This section examines the project relative to initial and ongoing project goals. For the reader's convenience, the project goals correspond to the initial grant application (see page number references). The project goals cover three areas: Data Collection and Youth Contact; Backward Mapping Process; and Evaluation and Dissemination.

Data Collection and Youth Contact The following objectives relate to the collection of data related to the youths: Obtaining Lists of Dropouts from 1991/2 to 1996/7 (see 1.1/p. 4); Monthly Lists of Drops (see 1.2/p. 4): Obtain Necessary Consents (1.3 and 1.4/g. 4) and Interviewing Dropouts (1.5/p. 4)

Each year we attained each of these objectives. The necessary lists were readily available and consent forms were easy to obtain at all but Central. For whatever reason, it typically took four or five requests to get Central's teachers to hand out consent forms. The interviews of dropouts were a bit more difficult. We contacted and interviewed 40% of all special education dropouts for the project years of 1993/4 to 1996/7 (N = 60). Dropouts from the 1991/2 and 1992/3 school years proved especially elusive. We located less than 10% of these former students. Among the more recent dropouts, approximately 10% of the contacted former students were not interested in participating in an interview (although another 20% expressed an interest but failed to show up for two or more scheduled appointments). We tried to enhance participation by airing public service announcements on a local radio station, talking about the project to friends of the former students, and offering $10 to $15 for their participation. The increase in renumeration had no impact on overall participation rates, although the use of friends did help us to recruit four or five former students. A major problem with dropout interviews proved to be the rate at which prospective interviews actually showed up for scheduled meetings. On average, 50% of the youths showed up for their scheduled interviews with some not showing up until their third or fourth scheduled interview.

From the interviews, a large majority of dropout youths reported that the most enjoyable aspect of school had been socializing with peers, followed by a particular class (most often a vocational class) or encounters with a specific teacher. The worst part of school was most often a particular class followed by problems with an individual teacher or teachers in general. In terms of what it would encourage them to return to school, the most common suggestions were efforts to recruit youth back into school, more teacher support, and a change in their own attitude or work habits. General recommendations for improving school included teachers changing their attitude and treatment of students, administrators changing their treatment of students and a different discipline policy (see Appendix 7 for a compilation of all quotes).

We also conducted an evaluation of what happens to youth who drop out of school. For the purposes of this report, we limit the summary to students identified as LID. We were able to compare 35 LID and 60 general education dropouts, respectively. The respective rates at which youth were employed (51% and 47%), looking for work (17% and 12%), and not working or looking for work (31% and 32%) were comparable. This pattern held true across the average wage ($4.88 and $5.00), hours of work per week (38.6 and 32.4), job tenure (2 and 3 months), and those having access to job benefits (6% and 12%). Differences appeared in terms of the current job title. The employed general education youth reported currently being in more sophisticated jobs (e.g., 89% LD youths were laborers compared to 57% of the general youth). Conduct Record Reviews of Dropout and Graduate Samples (1.6/p. 4 ) and Generate a Description of the Respective Sample Sets (1.7/p.-41

We conducted record reviews for 85% of the special education graduates (N of 83) and 95% of the dropouts (N of 75). Appendix 3 provides a table of the findings relative to background data (e.g., intelligence, achievement scores, length of time in special education), family status (e.g., intactness and income), and school history features (e.g., extent of mainstrearming, length of time in special education). Unreviewed files could not be found. We did have some missing information, primarily on family status. The teachers, for about 15% of their students, were unsure of the student's family intactness and free lunch status.

In terms of comparing dropouts to graduates, the groups were comparable across all but three measures -- family socioeconomic status, family intactness, and percent of time in general education classrooms. Dropouts tended to come from less intact family units and poorer family backgrounds, while spending significantly less time in general education classrooms. The former suggests that dropouts lack access to the type and level of family support that help students get through high school. The latter suggests that, given group similarities for academic potential and performance, dropouts may exhibit significantly greater behavioral problems that keep them out of general education classrooms. Each of these features warrants in-depth examination. Generate a Cohort Sample (1.8/p. 4): Conduct Interviews (1 -9/p. 4): Compile Data 0. 1 0/p. 4): and Provide a Sample Description (1. 11 /p. 4)

Over the project's duration we interviewed 144 special education freshmen. This number represented over 85% of all freshmen in either resource, inclusion, or self-contained programs. We did not interview consultation only students as students received little if any services from their special education program. We compiled the interview data and corresponding background data.

