ࡱ> LNKq Cbjbjt+t+ dAA{>L]888"Z2228:NL (  $ d 2 22F22 F^^v^^22 " 22 $^ Latinos, School Structure, and Dropping Out: A Review of the Literature Holly T. Goerdel Texas A&M University Introduction The structure of an organization refers to the relationships among members around its technical core of work (Perrow 1967; Simon 1976). More specifically, it also follows that varying organizational aspects of schools (as institutions) lend them their distinctive form. Schools, as organizations, are dynamic settings that configure and constrain opportunities for student success (Baker 2001). The relationship between school structure and performance has only recently been explored ( Weller 2000; Lee and Smith 1995; Fitzpatrick and Yoels 1992; Bryk and Thum 1989). Structure and Performance One measure of performance for schools is the dropout rate. A decade ago, dropout studies focused on individual background characteristics as determinants for dropping out (Hess and Lauber 1985). Characteristics such as race, economic status, and household resources are a few examples. The idea that schools, as organizations, may play a role in determining the dropout rate was not introduced until the late eighties (Raudenbush and Bryk 1986; Wehlage and Rutter 1986; Fitzpatrick and Yoels 1992). Since that time, researchers have studied high school dropout using three clusters of factors: 1) individual factors, 2) family factors, and 3) structural factors (Velez and Saenz 2001). Unlike individual social characteristics, the structure of a school is under the control of educators and is amenable to change in order to achieve desired outcomes. Schools can intervene more effectively in the dropout process by considering the broad organizational context in which school failure occurs (Baker 2001). This requires knowledge of the structural determinants of dropping out. Structural Determinants of Dropping Out What determines dropping out ? Class size (Klonsky 1995; Raywid 1996), student-teacher and staff-teacher ratios (Fitzpatrick and Yoels 1992; McNeal 1997), bureaucratic orientation (Bryk and Driscoll 1988;Lee and Smith 1995), tracking techniques (Nyberg et al 1997), number of administrators and resource allocation (Marlow 2001), and disciplinary practices (Jordon, Lara, and McPartland 1996) are all structural components of schools and act, in differing degrees, as determinates of dropping out. Researchers are concerned with how these structural components increase or decrease the probability of dropping out. Wehlage and Rutter (1986) argue that weak adult authority, a climate of truancy and low expectation, large school size, absence of caring adult relationships and of stimulating curriculum, all contribute to dropping out. Unfortunately, except for school size, they fail to explore the effects of school-level measures of structure and normative environment. They also find that when disadvantaged (SES) and at-risk youth are associated with organizations that have committed faculty, orderly environments, and an emphasis on academic pursuits, the probability of dropping out (for those particular students) decreases. What is unclear, however, is whether or not the structural variables in this case are simply proxies for unidentified differences among students enrolled in different schools (Bryk and Thum 1989). School size. School size, as a structural component is extremely important. School size is typically measured as the average daily student attendance (Bidwell and Kasarda 1975). Generally speaking, the structural dimensions of size have an inverse relationship with performance (Indik and Seashore 1961; Katzell, Barett, and Parker 1961; Marriot 1949; Thomas 1959). Coleman and Hoffer (1987) find that smaller schools promote social interaction, which creates a form of social capital that facilitates the work of the school and decreases the likelihood of dropping out. Student-teacher ratio. Student-teacher and staff-teacher ratios are structural determinants of dropping out. For the student-teacher ratio, higher ratios indicate increased probability of dropping out while lower ratios indicate decreased probability of dropping out. Along with that, the greater the resources, in terms of support staff, per teacher, the lower the aggregate dropout rate (Fitzpatrick and Yoels 1992). Bureaucratic orientation. School structure can also be determined by investigating how the core technology of a school is organized, i.e. their bureaucratic orientation. This involves determining whether or not schools are traditional-bureaucratic or community-based: In schools with traditional-bureaucratic form, the routine