 1 _______: 2 : 3 : 4 :5
Muy seguido Bastante Hasta un Un poco Nunca
cierto punto
18. ^.Tienes hijos propios?
: _ L _ : 2___
Si No
Si no, baja a la pregunta 19.
Si si, icuantos hijos tienes? _____
iE stos hijos viven contigo?
: _ 1_. : 2 -
Si No
Si no, iq u e tan seguido los ves?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
Nunca Por lo menos Por lo menos Por lo menos Por lo menos Menos de
unavez unavezcada unavezcada unavezcada unavezcada
por semana 2 semanas 3 semanas 4 semanas 4 semanas
-3- 145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Por favor cuentanos de tu educacidn.
19. £Alguna vez te retuvieron de grado?
' • 1 : 2 _ _ _ _ _ _
Sf No
Si sf, £sn que grado(s)? ________
20. 4 Que tan envueito(a) estas/estuviestes en actividades escolares (como atletismo,
goviemo escoiar, clubes o asociaciones, banda musical)?
: - 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
Muy seguido Bastante Hasta un Un poco Nunca
cierto punto
21. £Que tan seguido tienes/tuviestes conflicto con oficiaies de la escueia
secundaria (high school) (como maestros, asistentes, consejeros, subdirectores,
directores)?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 :5
Muy seguido Bastante Hasta un Un poco Nunca
cierto punto
Si te has saiido de la escueia secundaria (high school), por favor de responder a
(as preguntas 22 a 25.
Si aun estas en la escueia secundaria (high school), baja a la pregunta 26.
22. Por favor, danos la razdn mas importante por la cuai te salistes de la escueia.
23. iPiensas regresar a la escueia para obtener tu diploma or su equivalents
(G.E.D.)?
: 1 : 2
Sf No
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24. iPiensas ir ai colegio (o universidad)?
25. iQ ue consejo nos d as para motivar a otros estudiantes que se queden en la
escueia?
Si estas en la escueia secundaria (high school), por favor de contestar las
preguntas 26 a 29.
26. Por favor, danos la razdn que tu vez como mas importante para explicar porque
se saien los estudiantes de la escueia.
27. ^Crees que algun dfa te saldras de la escueia?
: Z
Sf No
28. iPiensas ir ai colegio (o universidad)?
L _ • _ £ _
Sf No
29. £Que consejo nos das para motivar a otros estudiantes que se queden en la
escueia?
-5-
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P aren t Dem ographic Q uestionnaire (English)
PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Case Number___________ Date
Instructions: Below is a series of questions that ask for information about
yourself. Please place a circle around the most appropriate answer-the one that
you think describes you the b est
1. Sex:
: 1 : 2
Female Male
2. Age at your last birthdate: _____
3. How do you best describe yourself? (please choose one):
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4
Mexican Mexican Chicano(a) Other
American (specify)_____________
4. What is your relationship to the student?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
Father Mother Stepfather Stepmother Other
(specify)____________
5. How many children have you ever had? _____
6. How many of these children live with you now? _____
7. What is your marital status?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
Single Married Separated Divorced Widow(er) Other
(specify)
- 1-
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8. Other than the student, do you have any other children who dropped out of high
school?
' 3 __
Yes No
If yes, how many of these children dropped out of high school? _____
9. What was the last year of school you completed?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
5 or less years 6-8 years 9-12 years 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 or more
of college of college years
of college
10. What is your religious preference?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4
Catholic Protestant None Other
(specify)____________
11. In the last three months, how often did you go to church?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
I didnt go I went 1 I went 4 I went 7 I went 10 I went 13
at all to 3 times to 6 times to 9 times to 12 times or more
times
Now, we would like to know more about you and your family.
12. Tell us where the following people were bom. Place a check mark (X) in the most
appropriate blank.
Person Place of Birth
USA Mexico Other (specify)
Yourself _____ _____ ___________
Your father__________________ _____ ___________
Your father's father _____ _____ ___________
Your father's mother _____ _____ ___________
Your mother _____ _____ ___________
Your mother's father _____ _____ ___________
Your mother's mother _____ _____ ___________
-2- 150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13. How well do you feel you speak English?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
Not at all Somewhat Weil Fairly well Very well
well
14. How many times has your family moved since your child started school for the first
time?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
None Less than 5 to 9 times 10 to 15 to 20 or more
5 times 14 times 19 times times