Appendix 4 shows information on key background features of the 9th grade cohort. These findings help to describe key characteristics of the freshmen. For instance, 85% of the students were held back or retained at least once (generally within the first three years of school), 35% were suspended from school at least one time, and 45% qualified for the lunch assistance program (90% received free lunches and 10% received reduced price lunches). We lack comparable information on the district-wide rate at which students experience retention, but knowledgeable staff indicate it is below 15%. The out of-school suspensions also are noteworthy. Generally, out-of-school suspensions involve more serious disruptive conduct or are proceeded by a series of lesser punishments (e.g., a series of in-school suspensions eventually lead to an out-of-school suspension). The level of eligibility for lunch assistance again, according to staff, is well above that for the district as a whole. In terms of intelligence and achievement levels, the students were within expected ranges for their given handicapping condition. Establish Preliminary Findings to Compare Graduates and Dropouts (1. 1 2/p. 4) and Develop an Early identification Model (1.13/p. 4).

We had a sufficient sample size to contrast dropouts to graduates across the aforementioned features. Initial indications are that dropouts are different in terms of family status features (number of parents in the home, family SES), percent of time in regular education, and handicapping condition (12 BD students dropped out and none graduated). Dropouts and graduates were similar in terms of background features (e..g., gender, achievement test scores, intelligence test scores, age and grade level at referral, number of retentions).

Despite some differences, the constructed early identification model was unable to effectively contrast likely dropouts from likely graduates. We defined effectively as an 80% or better rate of classification of dropouts and graduates. The groups, based on available data, were similar or existing differences were largely offset by group similarities. Future efforts should obtain more statistical power by way of larger samples or pursue data across different variables. Promising variables (i.e., those that would distinguish likely dropouts from likely graduates) would yield more information on the type and level of family support (e.g., parent or sibling educational level), available family resources (e.g., length of time on the free or reduced price lunch program), and severity of behavioral problems (e.g., nature of discipline problems).

Objectives under this heading reflect how well the project facilitated the process of change at each of the schools. The process tried to usher in change by having teachers respond to information from their consumer. Project staff collected information on student concerns, provided technical support, and collected project-related information. Conducting Backward Mapping Sessions at Each School (2.1, 2.2/ p. 4 and 5)

We conducted monthly meetings at each high school. The meetings provided a forum for sharing information from the students and generating ideas that responded to perceived needs. Their overall utility, however, varied by school. For example, participation rates and the involvement of non-special education staff were distinctly different across schools. At East and West, the eventual participation for the last 10 meetings involved only one special educator (we started with 3 to 5 participants). We averaged two participants at Central and three to four at North. The meetings did offer an opportunity to discuss the dropout problem and provide professional dialogue that some participants seemed to appreciate. The meetings also generated a number of potential ideas, but, as noted, the actual implementation rate varied. The typical meeting involved a discussion of individual students, updates on dropouts, resource requests, and related school information.

The meetings seemed to start with substantial enthusiasm at East, West, and North. This enthusiasm gradually waned. At Central it was difficult to establish staff interest. The gradual drop in overall participation rates, length of meetings, and the number of new ideas may have been due to the general frustration of school staff or a prevailing mood of professional pessimism. Collect Information on the Process (2-3/)g. 5) and Feedback and Process Evaluation (2-5/p. 5)

We collected ongoing information in the form of minutes and personal observations. We compiled the minutes of monthly meetings which were made available to each school within ten days of the meeting. The personal observations were in the form of field notes, but were less consistent. We also collected evaluation information from project staff for each of the years (summary in Appendix 6). The evaluation provided input from project participants (we had a 75% return rate in years one and two and only a 25% response rate in year three). Suggestions for improvement included better coordination and organization, more direction, additional support, and easier methods for receiving monies. Participants felt that the local school funds ($1,500 per school), vocational assessments, and release days (10 days per school) were most helpful. Provide Ongoing Technical Support (2.4/p. 5)

Despite offers of support (e.g., an average of over 80 individual visits each year by the principal investigator alone), we did not fulfill the spirit of this objective. The teachers were reluctant to take up offers of support or, perhaps, we failed to convey our willingness to help.