technical activity and instruction, breaks down knowledge into a curriculum composed of discrete and fixed subjects. The aim of teaching is to impart specialized knowledge, and instruction is organized into a standardized and sequenced pattern within subjects. Learning is assessed by measuring the mastery of subject matter, and students are sorted into specialized instructional treatments aimed at appropriately matching their ability and interests to the subject matter. The organization of instruction into departments and tracks is consistent with a specialization model. Such reforms as increasing academic standards, tightening graduation requirements and teacher-proof curricular materials fit the traditional-bureaucratic model. In schools with the communal form, knowledge is seen as multidimensional and interdisciplinary, and teaching is responsive to students opinions, talents, and tastes. Learning is built more around concrete problems and abstract subjects, and assessment is more flexible and less standardized. Organization responses to the communal schools core technology may include independent study, interdisciplinary teaching, flexible scheduling, cooperative learning, and mixed-ability classes (Lee and Smith, 1995). Lee and Smith borrow these ideas (heavily) from the pioneering work by Bryk and Driscoll (1988) who develop a set a structural practices by which schools can be characterized; specifically differentiating between the two school organizational forms of traditional bureaucratic and community structure. Their main contention is that the two organizational forms incorporate different conceptions of core technology. In fact the two forms are based on opposite assumptions about knowledge, learning, and teaching. While studies using this theory have only investigated its influence on early gains in achievement and engagement, the leap linking it to dropping out is not far and should be taken ( Lee and Smith 1995; Schlecty 1990; Tyack and Cuban 1995).  Resource allocation. Student-teacher and staff-teacher ratios, class size, and often bureaucratic orientation, can all be dictated by funding resources and allocation of those resources. This distributive structural determinant indirectly influences dropping out. For example, increased funding influences school structure by reducing the pupil-teacher and staff-teacher ratios, which lead to a decrease in the dropout rate. However, this is a mediating effect ( Lee and Smith 1995; Marlow 2001). Conversely, broad theories of bureaucracy predict that resources are often not efficiently allocated in public markets that lack competition and are controlled by sponsors such as elected officials or parents, as is the case with education (Niskanen 1971; Marlow 2001). The implication here is that hiring more teachers, for example, will not always be beneficial, especially if the marginal utility of one additional teacher is at or below zero. Marlow (2001) found this to be true in his study of resource misallocation within the public school system in California. Latinos, School Structure, and Dropping Out As it stands, there is only one study on the influence of school structure on the Latino drop out rate. The objective of Velez and Saenz (2001) is to explore factors that may lead to a comprehensive model of the drop out rate among Latinos. They find individual, family, and structural factors to be foundational components of such a model. Structural factors such as school practices, relative size of ethnic group, and community economic contexts are associated with dropping out. Individual factors such as oppositional behavior (also known as adverarial subculture), academic expectations and performance, role taking, generational status and acculturation, Spanish language use, and ethnic group membership also seen to be associated with dropping out. Finally, family factors associated with Latino dropout include family structure, economic situation, and neighborhood of residence. Data and Methods Researchers studying the influence of structural factors on dropping out use varying data sources and methods.  