15. What was your family's income last year?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
Lass than $11,000 to $22,000 to $33,000 to $44,000 to More than
$11,000 $21,999 $32,999 $43,999 $54,999 $55,000
16. How many people live in your home? (please count all the people who live in the
home even if they are not your relatives) _____
17. How many people living in your house are working out of the home?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
No one is Only 1 person 2 people are 3 people are 4 people are 5 or more
working at is working at working at working at working at people are
this time this time this time this time this time working at
this time
18. How important is it for you to have your child graduate from high school?
1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
A great deal A fair To some Very little Not at all
amount extent
I f your child has dropped out of high school, please answer questions 19 through
20.
If your child is enrolled in high school, go to Question 21.
19. Please give us the most important reason why your child dropped out of school?
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20. What advice would you give us to motivate students to stay in school?
I f your child is currently enrolled in high school, please answer questions 21
through 22.
21. Please give us the most important reason why you think students drop out of
school?
22. What advice would you give us to motivate students to stay in school?
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P aren t Demographic Q uestionnaire (Spanish)
CUESTIONARIO: PADRES/MADRES
Numero del c a s o __________ Fecha
Instrucciones: Oebajo se encuentra una serie de preguntas que pide informacidn
de Vd. Por favor de poner un cfrculo en ei rengion apropiado. Marque solamente
un renaion por pregunta— el que Vd. piensa que lo describe mejor.
1. Sexo
: 1 : ____Z___
Mujer Hombre
2. Edad en su ultimo cumpleanos: _____
3. iComo se describe Vd. mismo(a)? (por favor escoga uno):
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4
Mexicano(a) Mexico Chicano(a) Otro
Americano(a) (especifique)________________
4. iQ ue relacidn tiene Vd. con el(la) estudiante?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5
Padre Madre Padrastro Madrastra Otro
(especifique)______________
5. iCuantos hijos ha tenido Vd.? _____
6. iCuantos de estos hijos viven con Vd. ahora? _____
7. ^Cuai es su estado matrimonial?
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 _ : 5 : 6
Soltero(a) Casado(a) Separado(a) Divorciado(a) Viudo(a) Otro (especifique)
- 1-
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8. Aparte del (de la) estudiante, ^alguno de sus hijos se salid de la escueia
secundaria (high school) antes de graduarse?
: . Z . .
Si No
Si sf, &cuantos de sus hijos se saiieron de la escueia secundaria?
9. iCual fue el Ultimo aflo que Vd. termind en la escueia?
1 : 2 : 3 4 : '5 6 .
Sartos 6-8 arios 9-12artos 1-2 artos 3-4 artos
o menos de colegio de colegio
(o universidad) (o universidad)
5 artos o mas
de colegio
(o universidad)
10. iCual as su preferencia religiosa?
1 2 3 : 4 .
Catblico(a) Protestante Ninguno Otro (especifique)
11. En los ultimos tres meses, £que tan seguido fue a la iglesia?
1 2 3 4 : 5 6
No fuf Fuf1a3 Fuf4a6 Fuf7a9 Fui10a12
ninguna vez veces veces veces veces
Fuf 13
veces o mas
Ahora, quisieram os saber mas de su familia.
12. Diganos donde nacieron las siguientes personas.
Persona Luaar de Nadmierrto
E.E.U.U. Mexico Otro lugar (especifique)
Vd. mismofa)
Su padre
EI padre de su oadre
La madre de su oadre
Su madre
EI padre de su madre
La madre de su madre
13. i,Que tan bien siente Vd. que habla inglbs?
1 2 3 4 5
Nada de bien Mas o menos bien Bien Bastante bien Muy bien
-2-
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14. ^Cuantas veces se ha mudado de residencia su familia desde que su hi]o(a)
entri a la escueia por primera vez?
: 1 : 2 : 3_____ : 4 : 5 : 6
Ninguna Menos de 5 a 9 veces 10 a 14 veces 15 a 19 veces 20 veces
vez 5 veces o mds
15. iCual fue su ingreso familiar el aflo pasado?'
: _ 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
Menos $11,000 $22,000 $33,000 $44,000 Mds
de $11,000 a $21,999 a $32,999 a $43,999 a $54,999 de $55,000
16. iCuantas personas viven en su hogar? (por favor de contar a todas las personas
que viven en su hogar aunque no sean familfares) _____
17. ^De todas las personas que viven en su casa, cuantas estan trabajando afuera
del hogar?
: 1 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6
Nadie Solamente 1 2 personas 3 personas 4 personas 5 personas
estd persona estd estan estan estan o mds estan
trabajando trabajando trabajando trabajando trabajando trabajando
18. i,Que tan importante es para Vd. que su hijo(a) se gradue de la escueia
secundaria (high school)?
: - 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 . ; 5
Muy Bastante Importante Unpoco Nadade
importante importante importante importante
Si su hijo(a) se ha salido de la escueia secundaria (high school), por favor de
contestar las preguntas 19 a 20.