Technical support occurred in a variety of ways including school visits, classroom support, vocational assessments, participation in out of school activities, and mentoring. The school visits ranged from simply meeting with the special education staff to full days of substituting. The vocational assessments involved administering four to six tests to the student. We combined this information with existing assessment data to develop a four to five page report. This report outlined student strengths and weaknesses relative to potential careers (see Appendix 8 for a sample report). The project staff also participated in activities like whitewater rafting and the Ropes course (an outdoor adventure program). The mentoring involved keeping tabs on four to seven students at each school. "Keeping tabs" meant talking with the student once a month, checking with teachers if appropriate, and making sure things were okay. In addition, graduate students provided four hours of weekly in-class support at four schools in year one and three schools in years two and three. We had planned to offer additional support in the aforementioned areas as well as substitute teaching, learning strategies, study guides, transition plans, and general classroom support.

As noted, we provided limited general classroom support, but nothing of significance in the areas of transition plans or course study guides. We also offered to type up tests, handouts, or assignments as a way to help students to better understand their work. As an example of appropriate support that went by the wayside, one teacher had students rewrite old mimeographed handouts rather than making copies. Students often spent more time rewriting the questions than working on the answers. Apparently, this practice saved money for the Xerox fund. We had thought it would be appropriate to offer to type up a set of handouts or worksheets for the teacher, but this idea was rejected. Assistance with Individual Youths (3.1/)p. 5) and Transition Plan Support (3.2/p. 5)

We provided limited support relative to these objectives. The project staff served as mentors to students at three of the schools in year one and two in year two. As a mentor, we talked with the respective students on a monthly basis. Despite the apparent benefit of mentoring, each school dropped their mentoring program by year three. This decision seemed to involve a desire to make things easier (or not make teaching any more complicated) rather than a belief that the support was not beneficial. We also provided formal vocational assessments to six students at each school in year one. Despite the obvious benefit of the assessments, teachers declined this help in years two and three. EVALUATION AND DISSEMINATION Yearly Meetings with the School Partnership (4.1/p.5); Meetings with Local Advisory Boards (4.2/p. 5); and Protect Advisory Board (4.6/p.5).

In years one and two we met with the University/School Partnership. In year three, the Partnership canceled our scheduled presentation due to an emergency agenda item. We offered to meet with them at a later date, but did not receive an invitation. This Partnership included university representatives and eight area superintendents. These meetings were not effective in terms of yielding requests for volunteer technical assistance (only one of eight districts requested technical support).

Each school held initial local advisory board meetings. East and West had meetings in year two. No schools had a meeting in year three. In years one and two, we routinely reminded each school's site facilitators (special educators who received $1,200 each year to help us with the grant) about the need for these meetings, but did not force the issue. When held, the meetings appeared beneficial. Representative parents and students seemed to appreciate a chance to hear about the project and provide their input.

The Project Advisory Board Meeting occurred in year one and was canceled in year two due to severe weather. The meeting will be held in mid November for year three.

Others forms of dissemination included a summer conference, regional and national presentations, one published article, one published book chapter, contributions to Sunday editorials in the Asheville Citizen Times and Winston-Salem Journal, and three manuscripts submitted for publication. The summer conference proved an effective means to disperse project information. The conference involved 35 local educators and had three strands of sessions -- a key note by Eugene Edgar, smaller sessions on project outcomes and interventions, and a grant writing symposium. We ran two rotating sets of three sessions which made for small groups of 10 to 15. Participant evaluation of the conference was favorable. The presentations were at the annual American Counselor's Association (Denver, CO), NC Learning Disabilities Association's Annual Meeting (Greensboro, NC), Institute for Behavior Disorders (Tempe, AZ), and CEC's Career Development Division Meeting (Raleigh, NC).