Due to the hierarchical nature of school organizations, HLM is often used (Bryk and Thum 1989; Wehlage and Rutter 1986; Lee and Smith 1995). This method also helps to distinguish between student-level and school level measures. Generally, though, ordinary least squares regression is used along with various other qualitative methods. Many cohort survey data sets are exploited for the purpose of studying structure and performance. The High School and Beyond database is a general purpose survey which provides longitudinal data on dropouts. Other sources include the Annual Digest of Education Statistics, the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, and the National Center for Effective Secondary Schools. Future Research There are many questions left to be answered when it comes to analyzing the influence of school structure on performance. While a milieu of specific research questions exist, one broad conceptual topic yet to be explored is the issue of bureaucratic orientation and dropping out. More specifically, what influence does a schools bureaucratic orientation have on its Latino drop out rate? In order to explore this question, we would need to investigate the bureaucratic orientation of a subset of schools (say, schools in Texas) using a survey instrument. The survey instrument could be a derivation of Lee and Smiths (1995) questionnaire, in which schools are asked to respond to a list of characteristics that identify them as traditional-bureaucratic or communal. From here, an endless number of bureaucratic/performance hypotheses could be tested. Dropout Bibliography Baker, J., et. al. 2001. The Flip Side of the Coin: Understanding the Schools Contribution to Dropout and Completion. School Psychology Quarterly 16:4 406-426. Bidwell, Charles and John Kasarda. 1975. School District Organization and Student Achievement. American Sociological Review 40: 55-70. Bryk, A.S., and Y.M. Thum. 1989. The Effects of School Organization on Dropping out: An Exploratory Investigation. American Educational Research Journal 26:353-383. Bryk, A.S. 1994. More Good News that School Organization Matters. In Issues in Restructuring Schools. Issues Report No. 7. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Bryk, A.S., and M.E. Driscoll. 1988. The School as community: Theoretical Foundations, Contextual Influences, and Consequences for Students and Teachers. Madison: National center of Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin. Coleman, J.S., and Hoffer, T. 1987. Public and Private High Schools: Impact on Communities. New York: Basic Books. Fitzpatrick, K.M., and W.C. Yoels. 1992. Policy, School Structure, and Sociodemographic Effects on Statewide High School Dropout Rates. Sociology of Education 65:766-793. Gamoran. A., and M. Weinstein. 1998. Differentiation and Opportunity in Restructured Schools. American Journal of Education 106:385-415. Hall, R.H., Haas, J.E. and Johnson, N.J. 1967. Organizational Size, Complexity, and Formalization. American Sociological Review 32: 903-922. Hess, G.A., and Lauber, D. 1985. Dropouts from the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance. Indik, B.P., and Seashore, S.F. 1961. Effects of Organization Size on Member Attitudes and Behavior. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center of the Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan. Jordon, W., Lara, J., and McPartland, J. 1996. Exploring the Causes of Early Dropout Among Race-Ethnic and Gender Groups." Youth and Society 28: 62-94. Katzell, R.A., Barrett, R.S., and Parker. 1961.T.C. Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Situational Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 45: 65-72. Klonsky, M. 1995. Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story. A Review of the Research and Current Experiences. Chicago: University of Chicago. Lee, V.E., and J. B. Smith. 1993. Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of Middle-grade Students. Sociology of Education 66: 164-187. Lee, V.E., and J. B. Smith. 1995. Effects of School Restructuring and Size on Early Gains in Achievement and Engagement. Sociology of Education 68: 241-270. Madden, N.A., et. al. 1993. Success for All: Longitudinal Effects of a Restructuring Program for Inner-city Elementary Schools. American Educational Research Journal 30: 123-148. Marlow, M. 2001. Bureaucracy and Student Performance in US Public Schools. Applied Economics 33: 1341-1350. Marriot, R. 1949.Size of Working Group and Output. Occupational Psychology 23: 47-57. McNeal, R.B. 1997. High School Dropouts: A Closer Examination of School Effects. Social Science Quarterly. 78:209-222. Niskanen, W. A., Jr. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago. Nyberg, K. L., et. al. 1997. Ethnic Differences in Academic Retracking: A Four-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational Research 91: 33-41. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., and Page, R.N. 1992. Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan. Oakes, J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Perrow, C. 1967. A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations. American Sociological Review 32: 194-208. Raudenbush, S.W., and A.S. Bryk. 1986. A Hierarchical Model for Studying School Effects. Sociology of Education 59: 1-17. Raymid, M.A. 1996. Taking Stock: the Movement to Create Mini-Schools, Schools-within- schools, and Separate Small Schools. Madison, WE Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Rowan, B. 1990. Applying Conceptions of Teaching to Organizational Reform. Restructuring Schools: the next Generation of Educational Reform, edited by R.E. Elmore. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schlecty, P.C. 1990.Schools for the Twenty-First Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Simon, H.A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations (3rd edition.) New York: Free Press. Thomas, E.J. 1959. Role Conceptions and Organizational Size. American Sociological Review 24: 201-219. Toles, T., E.M. Schulz, and W.K. Rice. 1986. A Study of variation in Dropout Rates Attributable to Effects of High Schools. Metropolitan Education 2:30-38. Tyack, D., and Cuban, L. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Slavin, R.E. Ed. 1989. School and Classroom Organization. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. Velez, W. and R. Saenz. 2001 Toward a Comprehensive Model of the School Leaving Process among Latinos. School Psychology Quarterly 16: 445-467. Whelage, G. and Robert Rutter. 1986. Dropping Out: How Much do Schools Contribute to the Problems? in Gary Natriello (ed.), School dropouts: Patterns and Policies New York: Teachers College Press. Weller, David L. 2000. School Attendance Problems: Using the TQM Tools to identify Root Causes. Journal of Educational Administration 38: 1 64-82.  See the Effects of High School Restructuring instrument attached to the back of this report.  This work is qualitative in nature.  For example, tracking (i.e. curricular placement), grade retention, and push-out behavior.  The data sources vary far more than the methodological approaches.  Hierarchical linear modeling PAGE 1 PAGE 6 JX h i BW*B"n"^#_###%&r&s&&&F)V)W),,V-q--..../ /3/i111 222~44545S55Q6g667778.88999:::;;;<%<>====>>???@K@l@AACJH*6CJ j0JU5665CJ[/JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXi~d&d d/JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXi~ @ h \ ABB"n"%&D)F)V),,,Z[<=4Qdd @ h \ ABB"n"%&D)F)V),$$$ $d$dd$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--x---- .$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--x---- . .`... /Z/x/y//h0i0000'11122q22238393344^4444@5A5555'6u6v6677n777%8>8?888899k9t9u99 : :f:::%;7;8;;;;<0<1<<<d . .`... /Z/x/y//h0i0000'11122q222383933444^4444@5A5555'6u6v6677n777%8>8?888899k9t9t9u99 : :f:::%;7;8;;;;<0<1<<<<M=== > >`>>>?<<M=== > >`>>>? ??c??? @3@4@@@@AAnAAA>BzB{BBCbCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC   /? ??c??? @3@4@@@@AAnAAA>BzB{BBCbCCCCC$$d$dAAAGBlB{B|BBBCCbCcCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC0JmH0J j0JU j0JU6CJCJCCCCCCCCCC$dh&`#$ / =!"#$% [(@(NormalCJmH >@> Heading 1$$d@&5<A@<Default Paragraph Font,>@,Title $d5BC@BBody Text Indent$d2@2 Footnote TextCJ8&@!8Footnote ReferenceH*,@2,Header  !, @B,Footer  !&)@Q& Page Number^r""?a,KN  aKKKKN?d           B"&(1`:? IBAC$0, .4t9?CC%'()+,-/1,<C&*. !!((z>{>???????((z>{>>>??????? hollygoerdeZC:\WINNT\Profiles\hollygoerde\Local Settings\Temp\AutoRecovery save of LatinoLitReview.asd hollygoerde0\\POLITICS\hollygoerde$\PERG\LatinoLitReview.doc hollygoerde0\\POLITICS\hollygoerde$\PERG\LatinoLitReview.doc hollygoerde0\\POLITICS\hollygoerde$\PERG\LatinoLitReview.doc hollygoerdeQC:\WINNT\Profiles\HOLLYG~2\LOCALS~1\Temp\AutoRecovery save of LatinoLitReview.asd hollygoerde0\\POLITICS\hollygoerde$\PERG\LatinoLitReview.doc hollygoerdeQC:\WINNT\Profiles\HOLLYG~2\LOCALS~1\Temp\AutoRecovery save of LatinoLitReview.asd hollygoerdeQC:\WINNT\Profiles\HOLLYG~2\LOCALS~1\Temp\AutoRecovery save of LatinoLitReview.asd hollygoerdeQC:\WINNT\Profiles\HOLLYG~2\LOCALS~1\Temp\AutoRecovery save of LatinoLitReview.asdrrocha3C:\WINNT\Profiles\rrocha.000\Desktop\hollyfinal.doc@((8*((?@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial"1hjqj 3 m !0dE?- Introduction hollygoerderrochaOh+'0   < H T `lt| Introductionontr hollygoerdeolloll Normal.dotrrochad128Microsoft Word 8.0@(8@Y{@"~{@,C  3՜.+,D՜.+,L hp  Texas A&M UniversityrodmE?1  Introduction Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{78F04AE8-36DD-4C15-8185-3044B6F7C3E3}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012456789:<=>?@ABDEFGHIJMRoot Entry Fy O1Table3WordDocumentdSummaryInformation(;DocumentSummaryInformation8CCompObjjObjectPool    FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q