Si su hijo(a) estd en la escueia secundaria (high school), baje a la pregunta
21.
19. Por favor, denos la razdn que Vd. ve como mas importante para explicar porque
se salid su hijo(a) de la escueia.
-3- 155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20. iQ ue consejo nos da para motivar a los estudiantes que se queden en la
escueia?
Si su hijo(a) atin eat* en la escueia secundaria (high school), por favor de
contestar las preguntas 21 a 22.
21. Por favor, denos la razdn que Vd. ve como mas importante para explicar porque
se salen los estudiantes de la escueia.
22. iQ ue consejo nos da para motivar a otros estudiantes que se queden en la
escueia?
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COMPARISON OF FAMILIES IN THE STUDY SAMPLE
TO NORMATIVE DATA AND DISTRESSED SAMPLE*
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE
Families of Families of Combined Normative Distressed
Dropouts Remainers Sample** Sample Sample
(N=l 13) (N=130) (N=243) (N=l,432) (N=788)
Subscales Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Cohesion 5.96 2.15 6.66 1.99 634 2.10 6.73 1.47 525 2.13
Expressiveness 4.36 1.56 4.71 1.48 435 132 534 1.61 4.71 1.78
Conflict 2.86 1.91 2.44 1.90 2.63 1.91 3.18 1.91 4.02 2.07
Independence 4.94 1.82 4.97 1.53 4.95 1.67 6.66 1.26 6.03 1.35
Achievement 6.58 1.44 6.68 1.72 6.61 138 5.47 1.62 533 1.58
Intellectual-
Cultural
Orientation 3.92 1.55 4.60 1.78 4.28 1.71 536 1.82 4.62 1.98
Active-
Recreational
Orientation 3.23 1.51 3.75 1.90 331 1.74 533 1.96 4.15 1.96
Moral-
Religious
Emphasis 5.73 1.54 627 1.72 6.02 1.66 4.75 2.03 431 1.96
Organization 6.09 2.11 628 2.25 6.19 2.18 5.47 1.90 5.07 1.97
Control 5.41 1.82 5.78 1.81 539 1.82 426 1.84 4.61 1.89
* Moos & Moos, 1994.
** The combined sample includes (he students (dropouts and remainers), their parents, and their families.
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COMPARISON OF HOMES
OF DROPOUTS AND REMAINERS
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE
Dropouts Remainers T
(N=113) (N=130)
R ela tio n sh ip D im ension
Mean 13.19 13.81 -1.67
Standard Deviation 2.73 3.02
Cohesion Subscale
Mean 5.96 6.66 -2.62
Standard Deviation 2.15 1.99
Expressiveness Subscale
Mean 4.36 4.71 -1.77
Standard Deviation 1.56 1.48
Conflict Subscale
Mean 2.86 2.44 1.71
Standard Deviation 1.91 1.90
P ersonal G rowth
D im en sion
Mean 26.00 27.72 -2.51
Standard Deviation 4.49 6.14
Independence Subscale
Mean 4.94 4.97 -.14
Standard Deviation 1.82 1.53
Achievement Orientation
Subscale
Mean 6.58 6.68 -.53
Standard Deviation 1.44 1.72
Intellectual-Cultural
Orientation Subscale
Mean 3.92 4.60 -3.15
Standard Deviation 1.55 1.78
2-tail
p level
N.S.
.009
N.S.
N.S.
.013
N.S.
N.S.
.002
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Cont) COMPARISON OF HOMES
OF DROPOUTS AND REMAINERS
Active-Recreational
Orientation Subscale
Mean 3.23 3.75 -2.40
Standard Deviation 1.51 1.90
M oral-Religious Emphasis
Subscale
Mean 5.73 6.27 -2.54
Standard Deviation 1.54 1.72
System M aintenance
D im en sio n
Mean 10.67 10.76 -.29
Standard Deviation 2.25 2.43
Organization Subscale
Mean 6.09 6.28 -.67
Standard Deviation 2.11 2.25
Control Subscale
Mean 5.41 5.78 -1.62
Standard Deviation 1.82 1.81
.017
.012
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COMPARISON OF PARENTS
OF DROPOUTS AND REMAINERS
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE
Dropouts Remainers T
(N=64) (N=72)
R ela tio n sh ip D im ension
Mean 13.19 14.00 -1.59
Standard Deviation 2.64 3.25
Cohesion Subscale
Mean 5.97 7.07 -3.40
Standard Deviation 2.08 1.69
Expressiveness Subscale
Mean 4.59 4.97 -1.50
Standard Deviation 1.46 1.47
Conflict Subscale
Mean 2.63 1.96 2.25
Standard Deviation 1.83 1.63
P ersonal G row th
D im en sio n
Mean 24.67 26.06 -1.53
Standard Deviation 4.14 6.31
Independence Subscale
Mean 4.92 4.74 .64
Standard Deviation 1.86 1.54
Achievement Orientation
Subscale
Mean 6.70 6.86 -.63
Standard Deviation 1.39 1.80
Intellectual-Cultural
Orientation Subscale
Mean 3.95 4.47 -1.67
Standard Deviation 1.61 1.97
Active-Recreational
Orientation Subscale
Mean 3.22 3.53 -1.06
Standard Deviation 1.54 1.82
2-tail
p level
N.S.
.001
N.S.
.026
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Cont.) COMPARISON OF PARENTS
OF DROPOUTS AND REMAINERS
M oral-Religious Emphasis
Subscale
Mean 5.88 6.44 -2.05
Standard Deviation 1.42 1.78
System M aintenance
D im en sio n
Mean 11.59 12.75 -2.09
Standard Deviation 3.23 3.20
Organization Subscale
Mean 6.17 6.71 -1.48
Standard Deviation 2.06 2.15
Control Subscale
Mean 5.42 6.04 -2.01
Standard Deviation 1.81 1.78
.042
.038
N.S.
.046
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COMPARISON OF DROPOUTS AND REMAINERS
FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE
Dropouts Remainers T
(N=49) (N=58)
R ela tio n sh ip D im ension
Mean 13.18 13.57 -.71
Standard Deviation 2.88 2.73
Cohesion Subscale
Mean 5.96 6.16 -.45
Standard Deviation 2.27 2.23
Expressiveness Subscale
Mean 4.06 4.38 -1.07
Standard Deviation 1.66 1.42
Conflict Subscale
Mean 3.16 3.03 .33
