Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T17:05:52.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting Student Engagement with School using the Check & Connect Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Sandra L. Christenson ,
Mary F. Sinclair ,
Martha L. Thurlow  and
David Evelo
Sandra L. Christenson
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Mary F. Sinclair
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Martha L. Thurlow
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Abstract

Enhancing coping skills of students at high risk of school dropout is critical, particularly when school demands increase. The data-based Check & Connect school engagement model, originally designed to reduce the risk for dropping out among secondary/middle school youth with learning and emotional/behavioural disabilities, is described. Also described in this article are the students' patterns of school engagement over time, for whom national US statistics indicate only 42 per cent to 61 per cent typically complete high school. Results indicate that the levels of school engagement vary and change over time, among these high risk adolescents, supporting the importance of focusing on alterable indicators of risk, rather than status predictor variables. Furthermore, students' risk for disengagement from school was significantly lower for the youth who received sustained intervention throughout grade nine, compared to similar youth who received intervention support throughout grade eight.

Type
Interventions
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 9 , Issue S1: Health, Well-being and Coping in Young People , August 1999 , pp. 169 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Braswell, L., & Bloomquist, M. (1991). Cognitive behavioural therapy for children with attention deficits and hyperactivity: A child, family and school model. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Catterall, J.S. (1987). On the social costs of dropping out of school. High School Journal, 71, 19–30.Google Scholar
Christenson, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., & Sinclair, M. F. (In press). Goal 2: School Completion. In R. Short & R. Talley, Psychology of education reform: Psychological perspectives on improving America's schools. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1987 August-September). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 32–38.Google Scholar
Egyed, C. J., Mcintosh, D.E., & Bull, K.S. (1998). School psychologists' perceptions of priorities for dealing with the dropout problem. Psychology in the Schools, 35(2), 153–162.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high school. In Natriello, G. (Ed.), School dropouts: Patterns and policies, (pp. 70–88). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59 (2), 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, J.D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Educational Statistics. Buffalo, NY: State University.Google Scholar
Frazer, L.H. & Wilkinson, L.S. (1990). At-risk students: Do we know which ones will drop out? Office of Research and Evaluation, Austin Independent School District. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Frydenberg, E. (1997). Adolescent coping: Theoretical and research perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grannis, J.C. (1994). The dropout prevention initiative in New York City: Educational reforms for at-risk students. In Rossi, R. J. (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change, (pp. 182–206). New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maehr, M.L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Trans-forming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Marder, C. & D'Amico, R. (1992). How well are youth with disabilities really doing? A comparison of youth with disabilities and youth in general. (SRI International Contract 300-87-0054). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.Google Scholar
McPartland, J.M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In Rossi, R. J. (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change, (pp. 255–276). New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
National Centre for Education Statistics. (1997). Dropout rates in the United States: 1996 (NCES 98250). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
Roderick, M. (1995, December). Grade retention and school dropout: Policy debate and research questions. The Re-search Bulletin, (No. 15). Bloomington, IN: Centre for Evaluation, Development, and Research and Phi Delta Kappa.Google Scholar
Rumberger, R.W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Hurley, C. & Evelo, D. (1998). Dropout prevention for high-risk youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. A. (1991). Program planning for at-risk students. In West, L.L. (Ed.), Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth, (pp. 43–74). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publications.Google Scholar
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom. NY: Simon & Shuster.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (1991). Dropouts with disabili-ties: What do we know? What can we do? A report from the national longitudinal transition study of special education students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.Google Scholar
Wolman, C., Bruininks, R.H. & Thurlow, M.L. (1989). Dropouts and dropout pro-grams: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 6–20, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ysseldyke, J.E. & Christenson, S.L. (1993). TIES-II: The Instructional Environment System-II. Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc.Google Scholar