Standard Deviation 1.99 2.05
P ersonal G rowth
D im en sio n
Mean 25.04 26.55 -2.84
Standard Deviation 4.17 4.86
Independence Subscale
Mean 4.96 5.26 -.95
Standard Deviation 1.79 1.47
Achievement Orientation
Subscale
Mean 6.41 6.45 -.13
Standard Deviation 1.51 1.61
Intellectual-Cultural
Orientation Subscale
Mean 3.88 4.76 -3.02
Standard Deviation 1.50 1.51
Active-Recreational
Orientation Subscale
Mean 3.25 4.03 -2.31
Standard Deviation 1.49 1.97
2-tail
p level
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
.005
N.S.
N.S.
.003
.023
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Cont.) COMPARISON OF DROPOUTS AND REMAINERS
Moral-Religious Emphasis
Subscale
Mean 5.55 6.05 -1.56 N.S.
Standard Deviation 1.67 1.64
System M aintenance
D im en sio n
Mean 11.37 11.21 .24 N.S.
Standard Deviation 3.43 3.40
Organization Subscale
Mean 5.98 5.74 .55 N.S.
Standard Deviation 2.19 2.26
Control Subscale
Mean 5.39 5.47 -.22 N.S.
Standard Deviation 1.85 1.81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK
use
INFORMED CONSENT
PARENT
For information, please call
M r. Victor Cota at (714) 896-7556
General Consent
In accordance with regulations established by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) to inform participants of their involvement in
research, I understand that the purpose of the research project is to compare youth
who have dropped out of high school with those who remain in school, and to better
understand the influence of the youths' families on the youths' decision to stay in
school. I voluntarily consent and agree to complete the following questionnaires about
myself, my child, and my family:
1. Parent Questionnaire
2. Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics
3. Family Environment Scale
Potential Risks
None of the research project procedures are intended to pry into my personal
life. There are no apparent major physical, psychological, social, legal risks or any
other related risks noted. The interview should last about one (1) hour.
Risk Protection
A ll precautions necessary will be taken to perform the interview with skill,
efficiency, and professionalism. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that
I can refuse to answer any question or to participate in the study at any time, without it
bringing about negative consequences to me or my child, or it affecting my or my
child's relationship with my child's school. I have the option of answering questions in
English or Spanish. Should I become uncomfortable with any part of the study, I w ill
be referred to an appropriate agency to discuss my discomfort. The interview w ill be
conducted by a well-trained bilingual investigator. The only apparent risks are related
to confidentiality of the data that is obtained. My name w ill not be used. A numbering
system will be used to identify pertinent data, and my personal identification and
information w ill be protected. A ll data will be kept in a separate and secure area, in a
locked file. The data w ill be monitored for accuracy and quality control, to identify
possible sources of harm, and to insure uniform compliance with appropriate
standards. The confidentiality of records identifying me and my child w ill be kept
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY PARK. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9008*0411
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
indefinitely. Although no question is asked concerning child abuse, should child
abuse be disclosed, the investigator is obligated by law to report the abuse.
Risk/Benefit Assessment
I understand that there are no foreseen risks involved in participating in this
study. The benefit to my participation is that I will have the opportunity to share my
opinions and attitudes about the problem of school dropouts and that my information
may help the investigator, educators, and parents learn more about this problem.
I also give my permission for my child to participate in the study. All of the
above protections and risks/benefits are true for my child'as well.
I certify that I have read (or had someone read to me), understand and agree to
the above. I shall receive a copy of this consent upon request.
Parent Signature Date
Investigator Signature Date
For additional questions or comments, I may contact the Institutional Review Board at
the University of Southern California at (213) 743-2362, or the study’ s faculty
investigator, Dr. Helen Land, at (213) 740-2711, or the student investigator, Mr. Victor
Cota, at (714) 896-7556.
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
s c h o o l o f s o c i a l w o r k informed Consent: Parent (Spanish)
CONSENTIM IENTO IN FO R M A O O
PADRES/MADRES use
Para informacidn, por favor de llamar a
Sr. Victor Cota al (714) 896-7556
Consentimiento General
En acuerdo con las reglas establesidas por la cimara de repaso institucional
de la universidad del sur de California (Institutional Review Board of U.S.C.) para
informar a los participantes de su participacidn en cualquier estudio, yo tengo por
entendldo que el propdsito de este estudio es el comparar a jovenes que se han
salido de la escueia secundaria prematuramente, antes de recivir su diploma, con
jovenes que aun permanecen en la escueia, y para mejor entender la influencia de
las familias de estos jovenes en su decisidn de permanecer en la escueia. Yo doy mi
consentimiento voluntario y estoy de acuerdo en completar los siguientes
cuestionarios sobre mi mismo, mi hijo(a), y mi familia:
1. Cuestionario: Padres/Madres
2. Escala Corta de Aculturacidn Para Hispanos
3. Escala de Clima Social: Familia
Potencial de Riesoo
Ninguno de los procedimientos de este estudio intentan invadir mi vida
personal. No existe ningun mayor riesgo fisico, psicoldgico, social, legal o de
cualquier otro indole. La entrevista deverb tomar como una (1) hora.
Proteccidn de Riesoo
Todo precaucibn se tomard para asegurar que la entrevista se efectub con
mayor habilidad, eficiencia y profesionalismo. Tengo por entendido que mi
participacidn es voiuntaria y que puedo rehusar contestar cualquier pregunta o
participar en el estudio a cualquier hora, sin que esto traiga consequencias negativas
contra mi o mi hijo(a), y sin afectar mi relacidn o la relacidn de mi hijo(a) con su
escueia. Tengo la opcidn de contestar las preguntas en espariol o inglbs. Si me
siento incomodo(a) con cualquier parte del estudio, se me darb una referenda a una
agencia apropriada en donde podrb discutir mi incomodidad. La entrevista sera
conducida por un investigador bilingue con bastante experiencia an entrevistas. M i
nombre no se usarb. Un sistema numbrico se usarb para identificar los datos
pertinentes, y mi identificacidn e informacidn personal serin protegidas. Todos los
datos se mantendrbn en un lugar separado y seguro, en un archivo bajo Have. Los
datos seran repasados para asegurar exactitud y control de caiidad, para identificar
fuentes de dafio, y para asegurar el cumpiimiento de las normas apropriadas. La
confidencia de todo record que me idenifique y que identifique a mi hijo(a) sard
mantenido indefinitivamente. Apesar de no existir ninguna pregunta de abuso contra
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY PARK. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90089-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
los menores de edad, si se revela tat abuso, ei investigador se ri obligado por ley en
reportar tal abuso.
Evaluacidn de Rlesoo/Beneficio
Tengo por entendido de que no existe ningun riesgo en participar en este
estudio. El beneficio de mi participation es que tendrd la oportunidad de compartir
mis opiniones y actitudes sobre ei probiema de los jovenes que se saien de la
escueia prematuramente y mi informacidn le servird ai investigador, a educadores, y a
padres de familia aprender mas sobre este probiema.
Tambidn doy mi permiso que participe mi hijo(a) en este estudio. Toda
proteccidn y todo riesgo/beneficio ya expiicado serd aplicado a mi hijo(a).
Yo certifico que he leido (o que alguien me leo), he entendido y estoy de
acuerdo con todo lo aquf escrito. Yo recibird una copia de este consentimiento ai
pediria.
Firma del padre/de la madre Fecha
Firma del investigador Fecha
Para recibir mas informacidn o hacer preguntas, yo me puedo comunicar con la
cdmara de repaso institutional de la universidad del sur de California (Institutional
Review Board of U.S.C.) ai (213) 743-2362, con la investigadora principal de este
estudio que es parte de la facuitad en la universidad, Dra. Helen Land, ai (213) 740-
2711, o el investigador estudiante, Sr. Victor Cota, ai (714) 857-8482.
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S C H O O L fi9i8flJfe,8) ,Consent: Young Adult 18 Years or Older (English)
INFO RM ED CONSENT
YOUNG ADULT 18 YEARS OF AGE O R OLDER
For information, please call
M r. Victor Cota at (714) 896-7556
General Consent
The purpose of the research project is to compare youth and young adults who
have dropped out of high school with those who remain in school, and to better
understand how their families influence their decision to stay in school. I voluntarily
agree to complete the following questionnaires about myself and my family:
1. Student Questionnaire, which asks questions about me and my schooling.
2. Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics, which asks questions about how well I mix
with people of a different culture.
3. Family Environment Scale, which asks questions about how my family gets along
with each other.
Potential Risks
Nothing in the research project is intended to pry into my personal life and
should not be harmful to me. There are no apparent major risks of any kind noted.
The interview should last about one (1) hour.
F iSk_P rQ tggtjI understand that my participation is voluntary and that I can refuse to participate
at any time, without negative consequences to me, and without affecting my
relationship with my school. I will have the option of answering questions in English or
Spanish. If I become uncomfortable with any part of the study, I will get the chance to
speak with a counselor at a nearby agency. The interview will be conducted by a well-
trained bilingual individual, who will keep all the information I give private. My name
w ill not be used. A numbering system will be used to record the information I give,
and this information will be protected in a separate and secure area, in a locked file.
Although no question is asked concerning child abuse, should child abuse be
disclosed, the investigator is obligated by law to report the abuse.
Risk/Benefit Assessment
There are no risks that I can see by participating in this study. The benefits are
that I will have the opportunity to share my opinions about the problem of school
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY PARK. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9008*jM ^
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dropouts and that my information may help the investigator, teachers, and parents
learn more about this problem.
I certify that I have read (or had someone read to me), understand and agree to
the above. I will receive a copy of this consent if I ask for it.
Student Signature Date
Investigator Signature Date
For additional questions or comments, I may contact the Institutional Review Board at
the University of Southern California at (213) 743-2362, or the study's faculty
investigator, Dr. Helen Land, at (213) 740-2711, or the student investigator, Mr. Victor
Cota, at (714) 896-7556.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S C H O O L i& 1 ® ?{fa?8 R , ^sseiit: Student Under 18 Years of Age (English)
IN FO R M ED ASSENT
STUDENT UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
For information, please call
M r. Victor Cota at (714) 896-7556
General Assent
I understand that my parents have given permission for me to participate in this
research project. The investigator has explained to me that the purpose of the study is
to compare youth who have dropped out of high school with those who remain in
school, and to better understand how their families influence their decision to stay in
school. The investigator has assured me that I will be protected against any potential
risks and that there are benefits to me participating in the study.
I agree to complete the following questionnaires about myself and my family:
1. Student Questionnaire, which asks questions about me and my schooling.
2. Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics, which asks questions about how well I mix
with people of a different culture.
3. Family Environment Scale, which asks questions about how my family gets along
with each other.
Potential Risks
Nothing in the research project is intended to pry into my personal life and
should not be harmful to me. There are no apparent major risks of any kind noted.
The interview should last about one (1) hour.
Risk Protection
My participation in the study is voluntary and I can refuse to participate at any
time, without anyone pressuring me. A ll the information I give be kept private. My
name w ill not be used. Instead, the investigator w ill use a numbering system to record
the information I give, and this information w ill be protected in a locked file.
Risk/Benefit Assessment
There are no risks that I can see by participating in this study. The benefits are
that I will have the opportunity to share my opinions about the problem of school
dropouts and that my information may help the investigator, teachers, and parents
learn more about this problem.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY PARK. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 8 9 ^ 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I will receive a copy of this assent if I ask for it.
Student Signature Date
Investigator Signature Date
If I have additional questions or comments, I know I can contact the Institutional Review
Board at the University of Southern California at (213) 743-2362, or the study’ s faculty
investigator, Dr. Helen Land, at (213) 740-2711, or the student investigator, Mr. Victor
Cota, at (714) 896-7556.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S C H O O ffi5fffilfe80 Coiisent: Young Adult 18 Years or Older (Spanish
CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO
JOVEN AOULTO DE 18 AflOS O MAYOR
Para informacidn, por favor de llamar a
Sr. Victor Cota al (714) 896-7556
Consentimiento General
Ei propdsito de este estudio es ei comparar a jovenes que se han salido de la
escueia secundaria prematuramente, antes de recivir su diploma, con jovenes que
aun permanecen en la escueia, y para mejor entender la influencia de las familias de
estos jovenes en su decision de permanecer en la escueia. Yo doy mi consentimiento
voluntario y estoy de acuerdo en completar los siguientes cuestionarios sobre mi
mismo y mi familia:
1. Cuestionario: Estudiante
2. Escala Corta de Aculturacidn Para Hispanos
3. Escala de Clima Social: Familia
Potencial de Riesoo
Nada de este estudio intenta invadir mi vida personal y nada deberd hacerme
dario. No existe ningun riesgo. La entrevista deverd tomar como una (1) hora.
Proteccidn de Riesoo
Tengo por entendido que mi participacidn es voluntaria y que puedo rehusar
participar en el estudio a cualquier hora, sin que esto traiga consequencias negativas
en mi relacidn con su escueia. Tengo la opcidn de contestar las preguntas en
espario! o ingles. Si me siento incomodo(a) con cualquier parte del estudio, podrd
discutir mi incomodidad con un consejero en una agencia cercana. La entrevista serd
conducida por un investigador biiingue, quien mantendrd toda informacidn que le dd
en privado. M i nombre no se usard. Un sistema numdrico se usard para identificar
mis datos, y mi identificacidn e informacidn personal serdn protegidas en un lugar
separado y seguro, en un archivo bajo Have. Apesar de no existir ninguna pregunta
de abuso contra los menores de edad, si se revela tai abuso, el investigador serd
obligado por ley en reportar tai abuso.
Evaluacidn de Riesqo/Beneficio
Tengo por entendido de que no existe ningun riesgo en participar en este
estudio. El beneficio de mi participacidn es que tendrd la oportunidad de compartir
mis opiniones y actitudes sobre el probiema de los jovenes que se salen de la
escueia prematuramente y mi informacidn le servird al investigador, a educadores, y a
padres de familia aprender mas sobre este probiema.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY PARK. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yo certifico que he leido (o que alguien me leo), he entendido y estoy de
acuerdo con todo lo aquf escrito. Yo recibird una copia de este consentimiento al
pediria.
Firma del estudiante Fecha
Firma del investigador Fecha
Para recibir mas informacidn o hacer preguntas, yo me puedo comunicar con la
cdmara de repaso institucional de la universidad del sur de California (institutional
Review Board of U.S.C.) ai (213) 743-2362, con la investigadora principal de este
estudio que es parte de la facultad en la universidad, Dra. Helen Land, ai (213) 740-
2711, o el investigador estudiante. Sr. Victor Cota, al (714) 857-8482.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S C H T O L 1ffflff1h®8fukssent: Student Under 18 Years of Age (Spanish)
ASEN T1M IEN TO INFO R M A O O
ESTUDIANTE M ENOR DE 18 AflOS
Para informacidn, por favor de llamar a
Sr. Victor Cota al (714) 896-7556
Consentimiento General
Tengo por entendido que mis padres han dado permiso en que yo participe en
este estudio. El envestigador me ha explicado que ei propdsito de este estudio es ei
comparar a jovenes que se han saiido de la escueia secundaria prematuramente.
antes de recivir su diploma, con jovenes que aun permanecen en la escueia, y para
mejor entender la influencia de fas famiiias de estos jovenes en su decision de
permanecer en la escueia. El envestigado me ha asegurado que serd protegido
contra cualquier riesgo y que existen beneficios en participar en este estudio.
Yo estoy de acuerdo en completar los siguientes cuestionarios sobre mi mismo
y mi familia:
1. Cuestionario: Estudiante, que hace preguntas sobre mi mismo y mi educacidn
2. Escala Corta de Aculturacidn Para Hispanos, que hace preguntas sobre como me
mesclo con gente de otra cultura
3. Escala de Clima Social: Familia, que hace preguntas sobre como nos llevamos
los unos con los otros en mi familia.
Potencial de Riesgo
Nada de este estudio intenta invadir mi vida personal y nada deberd hacerme
dario. No existe ningun riesgo. La entrevista deverd tomar como una (1) hora.
Proteccidn de Riesgo
M i participacidn en este estudio es voluntaria y que puedo rehusar participar en
el estudio a cualquier hora, sin que nadio me presione. Toda informacidn que le dd
se mantendrd en privado. M i nombre no se usard. EI investigado usard un sistema
numdrico para apuntar mis datos, y esta informacidn serd archivada bajo Have.
Evaluacidn de Riesoo/Beneficio
Tengo por entendido de que no existe ningun riesgo en participar en este
estudio. El beneficio de mi participacidn es que tendrd la oportunidad de compartir
mis opiniones y actitudes sobre ei probiema de los jovenes que se salen de la
escueia prematuramente y mi informacidn le servird al investigador, a educadores, y a
padres de familia aprender mas sobre este probiema.
Yo recibird una copia de este asentimiento al pedirfa.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. UNIVERSITY PARK. LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9008»4<97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Firma del estudiante Fecha
Firma del investigador Fecha
Si tengo preguntas o quiero mas informacidn, yo s6 que me puedo comunicar con la
cdmara de repaso institucional de la universidad del sur de California (Institutional
Review Board of U.S.C.) al (213) 743-2362, o con la investigadora principal de este
estudio que es parte de la facultad en la universidad, Dra. Helen Land, a il (213) 740-
2711, o con el investigador estudiante. Sr. Victor Cota, al (714) 857-8482.
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Intra-familial child sexual abuse: The experience and effects on non-offending mothers

PDF

A longitudinal cross-ethnic study of sociocentricity in schizophrenia

PDF

Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

PDF

Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Child sexual abuse in a sample of male and female Hispanic and White nonclinical adolescents: Extending the reliability and validity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI)

PDF

Consequences of heritage language loss and maintenance and factors that affect heritage language development: Voices from second-generation Korean-American adults

PDF

A Study Of Academic Resiliency In African-American Children

PDF

Interviews with children: how they perceive psychotherapy

PDF

A multicultural curriculum's relationship to attitudes of prejudice and stereotyping in 5th and 6th-grade students

PDF

Emergent literacy: A sense of becoming and being literate in Latino families

PDF

A cross-cultural comparison of marital power and dyadic adjustment among American, Indo-American, and East Indian dual-career and single-career couples

PDF

A comparison study: Job satisfaction factors and retention of minority versus non-minority teachers

PDF

An investigation of the psychological well-being of unaccompanied Taiwanese minors/parachute kids in the United States

PDF

Comparative analysis of the stress process in AIDS caregivers: Gay male partners, Anglo women, and Latinas

PDF

Married Japanese women with children: The relationship between perceived spousal support, childrearing, outside employment, and levels of depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and life satisfaction

PDF

Gender role conflict, cultural identity, and self-esteem among African-American men

PDF

A comparative study of the realm of meaning of four child prostitutes in Taiwan: A hermeneutic approach

PDF

A descriptive study of the recruitment of students of color for secondary accelerated programs

PDF

Vietnamese-Americans embedded in multicultural contexts: Structural equation modeling of acculturation and family

PDF

The role of parental expectation, effort and self-efficacy in the achievement of high- and low-track high school students in Taiwan

Asset Metadata

Creator Cota, Victor (author)

Core Title A comparative study of the family processes of youth of Mexican descent who have dropped out of high school and those who have remained in school

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Guidance and Counseling,OAI-PMH Harvest,Social Work,sociology, ethnic and racial studies,sociology, individual and family studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Land, Helen (committee chair), O'Keefe, Maura (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-542902

Unique identifier UC11352723

Identifier 9720211.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-542902 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9720211.pdf

Dmrecord 542902

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cota, Victor

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA