‘ ‘

99,

-‘N

:31)
«cf- -. ,

p

r

15","

m
«a
‘ 14
L " 1...“.
. - q

.5?
.471“!
1‘”

 

-pu
,.

@4.‘

'0‘
_-

.1
3.5...-
‘1

M
1"." "I
511'
I- u
\ n
I n

'5» -
..

cu.
m» up

My"
mww

. T ‘

.Q

3157
' .‘bv‘s’E‘
" "("‘r’k
g, 'n4{,s:. _

 

zéfglitb'
’ (I? .gtf’

*.
.1-

A, “

an . . . n .. ‘3..."an
. ,

5'... . ‘ , .

.4..av---4~

a.» -v-

- ”WW
.1 - 1 - I "1 v ‘ ‘ _ . D “ ‘
'. . . . . . .4. ..- 1_ 1 «(quiz .N' J . ‘
I ' U .. ' Z. 9 - . .. . . . .a- ~ . ‘ ‘ . . 4‘"!
Lg; - ' . .-"-. ’ .g . ' .-.‘ ~ .‘ .. . v. _ < _ _
fig. ‘ - -r ”Syn-fl, A .‘ .
.2 ”3372' ‘ 5 Y" ‘ - -' ‘ ‘
... ‘. . . : .. ‘ A- . " -' ' ‘ ‘
. . . ’ . . ‘ ' , ' ' “. . .._ " . ‘ ‘ .. . . ‘ A
_ ' m" -; -' 7... '
. .. . ; A u! ,. . ‘ -‘ , . . v
< ' .. 57" Q J“ r_ r ' - ,
._ ‘ A if. . - ;. .‘a .. . 1 , A ; . .
c .. . ' v . . < V 'r 4} ' ‘v’ " . . , . . '. , . . . .
.3 l I O V - . ‘ ‘ v - . l A .
.. ‘ ' ‘ v I" ' I l‘ L v . ‘
A V . . 'V
‘ .. .- . ,
' . 9. T‘.:"‘” _ -., ._ w .J” #- A - V. .. t I A _
. ._ «. ,5? .. n» ‘ . ._ _ H J a... 2 . _ .. Q ~ .
...- '. :._ . 1.3 3.. ‘. .<' _ ‘ ‘ 1
‘2 .l. .-. A 1.. '7 », ~ ' - < w I‘ V ‘ .. v d... "
. ‘ . . v... .
.31.: .3 . .. .._ . - . a
,- .. ._.\ 1 J V - . ‘ . ~.
3- - ~.4 » ..._» ~" '2'
.I 0‘ It,
-A v-I;.I~rthlf:
r. - .-.,. (mun-p

.;.'.n. :1.

I:
l

A..\nh

..
.0 .— -
.3.

A «in».
loam...
u- m... .-

7

“a.” ._ .n

r

2'2
I

y .
‘5 H

. I
. I
2

{fin
.1

v ¢
.1

413;"

“00.
. - a..."
. updauo

‘1. v2.7; ,
"w 1 I '
..;. ax. . r.

w
:w
.1 v

«m,» _ .-

‘ Ml4v-v‘vhhu
W .

v‘l‘n’v

mum»

,

' 1:55."

‘2- . ‘
Vega

- IJ

non.
utv-‘n

a

":3“

 

é a 1’3“
fizifi‘fii

.
l .
,qul :W
9!;é:

asst

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

II IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII III III II IIIII

I LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
THE FAMILY PERSPECTIVE ON THE
INDIVIDUAL'S DECISION TO DROP
OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL

presented by

w~m~_i§;I: ..:

TgIreodm-ufiei’l -Ol{i2y—*~—~-

 

’c

has been accepted mmtfildjtmmm
of the requirements forI’I .4

Ph.D. 'n Educétional
AdminiStration

 

 

 

 

ajor professor

Date 1/12/90

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this choekout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or before date duo.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

1m 3 830m

 

inlmfifi
W
JLW 02-7599“ 91

”6‘4 2 @2074;

 

W9

 

 

DEC-m—EGBO

20103,”

 

 

JAN072U’33
3220 02

 

SEP““20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Alfinnativo Action/Equal Opportunlly Institution
m

pus-v.1

THE FAMILY PERSPECTIVE ON THE

INDIVIDUAL'S DECISION TO DROP OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL

by

Ted N. Okey

A DISSERTATION

presented to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1990

ABSTRACT

THE FAMILY PERSPECTIVE ON THE
INDIVIDUAL'S DECISION TO DROP OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL

by

Ted N. Okey

Pur se
The researcher's purpose was to describe and explain the family
perspective on the individual's decision to drop out of high school. More
specifically, the purpose was to investigate interactions between and among
dropouts, families, and schools. The investigation was divided according to the
family's experience with school, the dropout's experience with family, and the
dropout's experience with school. Finally, dropouts, families, and schools were

brought together and results of their interactions described and explained.

Sample and Method

 

The sample consisted of 12 dropouts and their families. All respondents
were white and resided in rural and suburban areas near small Midwestern
towns. Seven males and five females were selected using the technique of
"theoretical sampling" as formulated by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Initial
contacts were made through school administrators, counselors, and alternative
education teachers. The dropouts were interviewed, permission to speak to

parents was sought, and subsequently home contacts were made.

Ted N. Okey

The method was interview. All family interviews were taped and
transcribed. The interview methodology was informed by Gorden (1969, 1980,
1987) and Ives (1974). Subsequently, transcriptions were summarized and data
recorded. The tabulation of findings was informed by Miles and Huberman

(198 4).

Findings

Low economic and academic aspirations and achievement were found in
the generational family. A high dropout rate was discovered in the parents’
and grandparents' generations. Further, an instrumental view of education,
characterized by minimal compliance, was discovered. Early maturity, early
marriage, and early entrance into the workforce were found. The dropouts'
family experiences evidenced the presence of risk factors often associated
with family dysfunction. The interaction of the risk factors eroded the quality
of family life. An instrumental view of education and conferred or claimed
adult status are passed on in the family culture.

Finally, family culture conflicted with school culture at key points.
Dropping out culminated a process of negative interaction among dropout,
family, and school. The center of the conflict was the incongruence of family

and school culture.

Recommendations
Further study of other p0pulations, the school perspective, and the
experiences of successful students was recommended. Reviewing policies and
practices which track, sort, and label students and which encourage individual

competition was recommended.

Copyright by

TED N. OKEY

I990

DEDICATION

To Jim and Fran, who could have drOpped out,
but didn't.

And to Marcia, who did.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

These acknowledgements are of a personal and professional nature,
sometimes both.

First, thanks go to Dr. Philip Cusick, chairperson of my dissertation
committee. He not only suggested the topic, but his gift of countless hours
spent sharing ideas and experiences has supported and helped shape the
dissertation. He challenged me to stretch my thinking. The dissertation is the
response to Dr. Cusick's challenge. He has been a valued mentor, but, more
importantly, he became a friend.

To the other members of the committee, I am equally grateful. Without
their help and support, the dissertation would not have reached fruition. Dr.
Chris Wheeler shared his expertise as an interviewer and provided thoughtful
and demanding suggestions for improving the methodology. He introduced me
to the work of Reginald Clark. Dr. Sam Moore has been both a careful editor
and helpful advisor. His suggestions have helped improve the style and
readability of the dissertation. Further, he has used his experience to help the
researcher navigate the difficult waters of proposing, writing, and presenting a
dissertation. Dr. Chris Clark brought sensitivity and personal awareness to the
investigation of the family perspective. His suggestions for further reading
and for summarizing the data and his encouragement to "tell the story" are

deeply appreciated.

iv

To my typist, Ms. Barbara Reeves, who put the work into proper
dissertation format, special thanks. Quite simply, the researcher could not do
what she has done. Special thanks also to Ms. Hattie Damer, who listened to
hours of tapes and prepared over 600 pages of transcription. That she "heard
the story" and saw value in its telling were added bonuses.

Personal thanks go first to my wife, Dr. Merrilee J. Okey. Her roles as
wife and pediatrician came together in the form of valued feedback and
suggestions. She has not only endured my many hours away from home and
long hours at the computer, but she has also proofed, transcribed, and listened
to the chapters as they unfolded.

To the rest of my family, I offer thanks and apology. The older children,
Tyrell and Eric, have tolerated the disruption of family life with a resilience
known only to youth. The youngest, Neil, has asked frequently, "Daddy, when
will you be done typing?" The question may now be answered, "Soon, Neil,
soon."

To Betty Neal, my mother-in-law, additional thanks. Her thoughtful
comments have been appreciated.

Final thanks go to 12 remarkable families for giving me permission to tell
their stories. They have opened their hearts, their homes, and their
experiences. Some of the story is unpleasant, but such is the case with any
true human story. On occasion, tears and anger accompanied the story's
telling, but there were also laughter and sensitivity. I thank the families for

their courage, honesty, and openness.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

List of Figures

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM

Overview

Background

Theoretical Framework

Purpose and Research Questions
Methodology

Pilot Study

Significance

CHAPTER II: RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Introduction

Quantitative Studies of Dr0pouts

Qualitative Studies of Dropouts
Summary of Dropout Studies

Studies of Family

Chapter Summary

CHAPTER 111: ME THODOL OGY

Introduction
Theoretical Framework
Method of Data Collection
Sampling Techniques
Data Analysis
Research Questions and Tentative Conclusions
Field Procedures
Initial Field Experiences
Initial Interviews
Chapter Summary

vi

OOO\N‘—'

10
14
l6

I8

18
13

39
42
44
43

CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 86

The Setting 86
Dropouts and Their Families 92
The Roundtree/Walker Family 92
The Stanley Family 95
The Menges Family 97
The Clinton Family 99
The Vitale Family 102
The Small/Beauchamp Family 104
The Anderson/Workman Family 106
The Mandrick Family 108
The Rogers Family 109
The Collins/Hunt Family 111
The Henry/Griggs Family 113
The Walasek Family 115
Family Members' Experiences with School 118
Findings 119
The Grandparents and School 121
The Parents and School 124
Background Data 124
Parent Graduates 126
Gayle Walker 126
Lee Stanley 127
The Clintons 128
The Mandricks 131
Sandy Griggs 131
Becky Walasek 132
Larry Beauchamp 133
Tom Lamb 133
The Dropouts 134
Shirley Stanley 135
Donna Menges 137
The Vitales 138
Bobbi Beauchamp 138
Martha Workman 139
Arlene Rogers 139
Debby Lamb 139
Fred Griggs 140
Dan Walasek 140
Analysis of the Findings 142
The Dropouts' Family Experience 145
Findings 146
Family Experiences 150
Alcoholism and Abuse 152
Through the Dropouts' Eyes 152

Early Adult Status: Dropout Behaviors 159

vii

Other Family Risk Factors 164

Tammy Roundtree 164
Jason Stanley 164
Tommy Menges 165
Tom Clinton, Jr. 166
Sonny Vitale 166
Bobbi Sue Small 166
Wendy Anderson 167
Bob Mandrick, Jr. 167
Susan Rogers 168
Mickey Collins 168
Ricky Henry, Jr. 169
Virginia Walasek 169
Summary 170
Quality Life Experiences 170
Roundtree/ Walker 171
The Stanleys 172
The Menges 173
The Clintons _ 173
The Vitales 174
The Beauchamps 175
Workman/Anderson 175
The Mandricks 176
The Rogers 177
The Lambs 177
Henry/Griggs 178
The Walaseks 179
Summary 179
Analysis of Findings 180
The Dropouts' School Experiences 184
Findings 184
A Day at School 189
Teacher Traumas 192
Teachers Who Care 193
Tracking and Labeling 195
Conflict with the Formal Organization 198
Conflicts with Peers 208
Analysis of Findings 212
The DrOpout, the Family, and the School 214
Findings 216
The Family Perspective 219
Confronting the Family's Version of Reality 231
Family-School Conflict 233
The Individual's Decision to Dropout
Out of High School 240
Analysis of Findings 245

Chapter Summary 248

viii

CHAPTER V: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

Responding to the Research Questions
General Findings
The Conclusion
Refections

Comparison of Findings

Insights Regarding Family Patterns
Suggestions and Recommendations

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Application for Review of a Project
Involving Human Subjects

Appendix B: Consent Form

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ix

249

249
250
253
258
258
259
262
263

268

269

275

277

LIST OF TABLES

Gorden's Tools for Interviewing
Demographics of Families in the Sample
Family History of Dropout Behavior
Family Experiences as Risk Factors
Dropouts' School Experiences

Parental Involvement with School

58

65
120
149
191

217

LIST OF FIGURES

1. An illustration of the process leading to dropping out 247

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Overview

The dropout problem is a matter of national concern. The current
understanding of this problem is informed by a substantial body of quantitative
studies and massive data sets. Such studies make a valuable contribution to
existing knowledge (pp. 42-44, 49*). However, they fail to consider the family
as a living, dynamic social group within which the dropout functions (p. 42-43).
They assume causality without actually studying the family (p. 49). Further,
they fail to consider the complex interactions among the dropouts, families,
and schools (p. 42). Therefore, their contribution is insufficient as a base for a
complete understanding of the meaning of the act of dropping out (pp. 42-44).

Clark (1983) has provided fresh insight through his approach to the study
of the relationships among the individual, family, and school (pp. 43-44). While
he dealt specifically with school success and failure rather than the issue of
dropping out, his work suggests a method for a more thoughtful study of the
dropout problem. Clark argues that it is not the structure or personnel of a
family, but the quality of family life and how a family interacts that is truly
related to school success or failure (p. 49).

In agreeing with Clark, the researcher, interested in understanding drop

out behavior, is forced to embark on a more direct study of family life. The

 

*All page numbers cited are references to the areas where these topics
are elaborated upon in the dissertation.

value of such a study rests in its ability to describe and explain the perspective
of family in the individual's decision to drop out of high school through a
treatment of the family as a living, dynamic, social unit (p. 44).

Carrying Clark's work a step farther, this researcher chose to use an
interview methodology to study the situations which create this family
culture. Further, these situations were studied in connection with the
interactions Of the dropout, his/her family, and the school. The view was
taken that meaning could be extrapolated from their responses to school. If
the researcher wanted to understand dropping out, he would need to study

events within the context of family experiences and interactions (p. 68).

Background

 

Attempts to understand the current status and condition of the public
education system in the United States of the '805 are reflected in a
proliferation of national studies, privately funded projects, and research
reports. Frequent reference is made to the national dropout rate as a
powerful symbol of dysfunction within the system. National averages of 25%
have been reported by the National Center for Educational Statistics. In urban
districts the rates accelerate to over 40%; and when a minority group such as
Hispanic males is isolated, rates climb as high as 85%. Studies by Bachman et
a1. (1971, 1972), Masters (1969), Rosenthal (1983), Rumberger (1983), and others
describe dropouts in terms of their socioeconomic status, race, grade point
average, and other variables.

In 1987 the authors of The High school and Beyond Study (U.S.

 

Department of Education, 1984) issued a contractor report entitled "Who Drops

Out of High School?" based upon a synthesis of their original 1982 data. In
this report they conclude, "The factors most strongly and consistently linked
to the incidence of dropping out are indicators of family socioeconomic status
(SES) and other factors of family background" (p. 2). Utilizing multivariate
and bivariate comparisons, the researchers were able to identify the impact of
these factors on dropping out. Higher dr0pout rates were found to be related
to fathers having lower level occupations and to mothers who were
homemakers or held low-level occupations. Further, higher dropout rates were
reported for individuals whose parents had less than a high school education.
It was also found that dropout rates for the lowest quartile income level
families were more than three times greater than those in the highest quartile.
Other family background characteristics found to affect dropout
behavior included whether parents were present in the home as well as the
number of siblings. In homes where only a female parent was present, the
dropout rate was found to be 66% greater than that of intact families. When
the only parent was a male, this rate soared to 78%; if a child did not reside
with either parent, the rate was 215 times that of intact families. Finally, it
was found the dropout rate increased for every child beyond the third child.
The findings of The High School and Beyond Study are based on
questionnaires completed by over 25,000 members of the class of 1980 and are
among the more thorough of the current studies on dropping out behavior.
These findings, however, do not stand alone, but rather are supported by a
substantial volume of previous research. The researchers report, "Direct
evidence on the effects of family background on drOpping out is provided in

such studies as Combs and Cooley (1968), Nam, Rhodes, and Herriott (1968),

Bachman, Green, and Wirtanen (1971), Mare (1980), and Rumberger (1983)"
(p. 2).

In a study, based upon a survey of over 400 school districts in the state
of Michigan, Henneghan (1971) reported six family characteristics which were
found to have a relationship to increased likelihood of dropping out. These
were:

1. More children than parents can readily control.
2. Parents inconsistent in affection and discipline.
3. Unhappy family situation.

4. Family weak or absent.

5. Education of parents.

6. Few family friends (p. 80).

Research which has followed The High School and Beyond Study has
continued to support the effects of family background, SES, and other family

factors influencing dropping out behavior. In his work American Youth: A

 

Statistical Snapshot, Wetzel (1987) concludes, "Children from poverty
backgrounds are more likely to have learning disabilities, to fall behind in
school, and to drop out of school" (p. 12). Such a conclusion is consistent with

research dating back to Hollingshead's landmark work, Elmtown's Youth, in

 

which it also was found that those of lower SES were more likely to dr0p out.
Similar conclusions were reached by McMillan and Behrman (1987) in a
documentary prepared for the Public Broadcasting system entitled pg.
Troubled Teens. In their segment "Dropping Out: Quiet Killer of the
American Dream," they identified environmental, academic, survival, and

social factors related to dropping out. While they recognized that reasons for

dropping out are complex, family factors were listed first. According to the
authors,

. . . home and school life are often in conflict.

For whatever the reasons - frequent moves, an
overwhelmed single parent, undereducated or
disinterested parents - these children do not find

support at home for their education. Increasingly, they
may feel isolated, and withdraw from school life. (p. 40)

In a paper presented at the National Invitational Conference on Holding
Power and Dropouts held at Columbia University, Natriello, McDill, and Pallas
(1985) offered additional support for focusing on family conditions in terms of
understanding dropouts. They concluded, "The main reasons students drOp out
of school are poor grades and family and money problems" (p. 11). They go on
to state,

Conditions in the student's family can lead to an
increased likelihood of dr0pping out. Students from
single-parent homes are twice as likely to drop out of
school as are students living with both parents, and
eight of ten teenage mothers under the age of 17 never
finish high school. (p. 4)

While a more complete review of the related research was reserved for
Chapter II of this dissertation, it was evident from the research cited thus far
that the perspective of family on the individual's decision to drop out merited
investigation.

That family experiences play such an important role in adolescent life is
not surprising when placed in the perspective of the child's early life
experiences. These early life experiences are controlled and shaped almost
exclusively within the family setting, whatever form that may take. Further,
studies of child development provide consistent support for the view that much

of a child's personality, including core values and beliefs, may largely be

internalized by age three or four. Subsequently, usually at age five or six, the

child enters school. Here s/he is presented with a new environment with its
own formalized structure.

Success in school depends, initially, on the child's ability to adapt to this
new world and to conform to its rules, goals, and structures. Later, as the
child expands the boundaries of his/her.experience, the relationship with
school becomes interwoven with a more complex range of environments
established through the formation of friendships and affiliations with social or
religious groups, and so on. However, the environments of family and school
remain central to all of these interactions and to the individual's world.

Therefore, to understand the meaning an individual gives to the act of
dropping out, one must gain an understanding of the complex set of
interactions between the individual and his/her family, the individual and
school, as well as the family and school. What the researcher attempted to do
in this study was to provide this focus. More specifically, the study was an
attempt to describe the meaning of the act of dropping out as it is constructed

within the larger framework of the individual's collective family experience.

Theoretical Framework
In previous studies researchers have attempted to describe or explain
dropping out behavior by a set of conditions which will predict it. Such studies
ignore the role of the human being involved in constructing meaning in his
world. They ignore the fact that one individual with this set of "givens" is
likely to drop out, while another with the same set of "givens" is equally likely
to succeed in school. Rather, the majority of studies choose to describe this

individual by comparing him/her to other individuals with a set of radically

different life circumstances. No attempt is made to capture the meaning of
the act of drOpping out within the context of the family.

To study the meaning of an action such as dropping out, one must adopt a
theory which views the individual as an acting unit, a human being with a
unique self. In addition it must be one which captures the process of
interpretation which leads to an understanding of human interactions. To
accomplish these ends the study proceeded utilizing the theory of symbolic
interaction. As explained by Blumer (1962),

The term "symbolic interaction" refers, of course,
to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction
as it takes place between human beings. The
peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings
interpret or "define" each other's actions. Their
"response" is not made directly to the actions of one
another but instead is based on the meaning which they
attach to some actions. Thus, human interaction is
mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by
ascertaining the meaning of another's actions. This
mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of
interpretation between stimulus and response in the
case of human behavior. (p. 97)

While it was not the researcher's purpose in this study to explain the
theory of symbolic interaction, some further explanation of this process of
interpretation referred to as self-indication was deem ed necessary. According
to Blumer, "Self-indication is a moving communicative process in which the
individual notes things, assesses them, gives them a meaning, and decides to
act on the basis of the meaning" (p. 98). This process of self-indication depicts
human action as both constructed or built up as well as a step-by-step process.
Again quoting Blumer,

The process of self-indication by means of which
human action is formed cannot be accounted for by
factors which precede the act. The process of self-
indication exists in its own right and must be accepted

and studied as such. It is through this process that the
human being constructs his conscious action. (p. 99)

If one were able to capture the process of interpretation which led to the
act of dropping out using this theoretical framework, one might find a starting
point for a better understanding and, therefore, a more effective means of
addressing issues of pedagogy and family-school interactions. These
understandings could lead to or result in suggestions for a more successful
educational experience for future potential dropouts. At the very least, it was
an attempt to understand the process and to take it a step beyond most
previous studies in which dropping out was described as an outcome dependent

on a set of predictor variables void of meaning to the individual.

Purpose and Research Questions
The researcher's purpose in this study was to describe and explain the
family perspective on an individual's decision to drop out of school. To
accomplish this the researcher investigated the complex set of
interrelationships among the dropout, his/her family, and the school. The
following questions were designed to provide a framework for this
investigation.

I. How do dropouts define their family? This area of questioning was
concerned with family roles, norms, values, and interactions. The
dropout was viewed as an acting unit and the family the context
within which his/her actions occur. Focus was on the ways in which
the dr0pout objectifies or symbolizes family experiences.

2. How do family members react to, and interact with, the people and
Loups who make up school? Here focus was placed on the exchange
of information, communication processes, level of involvement, and

quality of interaction between other family members and the school.

3. How did other members of the family experience schooling? To
understand the dropout's concept of school, the construct of
schooling within the family unit must be understood.

4. Where, if at all, do family and schoolperceptions conflict? This was
perhaps the most vital area of questioning. Whatever assumptions
were made regarding the meaning of school, they needed to be
understood within the context of individual perceptions. By focusing
on areas where family perceptions conflicted with what is commonly
regarded as the formal structure of school, clues to the meaning of
the schooling experience for the dropout were sought.

5. What, if any,is the relationship between family experiences and the

 

decision to drop out? This was the broadest area of investigation in
the study. It explained the meaning dropping out had for the
individual within the context of his/her family experiences. In this
manner the intersection of family and school values, beliefs, and
normative structures were examined.

6. What meaning does the act of drgping out have for the individual?

 

The study attempted to describe the meaning given to the act of

dropping out based upon the findings from the previous questions

which focused on the individual's relationship with family and the

family's relationship with school. Attention was then shifted to

ways the dropout constructed reality throughout his/her collective
experiences within this framework.

The six areas of questioning presented here guided the interviews and

observations undertaken in this qualitative study. Unlike statistical

hypotheses which may be accepted or rejected, however, these questions

10

were designed to direct the search for an explanation and the possible
generation of hypotheses for future testing. As the study proceeded, they led
to new or unanticipated avenues for research and to new lines of inquiry. If
the areas of questioning were properly selected, it was anticipated that
several strands or themes would emerge from the personal data offering fresh

insight regarding themeaning of dropping out.

Methodology

 

It is the job of the student who undertakes qualitative research using the
theory of symbolic interaction to, as Blumer (1962) states, ". . . catch the
process of interpretation through which they (the dropouts) construct their
actions (dropping out)" (p. 101). He goes on to state that,

This process is not to be caught merely by turning
to conditions which are antecedent to the process.
Such antecedent conditions are helpful in understanding
the process insofar as they enter into it but . . . they do
not constitute the process. Nor can one catch the
process merely by inferring its nature from the overt
action which is its product. To catch the process the
student must take the role of the acting unit whose
behavior he is studying. (p. 101)

The researcher's purpose in this study was to investigate the family
perspective on the individual's decision to drop out of high school. Interest
was in gaining a better understanding of dropping out within the context of
family experiences and family-school interactions. Since the act itself had
already occurred and could not be directly observed, the benefits of
participant observation were lost. The researcher, therefore, looked to the
individual as the best source in reconstructing the meaning of this act. To

accomplish this the methodology of the personal interview was adopted.

Through a series of such interviews with dr0pouts and their family members,

11

the act of dropping out was investigated and meaning extrapolated from the
investigation.

All those selected met the following definition of a dropout as adopted
by the State Board of Education of Michigan:

A dropout from a regular K-12 school program is a
student who has been enrolled in a district but leaves,
for any reason other than death, the regular school
program in that district before graduating and does not
re-enroll in another regular K-12 school program.

The selected group was limited to a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15
dropouts and their families. Subjects were found within a 100 mile radius of an
urban area in the midwest. The dropout respondents selected for interview
were from rural and suburban school districts. They were either currently
enrolled in alternative programs or they had remained permanently out of
school. Since interest was in the events, experiences, behaviors, and
interactions which led up to the act of dropping out, being recaptured in the
system was not viewed as a limitation. Respondents needed to be at least 16,
the legal age for dropping out. To provide some control against internal
threats to validity such as history, time, and maturation, dr0pouts beyond age
20 were not interviewed. It was hoped that this control would provide a more
representative sample of recent dropouts who had not had significant time to
restructure their perspective on the events leading up to their dropping out.

Each respondent was presented with an explanation of the purposes of
the study and the areas of questioning. A consent form was obtained from all
respondents. For those under age 18, the signature of a legal guardian was also
obtained. The consent form explained that the respondents were under no

obligation to participate and could, if they did choose to participate, withdraw

from the study at any time without any harmful consequences. Benefits to the'

12

respondents were limited to whatever, if any, therapeutic value telling their
story had. There was no remuneration of any kind. Conditions for keeping all
names anonymous, as well as any risks to the individual, were thoroughly
detailed.

Each dropout respondent was interviewed privately. Interviews were
limited to one hour in length, and no more than three interviews were
scheduled with any one respondent drOpout. Interviews were either taped to
ensure the accuracy of anecdotal records or the interviewer took notes which
were taped within two hours of the interview and later transcribed, edited, and
synthesized for relevant strands or themes. All family interviews were taped.

The researcher asked each dropout respondent for permission to speak to
other family members, including brothers, sisters, parents, stepparents, and
any other significant family members or persons living in the household. If
permission were granted, the name was recorded for possible use in the final
sample.

Beyond general, introductory comments and icebreaker questions, all
interviews were guided by the six research questions previously presented. As
each interview was a unique experience, however, the researcher remained
flexible, allowing the respondent some latitude in guiding the interview
developmentally. Transcriptions and tapes were analyzed according to each of
the six areas. Results were reported with the support of actual quotes and
specific events. In selecting data every attempt was made to remain faithful
to the interpretations and perceptions of the respondents. Data were
identified as making a unique contribution or as representative of the selected
group. Editorial comments and the interpretations of the researcher were

restricted to the conclusion of the paper.

13

As with all qualitative studies, there were concerns with its
generalizability. This study was limited to a small group of dropouts from
rural and suburban districts in a specific geographical area. Minority youth
and urban districts were not studied. As such, no claims of broad
generalizability were made. This is not to say, however, that careful readers
may not find fresh insights into the meaning of dropping out, nor that the
study may not contribute to a broader understanding of dropout behavior. As
language is constructed and given meaning word by word, phrase by phrase, it
is suggested that human behavior is best understood when examined step by
step, act by act. The same concern may be raised in terms of the
representativeness of the sample and the same limitations are readily
acknowledged.

A final limitation was the absence of quantifiable data or statistical
measures of reliability and validity. This objection has been addressed by
Cusick (1973). He stated,

As one lives close to a situation, his description
and explanation of it have a first-person quality which
other methodologies lack. As he continues to live close
to and moves deeper into that situation, his perceptions
have a validity that is simply unapproachable by any so-
called standardized method. Likewise, as his validity
becomes better, so his reliability, which is an extension
of his validity, becomes better. As the researcher is
the actual instrument, as he becomes more aware, more
valid, so he must of necessity become more reliable.
(p. 232)
In conducting this investigation, the researcher was guided by the general
assumption that success in school is related to the individual's family
experiences and the meaning of school which is created and reinforced within

the context of family life. In other words, the perspective of family is key to

an understanding of how the individual constructs his/her sense of reality

l4
regarding school experiences. Therefore, a careful investigation of the
interaction between family experiences and school experiences should lead to

a better understanding of the individual's decision to drop out of school.

Pilot StudJ

 

The plan for this research was informed by a pilot study of dropouts
conducted by this investigator in December of 1988. The focus of the study
was on four variables: family background, early education experience, peer
group relations, and school tracking policies. For each of these variables, the
question of how it effects the behavior of dr0pping out was asked. Further,
the interaction and interrelationship of these variables was pursued.

A single school district in a rural community was selected as the site for
the study. The selection of volunteers was made in cooperation with a local
administrator, counselor, and alternative education teacher from the site
district. A list of dropouts was generated from which a sample of seven, four
male and three female, was selected. At the same time permission was
obtained to review their cumulative records to help verify interview data.

The pilot study used an interview-only method based upon a set of open-
ended questions written for each of the areas of investigation previously
mentioned. Volunteers for the study were interviewed in segments limited to
one hour in length with a maximum of three interviews per subject. Prior to
the first interview, volunteers were read a consent form detailing the purposes
of the study, the potential risks to the volunteer, and their right to withdraw
without penalty at any time.

The initial interview Opened with icebreaker questions and sought

general background information regarding the volunteers. Thorough notes

15

were taken and dictated onto tape within two hours of the interview. This
tape was then transcribed and later edited. The final transcript was used to
generate follow-up questions for future interviews. In this fashion the
investigator pursued patterns or themes which appeared relevant to the
volunteer's decision to drop out.

A wide range of characteristics which appeared representative of studies
of larger dropout populations were found among the volunteers in this study.
Intelligence scores ranged from one being in the above average category to
others which were well below average. (Family backgrounds included one
subject living with natural parents and one 17 year old who was emancipated.
The remainder lived in some form of single or stepparent home. All families
were from lower middle class to poverty level households. Two of the subjects
had been retained at least once in a grade level prior to high school. One
subject was an unmarried teenage mother living at home. One subject had
been expelled from a previous school system. Several of the subjects had
histories of disciplinary problems in school with two having more serious
involvement with law enforcement officials. Five of the seven volunteers
openly discussed frequent alcohol and drug use. All volunteers indicated they
were sexually active.

Despite the wide range of experiences revealed in these interviews, the
most consistent finding in the study was the presence of family dynamics that
,were dysfunctional with respect to school goals. As previously mentioned,
only one of the seven volunteers lived in an intact household. A history of
alcoholism was found in the families of all of the volunteers. This alcoholism
was not limited to parents but also involved siblings and other relatives as

well. In addition to these patterns of divorce and alcoholism, a pattern of

16

physical abuse was found. One 18 year old male subject indicated he is still
slapped around by a 260 pound stepfather. All of the females in the study
indicated physical abuse from their stepfathers or their mothers' male
companions. Several subjects described seeing their mothers beaten by these
same individuals. Frequent moves were another pattern observed. Only one of
the seven subjects had attended the same school district for her entire school
career.

When asked the specific question, "Why do you think you quit school?"
the most frequent response related to family. As one 18 year old female from
a family of seven brothers and sisters stated,

I don't think it is school. I think it is homelife.
Look at the pattern in my whole family. No one else
except my brother . . . has graduated. I've always done
what I wanted to do. I don't think school could have
done much to help.

Based upon the findings from the pilot study and with the support of
several major research studies, the decision was made to focus on family
experiences in studying further the individual's decision to drop out. Since it
was found that these dropouts were extremely open regarding their personal
experiences and appeared eager to tell their stories to someone willing to
listen, the decision also was made to continue the interview style of

information gathering. Finally, it was decided that, where possible, interviews

would be extended to include other family members.

Significance

 

The importance of this study was that the researcher chose to focus on
the events, experiences, behaviors, and interactions between and among

dropouts, their families, and schools. The individual dr0pout was viewed as an

17

acting unit, giving meaning to human actions through a continual process of

self-indication. By focusing on the dropout as the acting unit and by

describing his/her actions from the perspective and within the context of the

family and its influence on this set of self-indications, new insights regarding

the act of dropping out are offered. For those who care to build upon this

research, it may serve as a starting point for a better understanding of

schooling experiences, especially what has been viewed as school failure, that

is, dropping out.

Specific contributions or potential outcomes included the following:

1.

4.

A broader understanding of family dynamics and the meaning of
family to dropouts.

A broader understanding of the interaction between the family
members of dropouts and the people and groups which make up
school organizations.

A broader understanding of the relationship between the
dropout's family members' experience with schooling and the
individual's decision to drop out.

A broader understanding of the differing perceptions of school
which result in conflict for the dropout.

A broader understanding regarding the relationship between
family experiences and the act of drOpping out.

A broader understanding of the meaning of dropping out from

the individual's perspective.

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Introduction

 

The researcher's purpose in this study was to investigate the family
perspective on the individual's decision to drop out of high school. There are
two literatures which pertain to this research. The first consists of studies
which discuss the family background and family characteristics of dr0pouts.
While hundreds of articles, studies, and reports examine the variables related
to the decision to dropout, the literature in which family background and
characteristics is discussed is more limited. Major studies in this category
were reviewed in a chronological framework. The researcher examined the
method of data collection as well as the significant findings and conclusions.

The second body of literature deals with the application of the theory of
symbolic interaction to the study of family. This review was limited to a
small number of major works which demonstrate this theory's appropriateness
and effectiveness in studying family.

This review provided a picture of the current knowledge of family
perspective on the individual's decision to dr0p out of high school and

supported the need for this research.

Quantitative Studies of Dropouts

 

In his 1966 work Preventing Student Dropouts, Greene provides an

historical review of the earliest literature linking family characteristics to

18

l9

drOpping out. This review begins with the work of Counts (1922) who,
according to Greene, found that, "By the time the senior year is reached, the
student body exhibits a distinctly class character" (p. 21). Following the work
of Counts is that of Dear (1933). Dear collected information on the
"occupations of fathers of children in eight Michigan schools" (pp. 16-17) by
giving students questionnaires. He found that even though there was a greater
proportion of laboring class children in grades 9-12 than non-laboring class
children, the latter stayed in school longer. Greene states, "This is one of the
earliest studies to demonstrate the relationship between social class and
dropping out of school" (p. 17).

Other early studies cited by Greene which make this family connection

include Warner et a1.'s Social Class in America (1949) and Hollingshead's

 

Elmtown's Youth (1949). Both are field studies in which the authors found a
strong relationship between family socioeconomic status (SES) and drOpping
out. Warner concluded that SES could be used to predict dropouts. This
conclusion was supported by Hollingshead's finding that the largest number of
dropouts were from the lowest socioeconomic group.

Following the work of Warner and Hollingshead, Bowman and Mathews
(1960) conducted an eight-year longitudinal study of students in, Illinois. The
study tracked a group which began sixth grade in the 1951-52 school year. For
two years those students who dropped out after tenth grade were interviewed.
Greene states that the authors found students who drOpped out "were
significantly lower in social status than the students who stayed in school" (p.
18).

In all the studies Greene reviewed, the key characteristic of family

related to drOpping out is social class. While Greene's work is limited to a

20

review of previous research, particularly to studies of a sociological nature, he
draws several fresh conclusions. Citing the many studies which focus on SES
as related to dropping out, Greene concludes, "This typically means that the
parents in these homes have little education themselves and are employed in
semi-skilled or unskilled jobs" (p. 27). He goes on to say,
It is not unusual to find that dropouts come from
homes where the parents are separated or where family
interpersonal relationships are weak. In these
situations, it is found that the home fails to provide the
love, affection, understanding, and the emotional
security which is necessary to the normal development
of young people . . . .
Another factor related to socio-economic class is
the level of aspiration of the students and their parents
. . . . It is difficult to convince these parents that
education is directly related to the goals they hold for
their children.
One of the major characteristics of these students
and of their parents is the need for immediate
gratification . . . . It is difficult for them to realize
that the rewards will be greater later if they prepare
themselves now. (pp. 27-28)
These findings reveal Greene's awareness of the importance of family
characteristics beyond SES. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the absence of
data supporting these findings, as well as the lack of any theory or concept of
family, reduces their status to that of conjecture.

In 1960 the Project TALENT Office of the American Institute for
Research embarked upon one of the first and largest national studies to
provide significant data for a better understanding of dropouts. The study
followed 440,000 students in over 1300 high schools through the years 1960 to
1964. Initially, all students were given a test battery which involved IQ tests.
Data were also gathered regarding "differential aptitudes and abilities,

interest, self-perceptions, socioeconomic environment, school curriculum,

career plans, and a variety of post-high school activities" (pp.343-344). A

21

follow-up questionnaire, to which 37% of the original participants responded,
was given in 1964.

The importance of this study is twofold. First, it is longitudinal and,
second, it provides "a probability sample of the entire ninth grade population"
(p. 343). This, according to the authors, makes it "possible to estimate
parameters of the dropout population which could not be estimated previously"
(p. 343).

The TALENT study identified 1864 dropout males and 1817 dropout
females. The results of their test batteries were compared to a control
sample of stay-ins which included 1757 males and 2056 females. It was found
that 61% of the drOpouts and stay-ins who tested in the bottom quarter on
aptitude and ability scales were from the lowest socioeconomic level, while
only 3% in the t0p quarter on aptitude and ability were from the lowest
socioeconomic level.

Although the study does not make a direct attempt to identify specifics
of family background as relating to dropping out, its authors do reach the
following conclusion regarding male dropouts: "The reason for failure,
however, may have been that he was working every night to help support his
family" (p. 351). This, once again, suggests that children from families with
lower SES are more likely to have lower ability and aptitude scores and higher
dropout rates.

At the same time Combs and Cooley (1968) were analyzing Project
TALENT data, Cervantes (1965) was conducting his own study of dropouts at
the University of Michigan. His is one of the first studies which "focuses upon
the structure, dynamics, and emotional climate of the family into which the

teen-age respondent was born" (p. 7). Given this focus, Cervantes established

22

the following hypothesis related to family: "The dropout is reared in a family
which has less solidarity, less primary relatedness, and less paternal influence
than does the family in which the graduate is placed" (p. 8).

To test this hypothesis, Cervantes used an interview schedule and a
questionnaire to gather data on dropouts from schools in the cities of New
Orleans, Boston, St. Louis, Omaha, Denver, and Los Angeles. Dropouts in New
Orleans and Boston were also given the Thematic Apperception Test. His
conceptual framework in approaching these interviews was that of family
being the primary group for the dropout. In regard to this hypothesis,
Cervantes concluded:

, . . . no matter what other variables are at work,
the nuclear family is of critical import in the
consideration of the dropout problem. A law of
polarization evidenced in the parent-youth world today
is that the dropout is the product, generally Speaking,
of an inadequate family and the graduate is a product
of an adequate family. The proletariat of tomorrow
springs from the loins of a disintegrate family. The
family which nurtured the youth who did not continue
his education is of a different caliber than that which
produced the teenager who continued his education at
least into his eighteenth year. (p. 37)

Cervantes' study, as evidenced by its frequent citation, is among the
more thorough and perhaps the most valuable of its time in terms of its in-
depth approach to the relationship between family role and dropping out. As
mentioned, he focuses on the structure, dynamics, and emotional climate of
the family as it affects the individual's decision to drop out. His case study
approach lends character and richness to his presentation of data.

A major limitation of Cervantes' work is that he chose to interview only

the drOpouts. He made no attempt to enter the homes or interview the

23

members of the dropouts' families. Therefore, one must take the word of the
dropout in terms of his/her depiction of family life.

From 1965 to 1971 the Stay-in-School Project, supported by a grant from
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as well as funds from
private philanthrOpies, operated in lower income neighborhoods in New York
City. Its purpose was to identify potential dropouts and to find ways to assist
them to stay in school. In addition, the project served as a center for data
collection research "to compare the individual and family characteristics of
dropouts and non-dropouts within the study group" (p. 6).

Data were collected from records of "ethnically mixed but sexually
separated" (p. 10) small groups which met regularly with the program social
worker-counselors. Records of these small group meetings were analyzed to
uncover "important material related to staying in school" (p. 10). It was found
that family problems were addressed frequently in every group.

The program enrolled between 120-141 potential dropouts. The program
provided services to clients and also provided counseling for their parents.
This work led to three significant findings. First, it was found that 31.7% of
the crises situations students discussed dealt with family situations. Second, it
was discovered that these parents were unable to "engage the school system on
behalf of their children" (p. 15). Finally, it was found that these parents also
had difficulty "controlling the problems encountered by their children in the
local community" (p. 15).

The importance of this study is twofold. First, by providing parent input,
it is one of the earliest to offer a perspective on the difficulties lower income
families face regarding their interactions with both the school and the

community. It reveals the difficulties they have seeking support for their

24

children. Second, it places the struggles they face in the context of class
conflict. In doing so the project staff was able to "legitimate avenues to
achieving their (the families) collective interests in the context of society as a
whole" (p. 105). A unique feature of this study was its active involvement in
keeping potential dropouts in school, rather than merely studying their
characteristics.

The next major dropout study was the Youth in Transition Project
sponsored by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.
This project ran from 1966-1970. It followed 2213 male members of the class of
1969 from 87 schools for all four years. From the final sample of 1620 boys
who stayed with the study, 286 dropouts were identified. Of this number, 157
remained in the study.

In 1971 Bachman, Green, and Wirtanen issued their report on this study
entitled Dropping Out - Problem or Symptom? In stating their purpose they
said, "We want to distinguish between dropping out as a symptom of prior
difficulties and dr0pping out as a problem in its own right, leading to new or
increased difficulties" (p. 10). The study dealt with eight dimensions of family
background. .

An elaborate set of research methods was developed. In the initial
sample each student was personally interviewed for two hours. All were given
a battery of tests and completed questionnaires. In 1968 the personal
interview and questionnaire were repeated. In 1969 only the questionnaire was
repeated, and in 1970 the interview and questionnaire were repeated. In 1970
new information was sought regarding post high school work or educational

experiences.

25

The following were the chief findings regarding dimensions of family
background related to dropping out:
-- socioeconomic level (SEL) was most important;

-- educational attainment was lower among boys
from large families;

-- dropping out occurred roughly twice as often
among boys from broken homes; and

-- educational attainment was also lower among
boys who reported high levels of parental
punitiveness. (p. 51)

In summarizing their findings they reported:
The family background characteristics and the verbal
skill dimensions were found to be largely overlapping in
their impact. We interpret this as indicating that the
impact of family background on educational attainment
occurs largely through academic skills as intervening
variables. (p. 51)
In their concluding chapter they stated:
Dropping out is symptomatic of certain background and
ability characteristics, school experiences, and traits of
personality and behavior. (p. 171)
Earlier in the same chapter they reported:
Dropping out of high school is overrated as a problem in
its own right—it is far more appropriately viewed as the
end result or symptom of other problems which have
their origin much earlier in life. (p. 169)
The impact of viewing dropping out as a symptom of previous problems
rather than as a school problem resulted in several highly controversial
recommendations. These included:

1. the anti—dropout campaign be sharply curtailed,

2. greater emphasis be placed on early school and
pre-school intervention, and

26

3. the range of educational opportunity for young

people aged 16 to 18 be broadened and serious

consideration be given to reducing the number of

years necessary for attaining a high school

diploma. (p. 183)
What is noticeably absent from these recommendations is any plan for dealing
with the four family dimensions previously cited which were found to be
significantly related to dropping out. Also absent is any treatment of family
other than as a variable to be considered across several dimensions. That
families exist as dynamic living groups received no consideration.

In 1980 Beck and Muia revisited the research from the Youth in
Transition Study and the work of Cervantes (1965) fromIthe perspective that
dropping out is of more concern as a symptom than directly as an educational
problem. While their work does not include new data, their focus on the
school's responsibility in terms of prevention provides the step which Bachman,
Green, and Wirtanen failed to take.

Beck and Muia place particular emphasis on the conditions of family life
in studying the dropout. Their findings repeat the conclusion that "the lower
the socioeconomic level of his family, the greater is a student's chance of
becoming a dropout" (p. 66). However, unlike many previous studies which
treat family passively, Beck and Muia go further, stating that, "Perhaps the
primary characteristic of the high school dropout is an unsatisfactory
relationship with his family" (p. 66).

Taking Greene's focus on family relationships one step farther,.Beck and
Muia give consideration to the ways in which this relationship affects the
potential dropout's relationships with schooling. They draw heavily on

Cervantes' findings such as the dropout's family is "less able to communicate

than the graduate's family" (p. 66). However, rather than viewing the dropout

27

as a passive person caught up in and controlled by these factors, Beck and
Muia consider how the dropout, as a living, active being, is affected by these
conditions.

This human interest emphasis on the dropout is further illustrated by the
following finding. In reviewing survey data Beck and Muia found that 82% of
successful graduates felt they were treated as total people within their
families. Among the dropout pepulation, only 16% felt they were thus treated
as total people. Dropouts, according to Beck and Muia, are raised in homes in
which there is a basic lack of trust and acceptance of them. "Sixty-two
percent of the dr0pouts saw their home lives as unhappy" (p. 66). Parents of
drOpouts are apathetic toward education. Once again the authors quote
Cervantes (1965) who found that for dropouts, ". . . there is not one person in
their home in whom they can confide, with whom they enjoy being during
leisure hours, and who they feel understands and accepts them" (p. 34).

The authors found that this lack of trust, understanding, acceptance, and
support was associated with lower class families. They viewed the culture of
these families as problematic in the children upon entering school. They
portray success for the child as dependent upon abandoning the family's
cultural values and their identity with the family. To avoid this, they claim,
means early identification of dropouts is essential. Appropriate treatment of
these children when they are young is of greatest importance.

The policies Beck and Muia promoted are based on an egalitarian ideal of
schooling. In addition schools are viewed as agencies of upward social mobility
which can alleviate or amend, rather than merely reproduce, the
disadvantaged conditions of these children from unhappy homes. While they

must be lauded for their faith that schools can enhance the dropout's chances

28

of success through fairer treatment, through valuing the individual, and
through early intervention, it is perhaps naive to formulate such plans with no
mention of involving the families concerned. As with many previous studies,
Beck and Muia fail to advance a theory or concept for the study of the actual
effects of these family conditions on the individual who drops out. The result
is recommendations based upon assumptions, not grounded in the study of
family, but made through the interpretation of survey data and questionnaires.
Rumberger's 1983 report, "Dropping Out of High School: The Influences
of Race, Sex, and Family Background," is the first included in this review to
base its findings on the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Labor
Market Experience conducted by the Center for Human Resource Research at
The Ohio State University. This report is a restatement of an earlier 1981 work
entitled "Why Kids Drop Out of School," sponsored by the U. 5. Departments of
Education and Labor. It examines "the influence of family background and
several other factors on the propensity to drop out among several race and sex
groups" (p. 203).
The data provided in this study are based upon

. . . annual interviews of a national sample of

12,700 young men and women between the ages of 14

and 21, with an overrepresentation of blacks, Hispanics,

and poor whites. The data include a variety of

information on the respondents' background

characteristics, attitudes, aspirations, educational and
labor market experience, and personal characteristics.

(p. 204)
Rumberger limits his analysis to those respondents who were 18 to 21 years of
age and out of school. The six groups studied are black females, Hispanic

females, white females, black males, Hispanic males, and white males.

29

Rumberger emphasizes the difficulty in determining "causality from all
the various factors" (p. 203). He points out that, "Causality can be more easily
inferred for family background . . . because these characteristics are fixed or
determined well before the act of dropping out" (p. 203). Further, he considers
the difficulty in "determining the magnitude of various factors" (p. 203). He
argues that each factor related to dropping out is influenced by other factors.
He illustrates this with the following example, "Ability affects the propensity
to drOp out of high school, yet ability is affected by early family environment
and other background characteristics" (p. 203).

Another of Rumberger's findings is that, "In general, the results support
previous findings that show family background to be a powerful predictor of
dropout behavior" (p. 205). However, his findings do not stop here. Through an
analysis of the six race and gender groups, Rumberger concludes, "Family
background strongly influences the propensity to drop out of school and
accounts for virtually all the racial differences in dropout rates" (p. 199). In
other words, when factors such as economic status, parents' educational level,
and cultural indices are controlled, dropout rates are the same across races.
"Family background influences the probability of dropping out for members of
all race and sex groups" (p. 211).

Based upon these findings, Rumberger concludes, "The significant
influence of family background suggests that the tendency to drop out begins
early in a student's life. Attempts to combat the problem should therefore be
initiated at an early age as well" (p. 211).

While Rumberger's conclusions echo previous studies, his findings on race
and gender add fresh insight to the study of drOpouts. These findings lend new

evidence to the importance of considering family background as it influences

30

dropping out. Although one might expect Rumberger to use these findings as a
springboard for recommending that families be studied more closely to
determine their underlying dynamics or interactions, he fails to do so. Once
again this is a study which treats family passively and offers no theory for its
study.

The High School and Beyond Study (HSch) is one of the largest studies

 

sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education to consider the dropout
problem. This study followed the sophomore class of 1980 for two years,
sampling 30,030 students in 1015 high schools nationwide. The 1982 follow-up
study found 25,875 subjects retained in the sample. Using the following
definition of a dropout as presented in the 1987 contractor report entitled W_ho_
Drops Out of High School? Findings from High School and Beyond, 2148
dropout cases were identified.
A dropout is a person who was a high school
sophomore in Spring, 1980, but who was neither enrolled
in the high school nor a high school graduate or the
equivalent at the time of the follow-up survey in
Spring, 1982. (p. 10)

Data in this study were collected using student-completed
questionnaires. In addition, students took a battery of achievement and
aptitude tests. A major data category in the study was that of family
background. The personal and family attributes considered included
socioeconomic status, parents' occupational levels, parents' educational levels,
family income, presence of parents in the home, number of siblings, and
religious affiliation.

By applying multivariate and cross-tabulation techniques the researchers

were able to compare dropouts by race, class, gender, and location of

residence across all of these factors. Their findings add' new information in

31

terms of these specific comparisons, but the general findings are not
surprising. The researchers found that, "The factors most strongly and
consistently linked to the incidence of dropping out are indicators of family
socioeconomic status (SES) and other aspects of family background" (p. 2).

The comparison of dropout characteristics to those of school completers
makes an abundance of weighted estimates possible. One example is the
researcher's conclusion that,

Students with the least favorable background
characteristics—those with parents in low-level jobs,
parents who are relatively uneducated (especially those
parents who are high school dropouts themselves), who
came from one-parent households and large families--
are three to five times more at risk of not completing
high school than students from advantaged backgrounds.
(p. 35)

The purpose of the HSch study was strictly to compile statistics on the
data collected through the use of student questionnaires. No recommendations
are offered for dealing with the dropout problem. No theory of the study of
family is hinted at. The study merely takes self-reported data and categorizes
it and then applies statistical methods of regression and analysis of variance to
infer causal relationships. Its value is in the vast quantity of statistical data it
provides. Its importance is evidenced by the fact that the majority of non-
ethnographic dropout studies which followed HSch in the mid-80$ relied
heavily on these data, using them to forward a variety of interpretations and
recommendations.

In 1986 and 1987 the Institute of Educational Research issued two reports
which summarized the findings of a 1985 national conference on the dropout

problem sponsored through grants from the Carnegie Corporation and Exxon.

Both reports, School Dropouts: Everybody's Problem and Dropouts in America:

32

Enough Is Known for Action, use HSch study data to focus attention on the
effects of school experiences on disadvantaged students. Both also focus their
efforts on policy recommendations for dealing with the dropout problem. The
major difference in the two studies is that while the first dedicates more
space to laying out the dropout problem, the second attends more to policy
ideas.

In his interpretation of the HScScB data, Ranbom (1986) found that in-
school factors were the primary cause of dropping out. However, in
considering family conditions as a second set of factors he places his focus on
two findings which previous studies either failed to identify or failed to treat
as prominent. The first is teenage pregnancy. Relating this to negative
family situations, Ranbom states "the foremost of which is teenage pregnancy-
-a problem considered to have reached epidemic proportions in some large
cities" (p. 16). The second is single-parent homes. Again quoting Ranbom, ". .
. students from single-parent families are twice as likely to drop out of school
as are students living with both parents" (p. 16).

The author states that reform measures which focus merely on raising
standards are likely to increase the risk of dropping out. To emphasize his

point he states,

Figures gathered by Education Week indicate that
between February 1983 and February 1985, 43 states
raised their high school graduation requirements.

Between February 1984 and February 1985, 15 states
introduced exit tests for high school graduation and 37
states introduced statewide assessments, eight of which
tied assessments to "promotional gates." "The fear of
many educators who deal with at-risk students is that
these new demands for competency are like asking a

high jumper who cannot cross a four-foot bar to jump a
six-foot bar instead." (p.28)

 

33

Yet, Ranbom (1986) does not frame the solution to the problem in terms of
family factors. His focus is revealed in the following statement, "While
individual states pour millions of dollars into school reforms that promote
'excellence,' they continue to overlook 'equality' matters that are particularly
vital to helping potential dropouts continue in school" (p. 3).

In these studies one finds two more examples of the failure to consider
family interactions or dynamics. The need for schools to find more effective
ways to communicate or interact with families is ignored. Instead, emphasis is
placed on the school's responsibility to provide a variety of options, including
second chance programs and the development of job skills. In this framework,
dealing with the dropout problem is conceived of as a school function and
consequently dropping out is viewed as the failure of current school programs.

Both of these studies hint at a class conflict orientation emphasizing how
the educational system benefits those of middle and upper class status.
Despite their emphasis on equity, however, their recommendations do not
focus on common curricula or bringing the potential dropouts into the
mainstream. Instead, they focus on vocational training and job placement.
They not only ignore the active role of family, but by promoting vocational
education and job skills as more appropriate for dropouts than an academic
education, they may also be criticized as being unfaithful to their own concept
of equal education for all.

Four additional studies begin in the early 805 and published in 1986 or
1987 which draw slightly different conclusions based upon the HSch study data
are worthy of inclusion in this review. Two are included in a 1986 anthology
entitled School Dropouts, edited by Natriello. These are "Who Drops Out of

High School and Why? Findings from a National Study" and "Dropping Out:

34

How Much Do Schools Contribute to the Problem?" The third focuses on the
dropout problem in large cities and is entitled Dealing with Dropouts: The
Urban Superintendents' Call to Action. The fourth is Coleman and Hoffer's
1987 work Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities.

In 1983 Ekstrom et al., at the Educational Testing Service, undertook a
detailed analysis of the HSch data. They felt "a thorough investigation of
models of the process of schooling and of causal relationships among schools
and student characteristics was possible" (p. 52). Using descriptive analysis,
path—analysis, and value-added analysis the researchers focused their study on
the following research questions.

- 1. Who drops out?
2. Why does one student and not another drop out?

3. What happens to dropouts during the time that
their peers remain in school?

4. What is the impact of dropping out on gains in
' tested achievement? (p. 52)

In terms of who drops out, Ekstrom et a1. (1983), again confirm that
"dropouts are disproportionately from low SES families" (p. 54). Further they
state,

Dropouts tended to come from homes with a
weaker educational support system. Compared with
stayers, dropouts (1) had fewer study aids present in
their homes, (2) had less Opportunity for non-school
related learning, (3) were less likely to have both
natural parents living at home, (4) had mothers with
lower levels of formal education, (5) had mothers with
lower educational expectations for their offspring, (6)
had mothers who were more likely to be working, and
(7) had parents who were less likely to be interested in
or to monitor both in-school and out-of-school
activities. (p. 54)

35

The authors found a relationship between several family factors and
dropping out. They report that the primary reasons students cite for dropping
out are behavior problems and bad grades. They also found that "family
variables were related to behavior problems and to grades."

The recommendations these researchers reach in conclusion to their
investigation have a different focus than those of the two studies using HSécB
data previously cited. Rather than focusing on job placement and vocational
training, they focus on programs to help pregnant teenagers remain in school,
programs to help youth with economic needs combine work and education, and
programs directed toward students who perform poorly because they are
dissatisfied with the school environment. Finally, they report, "Policies should
be developed to help parents increase their interest in and monitoring of their
children's school progress" (p. 67).

Study findings are based on the careful analysis of existing data. Family
dynamics and interactions are reduced to a series of factors, variables, and
categories. The family is treated as a passive unit either possessed or
dispossessed of these factors. As a result, one's understanding of why students
drop out is limited to the statistical analysis of self-reported data. It is
important to note, however, that the authors do recognize the value of
involving families in dealing with the drOpout problem.

The next study concerned with HSch study data is Wehlage and Rutters'
"Dropping Out: How Much do Schools Contribute to the Problem?" (1986).
They begin by reviewing the general conclusions from the Project Talent,
Youth in Transition, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Labor Market

Experience, and High School and Beyond. They then move to a detailed

36

analysis of the HSécB study data as the most recent, thorough, and therefore
most valuable.

As the title suggests, the authors focus their attention on the failure of
schools to address the drOpout problem through effective policies and practice.
They state that,

If the intent of social policy is to reduce the
number of dropouts, then policies and practices of
schools will need to respond to this conflict with and
estrangement from the institution arising out of the
social and family background of students. (p. 77)

Wehlage and Rutter's approach to their analysis of the study's findings is
best revealed in the following statement, "In this study the variables Self-
esteem and Locus of Control are conceived as outcomes of formal schooling"
(p. 81). This they state "is not to deny that other influences from the home and
community have an important effect on them" (p. 82). They acknowledge that
parenting may influence the adolescent's sense of self, but their bottom-line is
that it is the school's responsibility to address the problems of low self-esteem
and to help the individual establish a more internal locus of control.

The familiar pattern of a lack of theory for studying these families is
repeated. In this case it is done with intention. The authors take the position
that sorting out family influence is extremely difficult, but that schools can be
held accountable for dealing with the dropout problem. Offering yet another
remedy, Wehlage and Rutter conclude that what is currently needed is
increased emphasis on alternative education strategies.

The third of the studies using HSch study data considered was the U. S.
Department of Education's report, Dealing with Dropouts: The Urban

Superintendents' Call to Action (1987). In this study writer-editor Paulu

focuses her interpretation of HSétB study data on the problems of inner-city

37

school districts. No new analysis of these data is offered, but this specific
focus does lead to yet another interpretation of its findings.
According to Paulu, one may look at many factors,

. . . but poverty is the overwhelming demographic
predictor of who will drop out; students from the
bottom third in family income stand a far greater
chance of leaving school than teens from middle class
or affluent families. And when socioeconomic factors
are controlled, the differences across racial, ethnic,
geographic, andother demographic lines blur. (p. 5).

The final study using HSch study data considered was Coleman and

Hoffer's, Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities (1987).

 

The study proceeds by posing questions which compare the public, parochial,
and private sectors of education. The HSécB data are then utilized to provide
indirect evidence for addressing these questions. Two chapters of the study
are dedicated to an examination of the dropout problem.

Coleman and Hoffer view families as either disadvantaged or deficient.
Disadvantages include lower SES or minority status. Deficiencies include such
things as the absence of one parent, the presence of a stepparent, or having
both parents working. This division allows the authors to separate economic
and racial issues from other family factors which affect all classes and races.

Regarding SES, the authors found,

Among the three principal sectors, the Catholic
sector has sharply lower dropout rates than either of
the others. The proportion of students in other private
sectors that drOp out is nearly as high as that in the
public sector and over three times that in the Catholic
sector. The students in other private schools come
from higher socioeconomic backgrounds than those in
Catholic schools, so clearly something more than the
differences among sectors in the average

socioeconomic background of parents is involved as a
determinant of dropping out. (p. 100)

38

This is the first quantitative study reviewed which challenges the position of
low SES as the primary factor related to dropping out. It also suggests that
organizational factors of schools themselves and the social resources of the
community are related to drOpping out.

This conception, that family factors may be compensated for by schools
which are organized in specific ways, is summarized in the conclusion to the
chapters on dropouts.

The examination of dropouts among students from
. different backgrounds shows especially striking results.
Here the communal character of the Catholic
community appears to reduce very ‘sharply the
likelihood of dropping out of school. As in Durkheim's
examination of suicide rates in social environments that
are integrating and those that are isolating, this
examination of dropout rates shows the powerful
effects of a socially integrated community in reducing
the likelihood of leaving the system. Furthermore, this
community constitutes a social resource that
compensates for family deficiencies, having its greatest
effect in reducing the dropout rate among students
from families with structural or functional deficiencies.
In contrast, the individualistic settings of the
other private schools increase the likelihood of "middle-
class dropout" even above that for comparable students
in public school. Students from families with structural
or functional deficiencies are particularly at risk in
these schools. (p. 148)

The unique features of this study are that it separates family factors
into the categories of disadvantage and deficiency, then uses these categories
to compare their impact on dropping out in public, private, and parochial
schools. The result is a broader framework for conceptualizing the influence
of family on dropping Out and a stronger case for the impact of school
organization on dropping out. A limitation of the study is that the HSdtB data
base only allows an indirect approach to the questions addressed. The majority

of conclusions reached are based on assumptions such as the following: all

39

lower SES families are disadvantaged, all minority families are disadvantaged,

all single parent homes are deficient, and all stepparent homes are deficient.

Qualitative Studies of Dropouts

 

Up to this point the review has been dominated by reports and studies in
which findings were based on the analysis of quantitative data. They ignore
the dynamic quality of family life and its influence on dropping out through a
view of family as a passive unit described by a set of factors or
characteristics. They rely largely on the interpretation of data derived from
student questionnaires, test batteries, and other self-reported measures. In
addition they approach only indirectly the influence of family on dropping out.
Finally, they make numerous assumptions which rely on stereotypes and ignore
individual cases and differences.

Turning attention to qualitative, ethnographic studies, one quickly finds
that little work has been done which was directly involved in the study of
family life and its influence on dropping out. In the mid-705, Rappoport (1977)
used an inventory to study family influences on school leaving. The study
compared middle class and working class school leavers. Rappoport found that
working class parents set "more modest acceptable ultimate goals" (p. 254).
This creates "a certain ambiguity, and . . . considerable conflict between
mothers and fathers about values, with some resulting confusion in the child"
(p. 254). His focus was not on the study of family interactions with school, but
rather on the characteristics of families such as career assumptions and
enabling or disabling family influences in attaining work. Reasons for leaving
school are not explored while emphasis is placed on understanding how a

dropout enters the workforce after leaving school.

40

In 1970 Crawford published a study which did focus on family
interactions, but he limited his work to achievement values and motivation.
Questionnaires were completed in the home, and discussions were held with
parents and their children to air differences on questionnaire items. He
concluded that highly educated mothers may have been able to establish for
their sons optimum conditions for inculcating both achievement motivation
and achievem ent-related values. Linkages among family structure, adolescent
personality, and school behavior are left for future study.

A more recent ethnographic study which addresses family issues and
dropping out is Fine's (1986) study, "Why Urban Adolescents DrOp Into and Out
of Public High School." Concerned with the questions of why some students
drOp out while others stay in school, Fine completed a cohort analysis of 1,221
ninth graders during the 1978-79 school year. She also conducted 45 interviews
and sent over 350 surveys by mail.

Her findings revealed a dropout rate of 65% among the 1,221 students
studied. Without controls for weighting GED graduates and lost records, the
rate approaches a staggering 80%. This percentage was even more shocking
when compared to a principal's comment that "80% of our graduates go on to
college" (p. 91).

Fine found the primary reason for leaving school which was related to
family was the need to help out financially. She states, "Many leave because
they and/or their families need money" (p. 95). She also found that, "Schools
do little to disrupt and much to reproduce existing social arrangements" (p. 91).
Her reproductionist view is further illustrated in this statement which

piggybacks her previous conclusion, "The differential outcomes of schooling

41

also reflect the social reproduction wrought by the public education system"
(p. 90).

The final study included in this segment of the review is Delgado-
Gaitan's 1988 work, "The Value of Conformity: Learning to Stay in School."
Delgado-Gaitan studied 12 Chicano families. In seven, the students had or
were completing high school. The other five were families of dropouts. Her
data collection utilized ethnographic observations, interviews, and
demographic census data analysis. She attended community events, went to
homes and churches, and traveled with these families throughout the
community.

Her findings provide a fresh perspective on the relationship between
family and dropping out. For dropouts she found, "Students without parents to
advocate for them were frequently reduced to a shadow status that
encouraged their failure" (p. 366). For those successful in school she found,
"Their home support systems instilled in them a strong value of the self above
all and provided in the family a safe place for the students to retreat in the
face of conflict" (p. 376). In her abstract she states, "Differences of
experiences among students appeared in . . . the family's values of schooling,
and the level of parental involvement in the student's education" (p. 354).

Delgado-Gai tan concludes that for successful students, "Parents provided
a safe structure to maximize the student's potential for problem solving" (p.
377). Through her study she demonstrates that time spent with families can
uncover factors which heretofore have not been considered in the research of
family role and dropping out. Whileit is regrettable that she limits her study
to the single dimension of advocacy and conformity, she must be credited with

breaking new ground for thinkingiabout family and dropping out behavior.

42

Summary of Dropout Studies

 

In this review, it was found that the majority of studies focusing on
family background and characteristics in relationship to dropping out approach
family as a set of variables. Data are generally drawn from questionnaires and
test batteries given to students. Statistics are then computed regarding
variables which are thought to be important descriptors of family such as
socioeconomic status, education level of parents, number of siblings, and
whether or not the parents are present in the home.

Experiences, events, and the interactions of family life are gotten at
only indirectly. Questionnaire responses serve as the primary source of these
data. For example, to determine if parents are punitive, rank order questions
are asked, scored, and given a numerical weight. Responses of those who
dropped out are then compared to stay-ins. Significance of the finding is then
stated in terms of the probability of its accuracy (the difference is significant
at the .05 level, for example).

A few of the researchers cited gathered their data more directly through
interviews with the parents and visits to the families. These studies provide
different insights regarding dropping out. They reveal that factors such as
parental ability to act on behalf of their children and ability to conform may
be related to dropping out.

No studies were found which examined the family to determine its
perspective on the individual's decision to drop out of high school. The studies
reviewed do not consider the dynamics and interactions of family life within
which the dropout constructs his/her reality. Family is not treated as a living,
dynamic group within which the individual functions. The result is that family

is viewed as a passive unit caught up in events about which it has no control

43

and on which it has no influence. The relationship between family and
dropping out is neither adequately described nor explained.

This is not surprising. There are logical reasons for the failure of these
researchers to take a closer look at family life. For many of them, family was
just one of several variables they considered and, therefore, a specific focus
on family might not be anticipated. For others the focus was on data
collection which gathers information on family background and characteristics
rather than the actual family dynamics or interactions. Finally, gaining access
to families is a more difficult undertaking for researchers who have relatively
easy access to data sets drawn from school environments.

Yet it is also clear that this approach to the study of family and dropping
out is limited to a narrow view of a causal relationship between the existence
or lack of certain family characteristics and dropping out. While not
specifically designed as a study of drOpouts, a radically different conception is
offered by Clark (1983) in his recent work Family Life and School
Achievement: Why Poor Black Children Succeed or Fall. In this study of life
in the homes of five black students who are succeeding in school and of five
who are not, Clark claims, "I will demonstrate that it is the overall 3% of
the family's life-style, not the composition, or status, or some subset of family
process dynamics, that determines whether children are prepared for
academically competent performance in the classroom" (p. 1). He goes on to
state:

I do not agree with the claims and implications of
previous studies that the family unit's personnel and
role properties (number of parents in the home, parents'
marital status, family size, maternal employment
status, maternal education status, migration patterns,

ethnic background, income, and so forth) are the source
of children's school behavior or leaving outcomes.

44

Rather, it is the family members' beliefs, activities,
and overall cultural style, not the family units'
composition or social status, that produces the requisite
mental structures for effective and desirable behavior
during classroom lessons. (pp. 1-2)

 

 

In agreeing with Clark, the researcher interested in understanding
dropping out behavior from the perspective of family is forced to embark on a
more direct study of family life which will,

Treat the individual family as a "unity of
interacting persons, each occupying a position within
the family to which a number of roles are assigned, i.e.,
the individual perceives norms or role expectations held
individually or collectively by other family members for
his attributes and behavior. (p. 16)
The value of such a study rests in the researcher's ability to describe and
explain the role of family in the individual's decision to drOp out of school
through a treatment of the family as a living, dynamic, social unit. To
accomplish this end a theory or concept of the study of family which captures
this interactive quality must be adopted. In the next section of this chapter,

the literature which supports the use of the theory of symbolic interaction to

study family life will be reviewed.

Studies of Family

There is a body of literature which is dedicated to the causal relationship
between family characteristics and dropping out. Its contribution is a more
accurate prediction of who will drOp out based upon identifying socioeconomic
status, family size, or parents' level of education. The analysis of the data in
these studies generally results in recommendations for school programs to help
compensate for or overcome the disadvantages which are assumed to be
consequences of these characteristics. These students lack self-esteem, so

early intervention programs are needed. The female potential dropouts get

45

pregnant in large numbers, so there have to be programs to help keep pregnant
teens in school.

These are worthwhile studies and their recommendations are well
intentioned, yet the dropout problem persists. One explanation would be to
accept Clark's position that it is not what the family is, but the quality of
family life and how the family interacts, that really determines success in
school. The limitations of the previous studies are obvious. They lack both a
theory or concept of family, and they fail to provide a close examination of
family life. That family is important is understood; what family is or does or
how it exerts influence is not understood. One is left without any real
understanding of the family's role in the individual's decision to drop out. In -
his forward to Clark's work, Epps writes (1983), "A family's ability ’to provide a
home environment that prepares its children for future success, including
success in school, develops out of past experiences with cultural tasks and
social rewards" (p. X). This statement makes clear the need for a different
approach to the study of family life. Emphasis is shifted from the
demographics of families to their sociology or perhaps even their
psychosociology. Therefore, it must be an approach which leads both to an
understanding of the home environment and allows for probing into past
experiences with school. It must also be one which captures the interactions
between and among family members, the roles they play, and the manner in
which they construct meaning from the events of their daily lives.

One of the concepts implied by this approach which now must be made
explicit is that of the socialization of the child. Here there is a particular
interest in understanding the relationship between the family structure and

these processes of socialization as they may relate to the individual's decision

46

to drop out. The importance of this understanding is evidenced in Parsons and
Bales' (1955) explanation of the family as an agent of socialization:

. . . we must not forget that the nuclear family is
never, most certainly not in the American case, an
independent society, but a small and highly
differentiated subsystem of a society. This fact is
crucially relevant to our interests at two points. First,
the parents, as socializing agents, occupy not merely
their familial roles, but these articulate . . . with their
roles in other structures of the society, and this fact is
a necessary condition, as we hope to show, of their
functioning effectively as socializing agents, i.e., as
parents, at all. Secondly, the child is never socialized
only for and into his family of orientation, but into
structures which extend beyond this family, through
interpenetrating with it. These include the school . . .
(p. 35)

Parsons and Bales view schools as places in which "emphasis is on what
children of that age grade in that community should know and do" (p. 116).
Further, the children are marked by their performance such that "the one with
high marks is simply a 'better' boy or girl than the one with the lower, better
in living up more fully to the common universalistically defined age-
appropriate standard" (p. 117). Parsons and Bales explain the relationship of
this universal standard in schools to the family in the following manner.

The crucial difference from the intrafamilial
standard is with respect to universalism, not to
achievement as values. Here the child is put in explicit
comparison with children who represented a sample of
the families in the community. From one point of view
it is a test of the family, the meaning of which is made
very clear by parental sensitivity to the child's record

and behavior in school. The child is playing a
representative role in the school vis-a-vis his family.

(p. 117)
Following Parsons and Bales' logic, the child plays a role and develops a
personality through the interactions within his/her family. As representative

of his/her family, he/she takes his/her personality out into the larger social

47

system of the school where he/she must "learn new values in his interaction
with persons outside the family" (p. 117). Therefore, to understand these
interactions one must adopt a theory which considers the interactive processes
of the family.

While Parsons and Bales limit their recommendation for the use of
interactive theoretical tools to the family function of socialization, this focus
is too narrow for a thorough study of the family role in relationship to one of
its members' decision to drop out. This need not be viewed as a limitation,
however, for literature dating back to the late '205 offers support for the
application of interactive theory to the larger study of family relations.
Writing in 1927, Mowrer stated,

The sociological conception of the family as a
unity existing in interaction has two chief aspects. It
signifies, first of all, that the family is an interplay of
personalities rather than purely a common fixation of
sexual, parental, and filial instincts. The sociological
description of family interaction will then naturally be
in terms of impulses socially defined, as wishes,
attitudes, and sentiments.

The family also exists in interaction with the
larger society of which the family and its members are
component parts. The status of the family in the
neighborhood, its roles as defined in the mores, in
public opinion and by law, the changes in the family
which result from the play of social forces in the
community, are all illustrations of the significance for
the family and its members of interaction with society.

(p. 25)

In 1926, Burgess stated that for "those who are dealing with problems of
family life it is paramount to recognize that the family as a reality exists in
the interaction of its members . . . " (p. 30). He goes on to state that:

The members of the family do react to each other
as individuals and that is important. But they react to
each other as persons and that is also important. For

every person has, with more or less awareness, a
concept of his role, not only in society, but in all groups

48

of which he is a member. Not only does the person

have a lively conception of his own role in the family,

but he has a sense of the roles of all the other members

of the family and notions of what family life ought to

be. (p. 20)
This early statement is a clear example of the process referred to later by
Mead (1934) as symbolic interaction. This ability of the individual to perceive
his/her own role is also similar to what Blumer (1962) later refers to as the
process of "self-indication."

Returning to the work of Clark (1983), one has a modern example of the
application of symbolic interaction to the study of family. In his chapter on
his research methods, he also cites the works of Bott (1957) and Hess and
Handel (1959) as further examples of the study of family life utilizing the
theory of symbolic interaction. Finally, he cites the work of Stryker (1959,

Heiss (1968, 1981), Burr et al. (1979), and Handel (1985) as offering specific

methodologies for applying symbolic interaction to the study of family.

Chapter Sum marl

 

In seeking a better understanding of the perspective of family in the
individual's decision to drop out of high school, the major studies which relate
family to dropping out have been reviewed. In examining their methodology,
comment has been made on data collection, findings, and conclusions. The
studies also have been critiqued based upon the supposition that the vast
majority explore family background and characteristics without taking a close
look at the dynamics or interactions of the family itself. The review
supported this supposition and, in fact, disclosed that family is largely treated

as a passive variable. As such, it serves as a receptacle into which elements

49

such as personnel, income, race, class, socioeconomic status, and occupation
are tossed rather than as the living unity which it is.

The contribution of such studies is that, in seeking a causal relationship
between certain family characteristics and drOpping out, they are able to treat
these characteristics as predictors of dropping out and to argue from them in
terms of recommendations for prevention. Their limitation is that they
assume causality without actually studying the family. This leaves them
vulnerable to Clark's argument that it is not the structure or personnel of a
family, but the quality of family life and how a family interacts that is truly .
related to success or failure in school.

Pursuing Clark's argument, support for the importance of a different
approach to the study of the relationship of family to dropping out has been
found in the work of Parsons. A brief background on the study of family
through the theory of symbolic interaction has been presented. It has been
argued that this method of studying family, when applied to the dropout
problem, may lead to a better understanding of the family perspective on the
individual's decision to drop out of high school.

Such an approach could open up entirely new areas of questioning. It
would allow researchers to ask questions about how the dropout defines his/her
family in terms of roles, norms, values, and interactions. It would make
possible a better understanding of how family members react to and interact
with the people and groups who make up school. Further, it could lead to a
better understanding of how family members experienced schooling and where
family and school perceptions conflict. By proceeding in this fashion,
questions about the relationship between family experiences and the

individual's decision to drop out may be answered. Finally, such an approach

50

may shed light on the meaning the act of dropping out has in the family

context.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

In this chapter the methodology employed and the theory which guided
and underpinned this methodology are explained. The method of data
collection is presented and the sampling strategy is described. The method of
analyzing the data and the process of generating and revising tentative
conclusions are explained. A narrative of actual field procedures is provided

followed by a brief chapter summary.

Theoretical Framework

 

Research progresses logically when the theory which provides its
conceptual framework is closely and naturally related to the purpose and
assumptions of the study. The researcher's purpose in this study was to
describe and explain the family perspective on the individual's decision to drop
out of high school. Two assumptions were central to achieving this purpose.
First, it was assumed that this family perspective is best understood by
studying the interactions between the family and the individual, the family and
school, and the individual as both a family member and a participant in school.
Second, it was assumed that the family is a vital reference group for

understanding the behaviors of the dropout.

51

52

Not only should the theory be related to the purpose and assumptions,
but it should be broad and general enough to incorporate the concept of family
and definition of perspective which are central to conducting the study.

The concept of family is adopted as a reference group for the individual.
Shibutani (1967) recommends the specific conception of reference groups as
"groups whose perspectives are assumed by the actor" (p. 110).

The members of the family create a perspective. Becker et a1. (1968)
explain how members of a collective will create a perspective. They will:

. . . develop ideas that, because they are held in
common, create a universe of discourse, a common
frame of reference in which communication may take
place. Similarly, they develop, as they interact in a
variety of institutional settings and specific situations,
patterns of individual and collective activity. The
activities grow out of the ideas being their logical
extensions in actions. They also give weight and
meaning to the ideas by creating patterns of everyday
experience that made the ideas seem reasonable and
appropriate to the situations they are applied to. In
this sense, the ideas grow out of the activities. (p. 28)

As Schatzman and Strauss (1973) state, the perspective is the "angle of
observation" (p. 55) in the study. Therefore, it is the interaction of the acting
units, the dropout, and his/her family members which is of interest. The
context within which dropping out is to be understood is the family's. In this
sense, the dropout has two roles. S/He is both a member of the family
collective and an individual representative of this collective.

The theory of symbolic interaction is logically related to the purpose and
assumptions guiding this study. The theory also lends itself naturally to the

concept of "family as reference group" and the definition and concept of

perspective. Further, as the term slmbolic interaction suggests, it is an ideal

 

53

theory for explaining the interactions among the family, the school, and the
individual.

According to Blumer (1962) and as previously stated (Chapter 1, p. 6):

The term symbolic interaction refers, of course,
to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction
as it takes place between human beings. The
peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings
interpret or "define" each others' actions instead of
merely reacting to each others' actions. Their
"response" is not made directly to the actions of one
another but instead is based on the meaning which they
attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is
mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by
ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions. This
mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of
interpretation between stimulus and response in the
case of human behavior. (p. 97)

The following statements by Blumer capture the importance of
conceiving the family as the reference group and of family sharing a collective
perspective. In effect, the family is the relevant group. "Under the
perspective of symbolic interaction, social action is lodged in acting
individuals who fit their respective line of action to one another through a
process of interpretation, group action is the collective action of such
individuals" (p. 100). "One should bear in mind that the most important
element confronting an acting unit in situations is the actions of other acting
units" (p. 102).

The theory of symbolic interaction allows the researcher to push past
stereotypical views of dropout behavior. The dropout as a member of a family
is no longer conceived as a passive variable caught up in circumstances beyond

his/her control and on which he/she exerts no influence. Instead, it provides

the researcher:

54

. . . a picture of the human being as an organism
which confronts its world with a mechanism for making
indications to himself. This is the mechanism that is
involved in interpreting the actions of others. To
interpret the actions of another is to point out to
oneself that the action has this or that meaning or
character. (p. 98)

Further:

Instead of the individual being surrounded by an
environment of pre-existing objects which play upon
him and call forth his behavior, the proper picture is
that he constructs his objects on the basis of on-going
activity. (p. 98)

In terms of the current research, it is felt that the meaning of the act of
dropping out is found by viewing it as a response. If one wants to understand
the response, one must study the events which surround it. This conception is
supported in symbolic interactionist theory. According to Blumer, "action is
constructed or built up instead of being a mere release" (p. 98). Therefore, the
individual's behavior "is not a result of such things as environmental pressures,
stimuli, motives, attitudes, and ideas but arises instead from how he handles
these things in the action which he is constructing" (p. 99). "Action takes
place in and with regard to a situation" (p. 101). In addition, "Action is formed
or constructed by interpreting the situation" (p. 101). Therefore, "People—that
is, acting units--do not act toward culture, social structure or the like; they
act toward situations" (p. 102).

Clearly, by adopting this theory the researcher may view dropouts and
their families, not as passive variables or factors in a causally stated equation,

but, rather, "as persons constructing individual and collective action through

an interpretation of the situations which confront them" (p. 103).

55

Method of Data Collection

 

The method selected for the pilot study was the interview. The specific
interview method selected for the primary study was the tape-recorded
interview. In this section the method is explained. Strategies, techniques, and
tactics are reviewed and the method's benefits and limitations are discussed.
Issues of reliability and validity are discussed.

The explanation of the method is brief and skeletal. There is a logical
explanation for this. Effective field research is informed by proven methods
and by reviewing the work of experts. Even so, each field study is a unique
experience with a life of its own. As such, an accurate understanding of the
field method is best captured by the researcher narrating actual events.
Therefore, specifics regarding preparation for entering the field and the
strategies, techniques, and tactics employed are presented in a separate
section of this chapter.

The interview methodology and procedures followed in the pilot study
have been reviewed in Chapter 1 (pp. 13-15) and are not repeated here.
Additional information which informed the strategy of the pilot study follows.

The dropout as interviewee possessed information about him/herself as
well as his/her family. Therefore, he/she was both informant and respondent.
This necessitated a multiple-contact interview strategy. Interviews were
limited to one hour in duration and to a total of three interviews.

The importance of the distinction between informant and respondent
interviews is explained by McCall and Simmons (1969). "Informant
interviewing is often the technique chosen to seek information on events
that . . .are not open to direct observation by the scientist for whatever

reason" (p. 62). As previously noted, the act of dropping out had already

56

occurred. The researcher's job was to describe and explain the situation(s)
leading up to this act from the family perspective. The dropout was the
informant regarding family background and experiences central to gaining this
understanding.

The dropout was also the respondent. McCall and Simmons (1969) explain
the respondent interview as follows.

If one is not seeking information on external
events by treating the interviewee as an indirect or
"deputized" observer, the interview process takes the
form of respondent interviewing, especially where the
information sought concerns the personal feelings,
perceptions, motives, habits, or intentions of the
interviewee. (p.62)

As information about family was gathered a ‘pool of potential subject
families was built. Some pilot study dropouts were retained in the sample.
Since great care had been taken in selecting a varied and representative
sample of dropouts in this pilot study, their inclusion in the final sample was
not considered a compromising factor. Further, since no families were
interviewed or contacted during the pilot study and since primary emphasis
was on family, there was no contamination of data. These dropouts remained
"instances of the case." If the pilot dropout's family situation provided a
needed variation, and if the dropout were willing to have the researcher
contact the family, his/her name was retained. For example, of the drOpouts
interviewed, only one respondent was living independently from both parents.
This pilot study respondent was contacted for inclusion in the major study.
Other dropouts were added through additional contacts with area high school

administrators, counselors, and through alternative education programs. After

the initial interviews of the seven dropouts in the pilot study the researcher

57

adopted the taped-interview format. It was felt that a complete record of all
conversations would result in more accurate data interpretation.

The method of the tape-recorded interview as formulated by Ives (1974)
was used for all dropout and family interviews subsequent to the pilot study.
Tapes were later transcribed. According to Ives:

In theory, the tape recording is still a secondary

document, because the interview itself is primary, the

tape being no more than the best available record of

that interview. But since there is no way yet available

of returning to the interview itself, the point is moot.

(p. 87)
For the purposes of this study, the tape was treated as the primary document.
The transcription was treated as a secondary document.

The specific structure and protocol for all tape-recorded interviews were
informed by Gorden (1969, 1980, 1987). Gorden divides the interview approach
into strategy areas, technique areas, and tactic areas. His model of tools for
interviewing is presented below. Details of the model's application in this .
study are presented later in this chapter.

The interview is a well established and accepted field research method.
It allows the researcher to interact face-to-face with respondents and
informants. It provides a richness and personal touch unattainable with such
data collection methods as the questionnaire. Gorden (1969) identifies five
advantages of the interview over the questionnaire.

1. The interview provides more opportunity to
motivate the respondent to supply accurate and
complete information immediately.

2. The interview provides more opportunity to guide
the respondent in his interpretation of the

questions.

3. The interview allows a greater flexibility in
questioning the respondent.

Table l

58

Gorden's Tools for Interviewing

 

Strategy Areas

1. Selecting

Technique Areas

 

Supplying context

Tactic Areas

 

Regulating sequence

respondents. for question. of topics.

2. Selecting 2. Selecting appro- 2. Providing transitions.
interviewers. priate wording.

3. Selecting the 3. Regulating sc0pe 3. Varying sequence
time and place. of question. of questions.

4. Structuring the 4. Structuring the 4. Varying topic
interview site. answer. control.

5. Selecting record- 5. Loading ques- 5. Meeting
ing method. tions appro— resistance.

priately.

6. Selecting mode 6. Using silence. 6. Preventing
of contact. falsification.

7. Deciding number 7. Using pacing 7. Using informal
_of contacts. and inflection. post—interview.

8. Showing appro-

priate attitudes.

 

 

4. The interview allows greater control over the
interview situation.

5. The interview provides a greater opportunity to

evaluate the validity of the information by

observing the respondent's non-verbal
manifestation of his attitude toward supplying the
information. ‘

Interviewing also has certain limitations. These are detailed, criticized,
and rebutted in a series of articles reprinted by McCall and Simmons (1969). In
the first article Becker and Geer (1969, reprint) argue that participant
observation is a superior methodology to interviewing in field research. As
this researcher has noted, however, the benefits of participant observation are
lost since dropping out already has occurred. However, the researcher agrees

with the authors when they note, "Interviewers can profit from an awareness

59

of those limitations of their method suggested by this comparison and perhaps
improve their batting average by taking account of them" (p. 331).

Specific limitations noted include learning the language of the
respondents and informants, delving into matters interviewers are unable or
unwilling to talk about and being conscious that interviewers often see events
through distorting lenses.

There is an additional limitation. The reseacher noted that respondents
frequently answer questions regarding school experiences by telling stories.
These stories have two qualities requiring mention. First, it is noted that the
stories are "fixed in their structure and detail" (p.68). This is the quality Ives
(1974) refers to as being indicative of a "set piece." A set piece is a story told
repeatedly with the same details and expressions. When Sandy Griggs was
questioned about her son Ricky's school experiences, she told "the story" of the
second grade teacher who bruised her son's shoulders carrying him to the
office. During a second visit, she repeated this story. A review of the
transcriptions discovered identical fixed details in both "tellings" of the story.
The phenomenon of the "set piece" occurred again and again when dropouts
and their parents were questioned about school experiences.

Second, these "set" stories are often told in hyperbolic terms. The
respondents use the stories to portray the dropouts and their families as
victims and school personnel and other students as adversaries, e.g., Tommy
Menges was slammed against the lockers repeatedly by an angry gym teacher.
Sonny Vitale had a principal who made him sign the paddle each time he was
given swats. Sonny filled two paddles with his signature.

Further, both parents and students often used the stories either to deny

or minimize their own negative behaviors. For example, when Tommy Menges

60

told of being caught selling marijuana to an eighth grade girl, he commented,
"I only sold six joints," and "It was my first offense." But in a previous
interview with him alone, he had related being popular for his extensive
activities as a drug dealer. This drug dealing had gone on for over two years.
The researcher had to guard against accepting set pieces as the literal truth.
The researcher was aware of both the "set" quality of some stories and
of the hyperbole. Where these qualities were obvious and figurative, the
researcher accepted the story as the respondent's version of reality. These
stories and responses represented the respondent's self-indications and were
viewed as important contributions to understanding the family perspective.
However, when accurate and literal interpretations were required for
factual understanding, the researcher probed and confronted. For example,
when Bobbi Beauchamp was asked if she were a high school graduate, she
indicated she was. Later in telling her story of leaving home, she contradicted
her earlier statement by indicating she left home "to help a friend" prior to
graduating. At this point the researcher recalled her earlier statement and
received the response, "I was given a blank diploma." Bobbi had later gone
through the graduation ceremony, but had not completed her requirements.
Since these data were being tabulated, probing more deeply was required.
Silence, asking additional questions, and recalling data provided by
earlier interviews were techniques used. Further, dropouts and parents were
asked about the same events. When Sonny Vitale related his fighting in school,
the researcher was given a picture of bloody battles against powerful and evil
adversaries. Sonny always won. When Sonny's father Gus was questioned

regarding Sonny's fighting at school, Gus responded, "Sonny exaggerates on

61

that problem." Silence, probing, and cross-referencing data were techniques
used to minimize this limitation and contribute to the researcher's findings.

It is felt that these limitations are of only a minor concern in this study.
Steps taken to minimize these limitations included interviewing dropouts and
their families at separate times and in separate settings, direct observation of
students in an alternative education program, and participant observation in a
parent support group for at-risk teens.

Reliability, which is the consistency or repeatability of the study, is
ensured by the method itself. The method is what connects the observer. to
the events and situations being studied. Careful study of the method and a
well planned structure and protocol for interviews serves to enhance
reliability. The method of tape-recording and transcribing interviews was
determined to provide the greatest reliability for the purposes of this
research.

Validity answers the question, "Is this explanation plausible?" According
to Gorden (1980), "Validity refers to the extent to which the data conform to
the fact" (p. 40). Citing Homans (1966), Cusick lists six indices of subjective
adequacy which give the researcher "some assurance that his findings reach an
acceptable degree of validity" (p. 181). These are time, place, social
circumstances, language, intimacy, and consensus. The section on field
procedures provides details which demonstrate that adequate consideration
was given to each of these indices.

A limitation in the presentation of data regarding grandparents is
acknowledged. All data presented regarding grandparents were gathered
second-hand. This did not allow the verification of data possible when a
respondent was interviewed and subsequently a second or third respondent may

have been asked questions regarding the same event(s).

62

As Schatzman and Strauss (1973) state, "Every after thought and second
glance is an act of verification" (p. 57). This verification, key to the field
researcher's validity, was possible regarding data reported on parents and
dropouts, since both were interviewed regarding the same experiences and
events.

The field researcher also formulates tentative conclusions or
prOpositions. Validity is strengthened when these conclusions and propositions
are tested in the field. For example, a respondent asked about her parenting
challenged, "What has that got to do with the education thing?" The
researcher explained his proposition that without understanding the family, he
could not understand their child's school experiences. She nodded approval,
and her husband responded, "Okay." As these respondents accept the logic of
the researcher's formulations, his validity is strengthened. According to
Schatzman and Strauss, "Here the researcher gets a measure of validity and
makes something of a contribution to someone's understanding of himself, his

group, and of their collective experience" (p. 82).

Sampling Techniques

The researcher attempted to describe and explain dropping out behavior.
Speaking generally, a theory is an explanation. While no claim is made for
generating a formal theory of drOpping out, the explanation derived may
provide the foundation for such a theory. Thus conceived, the study was a
search. I The explanation emerges and is generated as information is gathered.
This conception requires a sampling technique consistent with its emergent
and generative nature. Glaser and Strauss' (1967) method of theoretical

sampling met these criteria and was adopted for the study.

63

According to Glaser and Strauss (1967):

Theoretical sampling is the process of data
collection for generating theory whereby the analyst
jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and
decides what data to collect next and where to find
them in order to develop his theory as it emerges . . . .
The initial decisions for theoretical collection of data
are based on a general sociological perspective and on a
general subject or problem area . . . . The initial
decisions are not based on a preconceived theoretical
framework. (p. 105)

As the study progresses, the criterion for selecting the next sample, in
this case the next dropout family whose perspective the researcher wishes to
understand, is that it is an instance of the case. As the explanation is
generated, each addition to‘the sample serves to revise, extend, or otherwise
alter the explanation. When a negative instance is discovered, one which does
not conform to the explanation, the explanation is transformed and adjusted to
account for this negative instance. So the sample is built, discovering
categories, testing their properties, and seeking interrelationships.

At some point the researcher must decide his categories, and thus his
sample, are sufficient.

The adequate theoretical sample is judged on the
basis of how widely and diversely the analyst chooses
his groups for saturating categories . . . . The
inadequate theoretical sample is easily spotted, since
the theory associated with it is usually thin and not well
integrated, and has too many obvious unexplained"
exceptions. (p. 106)“

The present sample consisted of 12 families. The scope of the study was
limited to rural and suburban dropouts and families. Urban and minority
populations were not included. There were two reasons for these limitations.

First, the researcher had no previous experience with either urban schools or

minority populations. Second, the nature of the qualitative investigation

64

created the need to place some limits in terms of time and the scope of the
study. Beyond these limitations, variety exists in all sociodemographic areas:
single parent homes, stepparent homes, intact families, families where the
child has left home or is emancipated, and families where one parent is
deceased are all included. Socioeconomic status (SES) ranged from welfare
and poverty level to middle class. Family size ranged from an only child to a
family of eight siblings. Rural and suburban families were included (see Table
2). Ages of dropouts ranged from 16 to 20.

As different elements of variety were sought the sample was expanded
and an explanation emerged. By the time the twelfth family was added to the
study, repetition and confirmation of the tentative conclusions seemed
sufficient. It was the researcher's judgment that saturation had been reached.

The explanation of the adoption of theoretical sampling is not complete
without some mention of the reasons for rejecting random sampling. There
are two reasons this technique was not utilized. First, in the absence of a
theory to be tested, it is illogical to assume that randomly sampling subjects
from a dropout population would prove useful. Second, "The researcher who
generates theory need not combine random sampling with theoretical sampling
when setting forth categories and properties. These relationships are
suggested as hypotheses pertinent to direction of relationship, not tested as

descriptions of both direction and magnitude" (p. 106).

Table 2

65

Demographics of Families in the Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents' Geographical
Family Level of Setting/Home
Family Com position Education Employment Ownership
Round- Divorced Father-- Mother-- Dropout: rural
tree/ father dropout, welfare, rents trailer;
Walker* deceased, mother, AFDC, part- mother: rural,
mother, one dropout time cook owns small
sibling house
Stanley Intact family: Father-- Father-- Rural, own
father, high school unemployed; small house
mother, graduate; mother: civil
one sibling mother: service
dropout
Menges Divorced Both parents: Mother: Rural village,
mother, dropouts welfare, rent home
three siblings AFDC
Clinton Intact family: Both parents: Father: Small town,
father, high school computer own small
mother, graduates technician; house
one sibling mother:
sales clerk
Vitale Intact family: Father: Father: Rural; own
father, dropout; retired fac- custom built
mother, mother: tory worker; home
four siblings high school mother:
graduate shipping and
stock clerk
Small/ Stepparent Both parents: Stepfather: Small town,
Beau- family, dropouts; factory own trailer
champ stepfather, stepfather: worker;
mother, one high school mother,
sibling--not graduate homemaker

in home

 

*All respondent names presented in the study are pseudonyms.

Table 2, continued

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents' Geographical
Family Level of Setting/Home
Family Composition Education Employment Ownership
Anderson/ Stepparent Both parents: Mother: Rural village,
Workman family: dropouts; welfare, own large
father stepfather, AFDC home
deceased; dropout
stepfather
divorced;
mother, seven
siblings
Mandrick Intact family: Both parents: Father: fac- Rural,
father, high school tory worker; own small
mother, graduates mother: clerk, home
three siblings homemaker
Rogers Intact family: Father: Father: Small town,
father, dropout, construction own small
mother, mother: worker; home
five
siblings high school mother:
graduate homemaker
Collins/ Stepparent Both parents: Stepfather: Rural village,
Lamb family: dropouts; city employee, own modest
stepfather, stepfather: mother: home
mother, one high school clerical
sibling graduate
Henry/ Stepparent Father and Stepfather: Small town,
Griggs family: stepfather: disabled; own small
stepfather, dropouts; mother: home
mother, mother: waitress
no siblings high school
graduate
Walasek Intact family: Father: Father: Rural,
father, dropout; construction own small
mother, mother: worker; home
two siblings high school mother:
graduate homemaker

67

Data Analysis

Two goals or criteria were established to ensure reliable data analysis.
First, the method of data collection needed to be accurate and interviews
needed to be carefully transcribed to ensure accuracy and to facilitate their
review. Second, some simple techniques were required to facilitate the search
for categories, properties, and interrelationships. In the following section, it
is reported how these goals were achieved.

The researcher conducted the pilot study taking notes, then editing,
organizing, and recording them on tape. The tape was then transcribed, the
transcription reviewed, and follow-up interviews scheduled. The primary
source, the interview, was lost. Notes served as the primary written record
and the tape and transcription as secondary documents.

Benefits of this method included the intense involvement and listening
required for the researcher to take accurate notes. A further benefit ensued
from the editing and taping phases which required careful review and recall of
the interview. The primary liabilities were the loss of a complete record of
the conversation and the subsequent loss of material such as exact wordings
for citation. The inexperience of the researcher in field methods was another
potential liability.

The decision was made that these liabilities outweighed the benefits.
Adopting the tape-recorded interview method afforded equally valuable
benefits without the liabilities mentioned. The researcher was able to listen 1
more carefully, be more attentive, maintain greater eye contact, observe the
respondent more closely, and an accurate record of the entire interview was
maintained. The tape became the primary document and the transcription a

secondary written record of the first.

68

Four simple techniques were employed for analysis of tapes and
transcriptions. These techniques facilitated the generation of an explanation
of dropout behavior. First, a crude frequency table was designed. A lengthy
list of family experiences, characteristics, and behaviors was generated during
the primary study. The frequency table was begun prior to interviewing the
third family and maintained throughout the remainder of the study.

Second, a one-page summary was written about each family. On this
socio-demographics were reported. Other information was recorded using the
six research questions as categories.

Third, dissertation memos were written at key points in the study and
copies of all transcripts were given to the chair of the dissertation committee.
Meetings were held with the chair to review the memos and transcripts and to
seek both written and verbal responses. Interview experiences 'were related
and discussed. As these meetings progressed, the explanation emerged. Ideas
for follow-up were generated and subsequently reviewed at the next meeting.

Finally, the chair of the committee attended some interviews with the
researcher. Following the interviews, he provided feedback on the interview
method, the story we had heard, and the explanation we derived.

These four techniques, applied to the method of the tape-recorded

interview, served to improve the reliability of the field work.

Research Questions and Tentative Conclusions

 

Previous studies of dropouts are generally classified as those which
blame the victim (Mosteller dc Moynihan, 1972; Coleman, 1966) and those which
blame the system (Adler, 1982; Cuban, 1989; Goodlad, 1984; Oakes, 1985; Sedlak

et al., 1986; Sizer, 1985). The narrow conception of individuals acted upon by

69

external events over which they exert little influence, common to these
previous studies, was rejected. Rather, in this study, the researcher
attempted to understand the interactions among the three interfaces of
family, school, and drOpout.

This emphasis was inspired by the work of Clark (1983) who broke fresh
ground in the study of school achievement and failure through his research on
family culture. His findings support the notion that family culture is a more
powerful determinant of school success than family demographics. Carrying
his work a step further, this researcher chose to study the situations which
create this family culture. These situations were studied in connection with
the interactions of the family and the individual with school. The view was
taken that meaning could be extrapolated from their responses to school. If
the researcher wanted to understand dropping out, therefore, he would need to
study the situations which had conditioned their responses.

Six research questions were designed to guide the study. The nature of
the study, as a search for, rather than a testing of, a given explanation or
theory, required that these questions represent broad and flexible areas of
inquiry, not rigid categories.

As the interviews progressed and the sample was built, the research
questions were refined for each area. The research questions and the
tentative conclusions suggested after the first sequence of family interviews

are presented below.

L How do dropouts define their family?
The dropout defines his/her family in terms of its membership and

his/her relationship to each of those members. The dropout sees him/herself

70

as an extension of and representative of this family. Family is, therefore,
subject to comparison to the roles, norms, values, and interactions of some
standard notion of what family "should be."

5 How do family members react to, and interact with, thejeople and
groups who make up school?

The dropout, as family representative, carries family messages to school
and brings school messages home. The family reacts to school based on past
experience and their sense of how school views them (Cooley, 1902). This view
of how school sees them grows out of their own history as well as the

interactions of their child(ren) with school.

31 How did other family members experience schooling?

The pattern of difficulty with school runs generations deep. The family
name and the past performance of family members are known to the school,
and the dropout is expected to follow the same path. Dropping out occurs with

frequency within these families.

4; WhereLif at all, do familyand school perceptions conflict?

The dropout family represents or creates a culture of opposition which
does not mesh with the culture of school. As a result, the family perceives
only the dark and cold underside of the school bureaucracy. School is
perceived in terms of control, discipline, assistant principals, and truant
officers. As a result, the expectations of school appear unreasonable and

discriminatory.

71

& Whah if any, is the relationship between family experiences and the
decision to drop out?

 

There is a direct relationship between family experiences and the
decision to drop out. The dropout is reared in a family unwilling or unable to
interpret the requirements of school in meaningful ways. Conditions of
poverty create a climate of immediacy which stands against the delayed
rewards and the future promises of school.

The dropout family has an external locus of control. They have little
faith that their current efforts will lead to a better situation, nor do they have

a sense of control over the situations of their lives.

2 What meaning does the act of dropping out have for the individual?

 

The act of drOpping out is better conceptualized as never having dropped
in. In general, the dropout has never functioned well in school and has made
the decision to resist school demands by the middle elementary years.

The dropout is a disconnected youth. The culture of his/her family has
not equipped him/her for the culture of school. As the two cultures interact,
an oppositional dyhamic develops.

Coming from homes with serious dysfunctions, the dropout spends his/her
early years learning to adapt and adjust. He/She takes these maladaptions,
which have allowed him/her to function at home, to the schoolhouse door.
Here in the functioning world of school, he/she is quickly singled out as
dysfunctional or unprepared for even its earliest and simplest demands.

DrOpping out is a way of cutting his/her losses. It may be an act of
loyalty to family. It does not mean failure and loss of hope for the dropout. It

is an act which makes sense, has been decided years ago, and relieves stress

and pain in the dropout's life.

72

Field Procedures

In this section, the field procedures employed are explained.
Preparations for entering the field are presented. The general plan of action
is reviewed. Using Gorden's (1987) "Tools for Interviewing" model (p. 177) field
events and experiences are described. The section is closed with a detailed
narrative providing insight regarding sampling techniques and the search for an
explanation of dropping out behavior.

All field work conducted at Michigan State University requires approval
of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS).
The Committee's stringent requirements reflect the sensitive nature of field
work. This process forces the researcher to clarify his purpose, outline his
procedures, and assess the risks and benefits of his study. COpies of the
approved application and consent form appear as appendices to this
dissertation.

Prior to entering the field, the researcher had to prepare himself. His
contacts in the field were limited and thus his opportunities to gain access to
dropouts were limited as well. Proper preparation ensures taking the greatest
possible advantage of his situation.

This preparation was divided into logical categories. First, the
researcher needed a deeper understanding of dropouts and what is currently
known about dropping out behavior. This need was addressed by conducting a
thorough review of the literature on dropouts.

Second, the researcher needed a clear understanding of the symbolic
interactionist theory which would guide the study. Support for the use of this

theory in studying family was also desirable. This second need was met by

73

conducting a limited review of the literature which describes the study of
family through symbolic interaction.

A third need was to gain a better understanding of field research
methods. Two steps were taken to meet this need. First, the researcher
embarked on a personal study of noted field research. Readings included

Elmtown's Youth (1949), Tally's Corner (1967), Streetcorner Society (1943),

 

 

 

Becoming a Marijuana User (1953), Hillbilly Women (1972), God's Choice (1984),

 

 

 

West Haven (1985), Irish Countryman (1950), Inside High School (1973), and The

 

 

 

Egalitarian Ideal and the American High School (1983). The second step was to
formally enroll in a field research methods course.

A fourth need was to develop competence as an interviewer. As a
former counselor and administrator, the researcher had ample training in
conducting certain types of interviews and in active and reflective listening
techniques. What was needed was specific training in field interviews of
respondents. To meet this need, a four—hour training session was held with an
experienced university professor and scholar in field research. Use of the tape
recorder was reviewed. Techniques for opening the interview, such as
developing icebreaker questions, were practiced. Notetaking strategies were
discussed and practiced. Techniques for editing and transcribing the
interviews were discussed and also practiced.

Based upon this training session, the initial pilot study interview method
was established. This involved the following steps:

-- arranging a quiet and private interview site;
-- greeting the respondent;
-- using the consent form to explain in detail the

purpose of the study, to answer concerns, and to
put the respondent at ease;

74

-- taking notes and recording them under the areas
of family, peer influence, early elementary
experiences, and the story of dropping out;

-- recording notes into a dictaphone within two
hours of the interview;

-- having notes transcribed;

-- reviewing notes for themes or strands; and

-- scheduling a follow-up interview.
This procedure was followed throughout the pilot study. No further subjects
were scheduled for interview until the previous interview had been recorded
for transcription. This rule and the time frame of two hours were strictly
adhered to, ensuring the most accurate recall possible.

As the study progressed, the researcher determined that family
interviews should be tape-recorded. Since these interviews were to be held in
private residences, the researcher had less control over distractions and
interruptions. Further, two, three, or even four people might be participants
in the interview. Switching to the tape-recorded interview required further
preparation as did plans for selecting the final sample and analyzing the data.

These .needs were met through a series of additional readings and a
meeting with a university specialist in field methodology. The plan for tape-
recording interviews was informed by Ives (1974). Specific interview
strategies, techniques, and tactics were drawn from three separate editions by
Gorden (1969, 1980, 1987). Additional plans for data analysis were generated
from weekly meetings with the chair of the dissertation committee and other
meetings with committee members. The sampling methodology was informed
through the study of works on theoretical sampling by Glaser (1965, 1978) and

Glaser and Strauss (1967).

75

The general plan for the study was simple and straight forward. The
researcher used his contacts in the educational community. Serving as what
Gorden (1987) terms special respondents, these administrators, counselors, and
alternative education teachers assisted the researcher in developing a list of
over 70 drOpouts. As a check on reliability and validity, permission was
obtained to review their CA60 files (cumulative school records). This enabled
the researcher to verify information gained through dropout interviews.

Interviews were scheduled through phone contacts and through face-to-
face meetings at the dropout's residence, work, or through school programs. A
multiple contacts approach was used. As both respondent and informant, the
dropout was asked about his/her story as well as the story of his/her family.
As interviews progressed a pool of possible subject families was developed.

Using demographic data to provide the greatest possible variety, families
were contacted by phone and permission was sought to include them in the
study. As a family joined the sample, they were interviewed. The primary
interview was used to gather background information and to establish rapport.
The interview was tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. Based upon
the outcome of the interview, another family was selected. No new family
was added until the family previously selected was interviewed.

As the sample grew, data were analyzed. A one—page handwritten
summary was prepared for each family. A frequency table of categories was
developed. Transcriptions were reviewed and dissertation memos written.
Weekly meetings were held with the committee chair, and on several occasions
he attended and observed interviews.

At the end of three months, a sample of 12 families had been selected.

In the early stages the data collected through the addition of each new family

76

served to expand the categories being tabled as well as providing information
which fit categories already identified. However, patterns were not easily
observed. Similarly, the first summaries which were written provided
substantial qualitative data, but they were not sufficient for making
generalizations regarding the behaviors and interactions of the dropouts, their
families, and schools. As families were charted and summarized, cells began
to fill, new categories were no longer being discovered, and events and
behaviors began to fit patterns. When the twelfth family was added, the
researcher concluded that an adequate saturation had been reached.
At this point, follow-up interviews were scheduled. The purposes of
these interviews were to:
- use the responses to the research questions
suggested by the first round of interviews to
probe more deeply into the family perspective on
dropping out;
-- gather additional demographic data;

-- fill in areas where information was missing; and

-- challenge, verify, and corroborate certain
responses as a validity check.

The process of data collection ended with the second round of interviews.

A chapter presenting and analyzing the data was then begun. This was
written as an essay using data collected on each of the 12 families. The essay
was divided into two descriptive sections which provided background regarding
the setting, the drOpouts, and. their families, and four sections which explored
the interactions of the dropouts, their families, and schools. The study ended
with a chapter on summary and conclusions. This chapter was organized

around the six research questions which guided the study.

77

Initial Field Exgriences

 

The following paragraphs relate the interview strategies, techniques, and
tactics used. The strategy used to select respondents is explained. Strategies
for contacting sites and arranging interviews are presented. The strategy of
the recording method is discussed next. Questioning techniques, specific
wordings, and other interview techniques are reviewed. Finally, tactics for
dealing with falsification, for challenging responses, and for probing selected
tOpic areas are presented.

Visits to schools, observation of alternative education programs,
interviews with dropouts, and participant observation in a large parent support
group for at-risk teens allowed the researcher to narrow the original list of
over 70 dropouts to 25. From this list of 25, the final sample of 12 was drawn.
This final sample of families was known only to the researcher and members of
the dissertation committee. This process served to protect the anonymity of
the subject families.

While selection of respondents was based upon the principles of
theoretical sampling, there were practical considerations as well. Proximity,
accessibility, and willingness to participate were all factors in obtaining the
final sample. The balance achieved according to criteria such as gender, age
of dropout, family makeup, and SES indicates that these practical
considerations did not weaken the sample.

The dropout was the primary vehicle for accessing families. As each
series of dropout interviews was concluded, permission was sought to speak
with other family members. Assurance was given that sensitive issues raised
regarding the family would remain confidential. If the respondent indicated

the researcher could contact his/her family, this was noted. This name was

78

then added to the pool of dropout families from which the final sample was
drawn.

The researcher contacted the majority of families by placing phone calls
to their place of residence. In one instance, after several attempts to reach
the parent at her residence, she was contacted at work. Four families were
met initially through a parent support group.

The phone contact began with the researcher reminding the parent or
guardian of the researcher's interview with their drOpout child. The purpose of
the study was then briefly reviewed and the importance of gaining the family
perspective explained. Permission was then requested to meet with the family
at their home.

Whenever the researcher was successful in reaching a family, this
request was granted. In one instance a single mother initially agreed to an
interview, then called complaining of a headache and withdrew. After
reviewing the interview of the woman's daughter, the researcher determined
that this story was powerful and valuable enough to warrant one further
contact. The researcher began the next conversation by asking the mother if
he could allay any concerns she might have. She expressed fear of retaliation
from a local high school assistant principal. Safeguards regarding anonymity
were reviewed, at which point the mother indicated she wanted to tell her
story. No other families contacted refused entrance nor required prodding. In
fact, most families appeared eager to tell their story.

After receiving permission to meet with the family, the researcher asked
for an interview date and time. In this matter all families were afforded
complete freedom. In no instance did the researcher request a specific date,

but rather indicated the family's schedule would be respected and he would

79

work around it. This resulted in meetings being held as early as 9:00 am. and
as late as 9:00 pm. All interviews were conducted during weekdays.

The next request was for directions to the family home. Directions were
recorded and repeated back when clarification was needed. In one instance a
mother preferred meeting the researcher at a local school. In another
instance the initial parent meeting was held in a coffee shop near the prison _
where her dropout son was serving a sentence. In all other instances, the
researcher interviewed the family in their place of residence.

The final request in each phone conversation was for permission to tape-
record the interview. On the phone no one hesitated to grant this permission.
However, upon entering several homes, the family required assurance of their
anonymity before being comfortable with the presence of the tape-recorder.
Whenever a family expressed hesitation, the researcher quickly volunteered to
take notes instead. No family accepted this offer.

As he entered the home, the researcher was usually asked where he
would be comfortable. When asked, he selected the kitchen table. In one
home the small size of the kitchen made the living room a better choice. In
two homes the researcher was led to the living room. In all cases, the primary
concern in establishing the interview location was the need to place the tape
recorder close enough for all respondents to be heard clearly.

A high-quality, voice-activated portable recorder was used. Long
playing tapes providing 45 minutes of uninterrupted conversation were used in
all interviews. Tests of the recorder had revealed conversation was easily
picked up from six to eight feet away. At all sites the recorder was centrally
located to ensure no respondent was further away than this distance. All tapes

produced adequate to excellent voice quality for transcription.

80

The date and name of the family were recorded prior to entering the
home. Each first round family interview was begun with a review of the
researcher's purpose(s) in the study, followed by their signing of a consent
form. The next step was to repeat the following explanation.

In this study I'm interested in your story. I'll be
asking you about your family background, your
experiences in school, and how you have experienced
school as a parent. Please think of yourself as looking
in a mirror as you respond. Tell me how you saw
yourself. But I also want you to be aware that others
can see in this mirror. I will also be asking you how
they saw you and whether or not the person looking in
the mirror changed how you saw yourself.

The researcher then asked if this approach made sense. Clarification was
offered and as much time was taken as needed.

This opening was inspired by Cooley's (1902) essay, "Looking-Glass Self."
Its intent was to keep the researcher conscious of the theory of symbolic
interaction and to assist the subjects in framing responses consistent with the
basic tenets of this theory.

Questions were asked chronologically. Details of past generations'
experiences in school were sought first. Questions regarding the parents'
school experiences came next. As the conversation relaxed a rapport and
climate for asking the more difficult questions regarding their role as parents,
their child's school experiences, and their interaction with school was
established. The six research questions provided the only other formal
framework.

The researcher used active listening and reflective responses to draw out
the subject(s). Information from the dropout interview and from school

records provided the researcher with insights. This facilitated probing for

additional information and allowed him to challenge false or inaccurate input.

81

Each interview was closed after approximately one hour of taped
conversation. At this time a request for a follow-up interview was made. In
each case this request was granted.

In all but one instance the formal interview was followed by a lengthy
family visit. The researcher was served lunch in one home, dessert in another,
and in another invited to stay and "have a few beers." At one home three
different generations of the family dropped in to visit with the "man who was
writing the book." These examples are provided to illustrate the warmth and
hospitality of these families as well as their sincere interest in telling their

stories and having it heard.

Initial Interviews

 

The following narrative, which summarizes interviews with the first
three families contacted, provides insight regarding the sampling method and
the process of generating an explanation of dropping out from the family
perspective.

The 12 families represented in the sample were not drawn randomly. In
the absence of a theory to be tested, such sampling is illogical. Since the
researcher sought to describe and explain the family perspective, all that was
needed was a family where one or more children had dropped out. As such, the
family was an instance of the case. Families were added to the sample
through the technique of theoretical sampling.

The first interview was scheduled with a female dropout. She was an
independent-liver, aged 17. Her sole means of support was the social security
she received from her deceased father's account. Her mother remained single

and resided in the original family home 90 miles away. The only living sibling,

82

an unmarried older sister with two illegitimate children, resided with the
mother. The sister was also a dropout and was willing to talk with the
researcher. All three, the mother and her two daughters, were living on
welfare and social security.

The researcher listened to their story. He gained knowledge of the
family's history with schools. He pursued answers to the research questions.
The story unfolded. The father had been an alcoholic. Eventually he deserted
the family. He had been physically and mentally abusive to the mother
throughout their brief marriage. He was unfaithful and carried on affairs
openly. He died when the dropout was in ninth grade. His death was the result
of a flaming truck collision at 2:00 a.m. Subsequently, the mother had a series
of brutal and unsuccessful affairs and remained single.

Father had been a dropout. Mother graduated from high school. Neither
the father nor the mother's parents had graduated from high school. A history
of alcoholism went back at least three generations.

School was perceived as a cold and somewhat hostile environment.
Other children mocked and taunted the Roundtree girls. When they fought
back, the school punished them unfairly, letting the other children go.
Attempts to provide special help were interpreted as discriminatory and were
either refused or resisted. Tammy, the dropout subject, did not speak to her
speech therapist for one entire school year.

The mother was the only stable force in the children's lives. Neither
parent went to school on behalf of the children. Mother expected little of her
girls and provided little structure. She did not expect school to serve her

children well.

83

The dropout subject's schooling experiences grew progressively negative
after the early elementary years. There were frequent moves. By high school
the subject described herself as a druggy and alcoholic. Subsequently, she
dropped out of school in her tenth grade year.

The second family was selected as a further instance of the case. It was
selected because it provided an extreme contrast to the first subject family.

This was an intact family consisting of natural father and mother, a male
dropout subject, and his nine year old sister. Mother was a federal civil
service employee with 10 years seniority. Father was unemployed, doing odd
jobs as an auto mechanic. The family was self-supporting. The daughter, age
nine, had compiled a good school record.

As in the first home, we sat at the kitchen table and the researcher
listened to their story. In both homes the adults chain-smoked cigarettes. A
late model color television was left on during both visits, a pattern which was
consistent in every family visited.

The interview began with Cooley's (1902) conception of the "Looking-
Glass Self." The researcher asked subjects to respond in terms of seeing
themselves in a mirror; to recall how they saw them selves in the situation, but
to also be aware that others could see in this mirror as well. How did the
presence of others, a teacher, an administrator, another family, change their
perceptions? Once the subjects acknowledged that this approach made sense,
the interview proceeded.

As the researcher listened, having reviewed the first tape, elements of
the first family's story were repeated. A story of generations of alcoholism
and physical abuse; an alcoholic father, unemployed, openly admitting to

frequent marijuana use; and mother, as the primary bond and center of the

84

family, was repeated. Schooling was described as a series of hostile
experiences with the cold bureaucratic underside of school. Efforts at special
attention, before in speech therapy, here in gifted—talented programs were
resisted and construed as damaging rather than helpful. The father recalled
being insulted by a gifted-talented coordinator who said, "As average parents
you may experience some difficulty in raising a gifted child." To this the
father replied, "He's probably the third smartest person in our family."

The parents held few expectations for their children. They did not go to
school on behalf of their children nor did they have any expectations that
school would serve their children well. They perceived school as teaching
their children a wage-laborer mentality. The importance of going to school
was associated with learning to show up for work.

There were differences as well as similarities. These were noted. A
frequency table was begun, and the next subject was selected. Again, it was
an instance of the case. This time a single parent home was selected. Father
was living, though not in touch with the family. So the sample was built. Each
new subject family was selected on the basis of the researcher's knowledge
from previous dropout interview(s). In some instances the subject was selected
due to his/her similarity to an earlier subject. In other instances, variety was
sought. In this fashion existing input was challenged or confirmed. The
explanation grew out of the addition of each new subject. When the sample
had reached 12, the researcher concluded that sufficient saturation had been
achieved. A story had emerged which appeared to repeat itself regardless of
family makeup or history.

This is not to say conditions were the same in all families. They were

not. Some families were keenly aware of their circumstances. Others

85

repeated their story with no evidence of previous. reflection or insight
regarding their children's difficulties in school. In several instances,
contradictory information was noted. Second interviews were required to
probe more deeply and clarify some of these statements. At least one family
operated on the basis that they really didn't want to know what had happened
to cause their son to drop out,or to end up in jail. They flatly denied
knowledge of facts and events known to this researcher and to many others in
their community.

As categories were developed, their properties were noted.
Interrelationships were sought. Thus, the study progressed, with the

explanation of dropping out both emerging and being generated in the process.

Chapter Summary

 

This chapter has been a presentation of the methodology employed. The
theory of symbolic interaction, which guided the study, has been explained.
The method of the tape-recorded interview and the technique of theoretical
sampling have been discussed. Techniques for analyzing the data have been
reviewed and the refinement of the research questions and tentative
conclusions presented. A brief narrative of field procedures has been

provided.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The researcher's purpose in this study was to describe the perspective of
family in the individual's decision to drop out of high school. More
specifically, the researcher examined the events, experiences, behaviors, and
interactions between and among the dropouts, their families, and the schools
in an effort to gain a better understanding of drOpping out. This investigation
was gilided by six research questions. As the study progressed, tentative
conclusions were written for each of these questions. These tentative
conclusions helped generate follow-up interview questions and provided focus
for additional gathering and refining of data.

In this chapter the researcher will present and analyze the findings as
they relate to the events, experiences, behaviors, and interactions studied.
The first two sections of the chapter describe the setting and introduce the
dropouts and their families. These sections are designed to provide
background for the findings. In separate sections the findings regarding the
interactions among the dropouts, their families, and the schools are presented.
The chapter is closed with a discussion of the family's perspective on dropping

OUT.

The Setting
The interviews, observations, and family visits which provide the data

base for this study were conducted between December of 1988 and October of

86

87

1989. Beginning in late 1988, the researcher visited high schools and
alternative schools in an effort to build a pool of families with children who
had dropped out of high school. In meetings held at these schools, at coffee
shops, homes, and places of work drOpouts were met and interviewed and a
sample of 12 families was eventually selected. The following paragraphs
describe the area in which these families live. Both their community and
home are described in an attempt to provide the richest possible appreciation
for the environment.

The entire study was conducted within a 100-mile radius of a small urban
center in the Midwest. The automotive industry remains the area's largest
stable source of income. Small urban industrial centers spread out from the
state's largest city 90 miles to the southeast. Light industry plays a minor yet
substantial role, followed by a large number of farms ranging from small 100-
acre dairy and pig farms to large privately-owned and corporate farms
producing dairy cattle, corn, soybeans, and other crops.

The recessions of the 19705 and '805 have had a powerful impact on this
area resulting in years of population decline and a loss of over 30,000
industrial jobs over the last 10 years. The surrounding rural villages and small
towns have also suffered due to their dependence on the auto industry and the
decline in all the attendant secondary industries which located in these areas
to take advantage of low tax rates and an available labor supply.

The farm has also been a victim of recession and the over-supply of farm
goods and products. Many local farms have been forced into debt and are
highly dependent on government programs. The plight of area farms is
evidenced in the rundown appearance of their barns and outbuildings with their

collapsing roofs and chipped and worn painted surfaces.

88

All the families included in the study live in outlying rural areas,
villages, and small towns. However, this is not to say that their children have
all attended small schools. Due to consolidations and mergers, many of those
included in the sample are the product of larger schools. The high schools
from which these students dropped out ranged in size from 550 to 1600.

Ten of the 12 families included in the study own their own homes. One
welfare family rents a small frame home in the rural village where they
reside, and the one emancipated dropout rents her trailer. One additional
family lives in a trailer park. The table on pages 65-66 reviews the type of
dwelling and locale of each of the families in the study.

Tammy Roundtree, an emancipated 18-year-old, lives in a single-width 65
foot trailer in a small rural trailer park. Her trailer is in good repair, and the
interior is neat and well kept. The central and largest room is the living room.
There one finds a late model color television set surrounded by modest
furnishings. It is interesting to note that every family visited owned a color
TV set in good repair and that the set was on during the entire time of most
visits. When it proved an interruption, it was turned down; but only in one
instance was the set turned off. Tammy has no phone and walks to a nearby
park general store to use the pay phone when necessary.

The Stanleys live in a rural area across from a cemetary and off a dirt
road. Their home is a small frame structure with no screens on the windows.
On arriving, one is greeted by a large German Shepherd whose presence and
ferocious bark would turn away most strangers. Her actual personality is
timid and playful. The home has a dirt driveway and a dirt path leading to the
front door. Numerous motorcycles and autos surround the property and lean

against the walls of the house. Inside is a pleasant living room with a large

89

color TV. A shag carpet is laid over the concrete slab flooring. There are
three small bedrooms, a single small bath, and a kitchen with a small eating
area. To the back of the house is a large laundry area and mudroom. The
general appearance of the home was dirty and cluttered.

The Menges live in a small, white, frame two-bedroom home in a rural
village. The modest exterior appears well kept from a distance, but on closer
inspection one sees cracked and broken windows. There is a large yard and the
dirt and gravel drive has a border of flowers. The front door opens to a
basement and laundry area. A flight of stairs leads to the main floor
comprised of a small living room (with entertainment center and color TV), an
eating area, and a kitchenette. A narrow hall leads to the two bedrooms and a
small bath. Several small dogs and a new litter of pups wander around the
house. The carpet is stained and the linoleum worn and cigarette burned.

The Clintons live in a suburban area of a small town. They have a well
kept aluminum-sided ranch style, three-bedroom home. There is a large yard
and a dirt and gravel drive, but as in most of these homes there is no garage.
To the north of them, the next two homes are owned by relatives. This is the
neighborhood in which Tom Clinton, Sr., grew up. The inside of the home is
modest, neat, and well-kept. A bookcase with an encyclopedia set and a
variety of hardbound and paperback books stands next to the TV. All rooms
are small and functional.

The Vitales live in a custom-built home on a riverfront lot. The
cluttered drive houses a variety of cars and a large recreational vehicle. The
long backyard leads down to a river where their ski and pontoon boats are

docked. The carpeted, split-level interior features spacious rooms, a

9O

wood burning stove, and not one but two color TVs. There are bedrooms and
baths on both levels of the home.

The Beauchamp family, parents of Bobbi Sue Small, are the second
trailer park family. They live in a new l750—square-foot, double-wide trailer
with two and one-half baths. They have just moved to this new park from a
rural farm house which was over 100 years old and collapsing. This mobile
home features new furnishings and a well decorated and attractive interior.
The living room, dining area, kitchen, and bedrooms are all carpeted and
spaciOus.

Mrs. Workman, mother of Wendy Anderson, lives in a large farm house in
a small rural village. This has been her home for 30 years, providing ample
room for the eight children she has raised there. The white frame, two story
house is freshly painted with large porches at the front and rear entrances.
Inside, the walls are stained pine or plaster. The heads of deer and other small
animals are mounted on the walls. There are numerous antiques and attractive
furnishings and, of course, a color television. The home rests on a large, one
and one-half acre site. The mother, her youngest daughter by her first
husband now deceased, and her only daughter from a second marriage which
ended in divorce, reside in the home.

The Mandrick family lives off a dirt and gravel road in a rural area near
one of the many small lakes common to this area. Their modest three
bedroom ranch sits on a large half acre lot. A custom built home to the west
sits on property once owned by the Mandricks. The front lawn and walkway
are attractive and well-maintained. Numerous cars line the side yard and
gravel drive. At the time of the researcher's second visit, the Mandricks had

received a complaint from the owner of the home on the property they sold,

91

to remove any unlicensed cars from their lot. The interior of the home is neat
and clean. A married daughter and son-in-law live in the basement apartment;
they are unable to afford their own home.

The Rogers also live in a modest home in a rural area near a small town.
No description of the interior of this home is possible as the parents were not
comfortable with the researcher's visiting the home, preferring to meet him at
a nearby school.

The Lambs, stepfather and mother of Mickey Collins, live in a ranch
style home near a rural village. They purchased this small home 11 years ago
for $14,000. Since first moving in, they have added a basement, a garage, and
an extra room. The interior features oak kitchen cabinets and hardwood
floors. The house itself is on a three-acre site with a creek running through
the backyard. Across the gravel road which fronts their property is a scrap
metal fence and a cluttered yard which Tom Lamb says has taken $10,000 off
the value of their home.

The Griggs, stepfather and mother of Ricky Henry, Jr., live in a tiny
home near the downtown area of a small rural town. The home has a living
area, a very small kitchen and dinette area, one bath, and two small bedrooms.
They have recently added a laundry area to the rear of their home. The small
yard and home appear neat and well-kept.

The final family in the study is the Walaseks. They live in a moderate
sized ranch home with an attached garage. Their home is located in a rural
area near another of the small local lakes. The home has neat and attractive
interior rooms. The exterior features a variety of sidings and appears to be in
the midst of some remodeling. The dirt drive is cluttered with cars and pickups

which appear to be in various stages of disrepair.

92

The following section introduces the dropouts in this study.

Dropouts and Their Families

 

This section introduces the dropouts and their families. Comments will
be restricted to descriptive and demographic information. Since in most cases
the researcher interviewed the dropout and the parents separately, the
descriptions of family are a composite of the dropout's perceptions and the
researcher's own observations. Due to the highly personal nature of many of
the questions and the respondents' right to ignore or refuse to answer any of
the items, some data in categories such as nationality or religion may be
incomplete. For example, when Lee Stanley was asked about his parents'
religion, he responded, "What has that got to do with Jason's education?" In
such instances the search for patterns was explained, but unless the respondent
then volunteered the desired data it was not pursued. Fortunately, such
reactions were rare. When data were not available, it is openly acknowledged.

The interactions of the dropouts within their families and between
family and school will be taken up in separate sections of this chapter. It
should be noted that names used repeatedly in presenting the qualitative data
gathered in this study are fictitious. School personnel and other actors in the
story who are referenced occasionally will be identified by a capital letter

such as Mr. B or by a blank space when referencing first names.

The Roundtree/ Walker Family

Tammy Roundtree is a petite, blonde, l7-year-old Caucasion. She first
drOpped out of high school in her sophomore year, shortly after reaching the
age of 16. She lives by herself in a rural trailer park. She left home at age 17

and refers to herself as "an independent liver"; however, no legal emancipation

93

papers were ever signed. She describes herself as a recovering teenage
alcoholic and substance abuser. She is a heavy smoker. Respiratory illness and
a chronic cough were evidenced during each of the researcher's interviews.
Her sole source of support is the monthly payment she receives from her
deceased father's social security. On occasion her mother will bring groceries
from the small town where she resides, some 80 miles away.

Tammy is the youngest of two children born to John and Gayle
Roundtree. The parents divorced when Tammy was one and her sister Denise
was three. The mother subsequently remarried and divorced and, after a
series of unsuccessful relationships, remains single. She has kept the last
name of her second husband, Walker.

Tammy is of Hungarian, German, French, and Scottish descent. Her
paternal grandparents were immigrants as were her maternal great-
grandparents. Her paternal grandfather and her maternal grandmother
drOpped out of school, not progressing beyond the late elementary years. Her
religious heritage is Methodist and Catholic, and as an infant she was taken to
a Free Methodist Church. Religious practice has not been continued in the
family beyond Tammy's infancy.

Tammy's father is deceased. She learned of his death at 2:00 o'clock one
morning during the last week of her freshman year of school. He was killed in
a flaming truck collision. Tam my recalled her father in a conversation with
the researcher.

For a long time I didn't really associate with
him. He was a heavy drinker and alcoholic. Plus, he
had played around a lot. I remember he had eight
different girlfriends . . . all at one time. . . . He was
handsome and he always had money. He worked at

GM for about 25 years. He was a ladies man and he
could simply drive down the street of a town and

94

meet someone and say, "Do you want to get in the
car with me?" and they would.

Tammy's father was a high school graduate.

Tammy began her description of her mother with, "She is also an
alcoholic." On meeting her, the researcher found Gayle Walker to be a short,
heavy-set woman in her mid-405. She related a story of a very disrupted
childhood. Her father married three times as did her mother. She describes
herself as growing up in a "his, mine, and ours" world. They were very poor
and often lived on social security due to her natural father's death when she
was 10. She currently lives in the original family home in the small rural town
where she grew up. Her stepfather John, her oldest daughter Denise, and
Denise's two illegitimate children live with her. Gayle works as a part-time
cook, but is often forced to rely on unemployment or welfare payments to
make ends meet. Gayle is a high school graduate.

Denise is 20 and like her sister, a high school dropout. She is also a
heavy smoker, as were all the adult family members met by the researcher. A
blackened front tooth evidences the need for dental care. She also describes
herself as alcoholic. Further, she describes herself as a mother and
homemaker. She currently has two children by the same father and is
pregnant with a third child by him. She indicated she will not work if it means
neglecting her children, even if that means having to continue living on ADC.
However, she does hope to marry their father Robert in the coming year, "if
he can keep his job at the ice cream company and, not have any more affairs."

During the course of interviews with this family the researcher also met
Stepgrandpa Bill, Uncle Don, Aunt Connie, Cousin Josh, Robert (the father of

Denise's children), and Denise's two small children, Chastity and Roberta. At

95

various times they all stopped in to talk to or to see the man "who was writing
the book." Their stories were recorded and added detail to the reseacher's

understanding of the family perspective on dropping out.

The Stanley Family

Jason Stanley is a tall, slightly built, and pale-complected l9-year-old
male Caucasian. He has long, fine, blonde hair and wears thick-lensed glasses.
His right upper arm sports a recent tattoo. He describes himself as "a skinny,
non-athletic kid." His initial decision to dropout was made after a freshman
year in which he earned virtually no credit toward graduation. It should be
noted that during this year Jason was identified as intellectually gifted and
placed in a special program. He returned to school each of the next two years,
finally leaving the traditional high school in what should have been his junior
year. He described this as being related to a bad drug experience which left
him with flashbacks and interfered with his ability to concentrate. According
to the mother, Jason is "a relatively straight person . . . he drinks occasionally
and gets high occasionally." He is currently unemployed and awaiting entrance
into the Coast Guard.

Jason is the oldest of two children born to Shirley and Lee Stanley. His
parents attended the same large suburban high school, his father graduating
and his mother dropping out in her freshman year. The father was 19 and the
mother 17 when they married. Jason was born two years later. Jason has a
nine year old sister named Angela. This is an intact family with parents
approaching their let year of marriage. They have lived in the same small

rural home for 14 years.

96

Jason is of English heritage. His father-was brought up Baptist; and
while his mother describes herself as having a strict religious upbringing, she
did not specify a denomination. She did indicate that her parents remain
active in the church. Shirley ended her religious practice at age 13. Her
parents' education level was not discussed. Lee Stanley discontinued his
church practice somewhere around age 10 when the family left his childhood
home and moved temporarily to California. Lee was the first member of his
family to graduate from high school. He has a brother who also went on to
graduate and a sister who dropped out.

Lee Stanley is 39 years old. He is a "semi-employed auto mechanic"
according to his own description. He is also a self-:professed anarchist. Lee
has long, thinning hair, is heavily tattooed on his upper arms, and wears thick
glasses. During the researcher's initial visit to the home, he wore a sleeveless
t-shirt, a black leather vest, and heavy black road boots. He is thin-armed and
has a large belly. He arrived late for our visit, pulling into the yard on a late-
model Honda Goldwing motorcycle. During the visit he chain-smoked non-
filter cigarettes. He is currently facing his second drunk-driving charge and
openly discussed smoking bowls (of marijuana) and drinking beer. He describes
himself as ". . . living an alternative life-style and having paid a price for it."

Shirley Stanley is 37 years old. She has 10 years' seniority as a Federal
Civil Service employee. After dropping out of high school during her freshman
year, she completed a general equivalency diploma and passed the Civil
Service examination. During the researcher's visit, she was dressed in a loose-
fitting tan blouse and jeans. Her reddish hair was done up in a semi-perm.

Her face is lined with premature wrinkles, her hands are rough, and her hair is

97

beginning to show grey. These characteristics give her the appearance of one
older than her years.

Jason has a younger sister named Angela. Like her father and brother,
she wore thick glasses. She was a polite and cheerful young lady, described by
her parents as "terribly friendly." When asked what was meant by this phrase,
the parents explained that she-is friendly with everyone. They related a story
in which, on a school-sponsored field trip to an area museum, Angela simply
walked off with an older man who bought her a gift. She is currently doing

well in school, though the parents do not consider her as bright as Jason.

The Menges Family

 

Tommy Menges is a 20-year-old male Caucasian with long black hair and
a thin but muscular build. His dropping out in his junior year was the result of
his expulsion from a small, rural, grade 7-12 secondary school where he was
caught selling "joints" to an eighth grade girl. At the time of the researcher's _
interviews, Tommy was unemployed. However, he does earn money as a
plasma donor. As Tommy explained,
I go to a plasma center on Tuesdays and Fridays.
The first time you go, they give you $15. The second
time $12, the third time $10. Then the fourth time they
give you $12 again, and every time after that it's $10,
then $12. You get an extra $5 for bringing someone else
in. So one day I made $17.
Tommy's arms bear thick scars from this activity. On one arm there was an
open sore, the result of a dirty needle. Tommy was treated for this with a
tetanus shot, which was okay with him because, "They pay you extra when you
have to get a shot. The only problem is your arm swells up."

Tommy is one of four children born to Nick and Donna Menges. He has

an older brother who is 21 and a younger brother aged 17. The baby of the

98

family, Mandy, is 16. The three youngest children still live at home with their
mother. The father deserted the family when Tommy was four. His sister
Mandy was only 10 months old at that time.

Tommy is descended from families of Eastern European heritage. His
grandparents on both sides were originally farmers. As the farms declined,
Nick's side of the family moved closer to an urban area and began blue collar
factory work. The men drOpped out in their late elementary school years to go
to work. One of Tommy's grandmothers continued to the eleventh grade.
Donna's side of the family was Baptist, and on Nick's side they were Protestant
and Catholic. Donna recalled all the grandparents as church-going people; but
she and Nick did not attend church, and Tommy was brought up without formal
religious training, though he does indicate that he believes in God.

Tommy describes his father Nick as a small man, perhaps 5'3" tall, who is
an alcoholic. Tommy said that, "He didn't drink in front of us that much";
however, Tommy has only heard from his father by phone and only when he is
drunk. His father has been to Minnesota and several other states. Tommy
believed his father is currently living in Florida. Nick owes the family over
$30,000 in child support. He has never made any of the court-ordered support
payments. Nick Menges is a high school dropout. He was 25 and Donna 17
when they married.

Donna Menges is a large Czechoslovakian woman. She announced her
weight at 230 pounds, down from the 260 she used to weigh. Donna is oldest of
three children. Her brother failed to complete school and was sent to a
juvenile home at age 15. Both she and her sister also quit school. Donna has
never been regularly employed and has raised her children on welfare

payments and ADC.

99

Mandy and her first cousin Rita were present during the researcher's
first visit to the Menges home. Rita has currently been put on the street by
her mother, Donna's younger sister. Donna has taken her in and will begin
collecting ADC for Rita. Rita calls her Aunt Donna "Mom." Donna has also
made arrangements for both of the girls to work in the local summer Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program to earn extra money. Their
comments provided the researcher additional insight regarding family and
dropping out as Rita is also a dropout and Mandy has special education

placement and is classified as emotionally impaired.

The Clinton Family

 

Tom Clinton, Jr., is a l9-year-old Caucasian of average height, thin
build, pale skin, and dark hair. Tom describes himself as "an unpopular kid."
According to Tom, "Kids still don't like me. Everywhere I've lived, I've only
made one or two good friends." Tom is a heavy smoker. He first left the
regular high school program to go into an alternative program after frequent
discipline problems and an arrest for grand theft, breaking, and entering. At
that time he was living in a large city in the South. Shortly thereafter his
parents returned to their hometown in the rustbelt. Tom continued high school
for several more years, dropping out of regular high school in his junior year.
He later enrolled in another alternative program where he completed the
requirements for a diploma and thereupon enlisted in the army. An ankle
injury prevented him from completing boot camp. When given the option of
repeating boot or taking a discharge, Tom elected to leave the service. He is
currently employed in two minimum wage jobs as a dishwasher and fast food

employee.

100

Tom is the oldest of two children born to Donna and Tom Clinton, Sr. He
has a younger sister Joyce who is 15. His parents grew up together in the same
small town and married right out of high school. Tom describes them as
having to elope because Donna's family did not accept Tom senior. Tom's
parents moved away immediately, living first in a neighboring Midwestern
state, then moving to the Southwest and finally to the South. They returned to
the town where they grew up when Tom was 15 and today live on the same
street with Tom, Sr's., brother and parents.

Tom is of mixed ancestry. On his mother's side there is German, Dutch-
Irish, French, and Cherokee blood. Donna described her husband's heritage as
"Heinz 57. You name it, he's got it. So his mother says he's got so many
different nationalities she doesn't even want to; she can't even begin to name
them all." The Catholic and Lutheran faiths were practiced during the
parents' childhood, but currently there is no religious practice in the Clinton
family. As Tom, Sr., stated, "We've gone all the way. During times of our
lives, we've been going to church two or three times a week to like we are
right now where we just don't go to church and we don't associate with any
church."

On the maternal side of Tom's family both grandparents quit school, the
grandfather leaving in the eighth grade. There were 19 children in his family,
and his help was needed on their small farm. The paternal grandparents both
drOpped out as well. The grandmother was described as rebellious, leaving in
the ninth grade. Donna's parents were potato farmers and resided in the poor
area of an otherwise affluent community. Tom senior's father was a mechanic

and his mother was a homemaker.

101

Tom Clinton, Sr., is a large, heavy-set man, over six feet in height and
weighing well over 200 pounds. He is a high school graduate. After a brief
stint in college, he decided to enter the workforce where he became successful
as an electronics technician. This led to his current work as a computer
technician. Tom senior is bright and highly verbal. He commented that in
recent weeks, three different people have labeled him as "right-brained." He
enjoys reading, but' does not ever read a book cover-to-cover. He prefers a
book that has a good table of contents and an index so that he can select what
he wants to read. Tom senior and his son are members of an area Dungeons
and Dragons Club and play twice a week in the evening.

Donna Clinton is a small, brown-haired woman in her late 305. She
provides a powerful contrast to her husband. She is an organized and concrete
thinker. Their differences were evidenced in the opposing reSponses they gave
to the researcher's questions. Donna is currently employed as a clerk at a
nearby mall. She also graduated from high school after being retained in her
elementary years. She is a heavy smoker.

The youngest member of the Clinton family is Joyce. She is 15 and a
sophomore. She is a small, attractive, dark-haired young woman. The parents
described her as a difficult infant, but indicated that she proved to be more
manageable than Tom as the children got older. According to her brother,
"Joyce has always done great in school." However, she was recently
disciplined for smoking, and the parents have also been notified by the school

that she is discussing Satanic worship.

102

The Vitale Family

Sonny Vitale is a l7-year-old Caucasian. He has a medium build, thick,
black, shoulder-length hair, a coarse complexion, and dark brown eyes. He
gave this description of himself, "I'm Mr. Bad. I'm Mr. Clean and brush my
teeth and all sorts of s--—." Between his eighth and ninth grade years, Sonny's
family moved from their long time home in a nearby city to a new rural home
on a riverfront lot. Sonny dropped out of high school as a SOphomore after a
freshman year of discipline problems and SUSpensions. Despite his special
education status, Sonny was threatened with expulsion and his father Gus was
given the choice to remove Sonny from school or face disciplinary
consequences. This was before Sonny's sixteenth birthday. After spending the
better part of a year out of school, Sonny has been enrolled in an alternative
education program; however, due to attendance and drinking problems, the
parents are not Optimistic that he will continue. At age 17, Sonny's failure to
earn credits means he is still classified a freshman. Sonny is a heavy smoker
and has been since his seventh grade year. Sonny held down a summer job, but
is currently not working.

Sonny is the youngest of five children born to Mary and Gus Vitale. His
oldest sister Lisa is in her mid-30$. His oldest brother Sammy just turned 30.
The next brother, Gus junior, is 27. Sonny's youngest sister is Martha, aged 22.
This is an intact family. The parents married in their late teens and have been
together for over 30 years.

Sonny's father is Italian. His father's parents were immigrants. His
mother is Polish, and her parents were also immigrants. None of Sonny's
grandparents graduated from high school, his maternal grandfather having left

school in the sixth grade. Both of his grandfathers were factory workers and

103

his grandmothers were homemakers. His father was raised Catholic, and his
mother Russian Orthodox.

Sonny's father Gus was born and raised in a predominantly black urban
neighborhood. After his father left the family, Gus was moved around a lot, at
times living in orphanages. He attended Catholic school for eight years and
was an altar boy. Later he went to trade school, but dropped out to go to
work. He described his work experiences,

I worked jumping milk trucks four or five in the

morning, hustling milk at . . . creamery. I worked in

the gas stations. I worked in donut shops. 1 did

everything I could. I went into the service, came out. I

used to work over at . . . plant . . . blowing the soot off

the rafters over the foundries. . . . Big money. It kept

the family going. And the wife worked. I worked.
Gus has since put in 29 years with one of the big three automakers, retiring
two years ago due to a back injury. Gus is a slightly built, wiry man. He chain
smokes and Openly discusses his years of alcoholism. Two years ago doctors
told him to stop drinking or he would die and he quit "cold turkey."

Mary Vitale is a heavyset Polish woman in her early 505. She is a heavy
smoker. Sonny also describes her as a recovering alcoholic. She left high
school pregnant with Lisa. Years later she returned to night school to
complete her requirements for a diploma. She currently works full time
handling all the ordering and shipping for a computer and electronics company.

The two oldest Vitale children are employed by the same automaker
from which their father retired. They both graduated from high school. The
next oldest son, Gus junior, is a high school dropout. He currently works in a

junk yard. The youngest girl Martha is also a dropout. She has two small

children that she is raising alone. She currently lives on welfare.

104

The Sm all/Beauchamp Family

 

Bobbi Sue Small is a 17-year-old Caucasian. She is a short, stocky girl
with bleached hair and a pale complexion. She wore a large jacket or bulky
sweater during all interviews and observations. Bobbi Sue was raised primarily
by her father and stepmother, but ran away from their home at the end of her
eighth grade year. At that time she came to live with her mother and
stepfather. She enrolled in the local high school, but failed all her coursework
her freshman year. She subsequently dropped out of school. The following
year she enrolled in an alternative high school. At the time of the researcher's
follow-up interview, she had run away. Bobbi Sue openly discussed her
substance abuse and drinking problems which began in middle school. She is a
heavy cigarette smoker. At the time of the initial interview, she was working
in a convalescent center.

Bobbi Sue is the youngest daughter of Chuck and Bobbi Small. She has a
sister two years older named Tammy. When Bobbi Sue was four years old, her
parents divorced. The court gave custody to the father. Bobbi Sue remained
with her father until she ran away at'age 15. She currently lives with her
mother and stepfather, Larry Beauchamp. He has been married to her mother
for 12 years.

Bobbi Sue's natural parents are both from the hill country in the South.
The grandparents were Baptist, but neither of her stepparent homes have
practiced religion. Her maternal grandparents both dropped out of school.
The grandfather made it as far as high school, but the grandmother left in the
eighth grade. Bobbi Beauchamp was not sure if her first husband's parents

graduated from high school, but she did not believe they did.

105

Bobbi Sue did not like discussing her natural father. When she did it was
in terms of the beatings he used to give her with his belt. In fact, it was one
of these beatings that led to her running away. When the researcher asked
Bobbi Sue's mother to describe the father, she gave the following statement.

Would you like me to tell you about my ex-
husband? Okay, he's had two kids while I was married
to him by other women. He tried to rape my sister was
why I divorced him. He had an affair with my sister-in-
law for three years that I didn't know anything about
while my brother was living with us. And finally when I
found out that he tried to rape my sister, I said, "That's
it." Sol went and filed for divorce.

The stepfather added that Chuck Small had been a member of a city gang.

He ran with a gang in (factory city), and he was
the smallest guy and they would send him in to start the
fights and then the gang would come in. . . . They'd pick
a fight with one guy, say, "Well, let's go outside and
finish this," and then the gang would be out there and
then they'd jump him and rob him.

Bobbi Sue's father is employed. He is a high school drOpout.

Bobbi Beauchamp is a blonde, fair skinned woman in her late forties. She
is 10 years older than her second husband Larry. She speaks with a heavy
Southern accent. Bobbi and Larry met working next to each other at an auto
factory. She no longer works and now refers to herself as "a domestic
engineer." Larry's preference is that Bobbi stay at home, and she quickly adds
that she does not like anything about woman's liberation, especially that she
can no longer fish of f her husband's license. Bobbi is a high school dropout.

Larry Beauchamp is a large, dark-haired man in his late thirties. He
works two jobs. His primary job is at a nearby auto plant. To help pay for
their new trailer, he is also picking up extra hours at a local gas station. Larry

chain-smoked non-filter cigarettes throughout the researcher's visit to their

home. Larry is a high school graduate.

106

The Anderson/Workm an Family

 

Wendy Anderson is an l8-year-old Caucasian. She is of average height
with blonde hair and light skin. She presents an attractive appearance. Wendy
drOpped out of high school in her sophomore year at the age of 16. At the time
she and an older sister Candy were dating members of a local band. They
followed the band on one of its road trips. Candy had already dropped out, so
when she decided to stay with the band, Wendy also stayed. Since then Wendy
has returned to school on numerous occasions, but at age 18 lacks the credit to
graduate and has drOpped out. Wendy lives in the same large farmhouse in the
rural village where she was born. She attended school in the same district her
entire life. Wendy does not work, but receives social security benefits from
her deceased father's account. Wendy is a heavy cigarette smoker. She began
smoking at age 12. She was introduced to marijuana by her older brothers and
sisters when she was in the fifth grade. Wendy also drinks, sometimes quite
heavily. She is currently involved with a man 10 years her senior.

Wendy is the youngest of seven children born to Frank and Martha
Anderson. Her father was 32 and her mother 19 when they married. After the
father's death from lung cancer 16 years ago, Martha married Steve Workman.
They had one child, Wendy's half-sister Amy who is now 11 years old. They
have subsequently divorced. Martha has kept her second husband's last name.
Wendy's oldest brother Johnny is deceased. He would be 33 years old. She has
four other brothers aged 31, 30, 28, and 23. Her sister Candy is 25. Candy is
currently in prison for crimes related to her heroine addiction. Only Jim, the
23-year-old, graduated from high school. Wendy described all her brothers and

sisters as heavy users of marijuana and other illegal substances.

107

Wendy is primarily of Scandinavian descent. Her parents were brought
up in the Catholic faith, but religion was not practiced in Wendy's home. Her
maternal grandparents were farm people. Both dropped out of high school.
Her paternal grandmother died when her father was seven. Her paternal
grandfather was also a high school dropout. He worked on a farm in his early
life, later finding work in the factories.

Wendy's father, Frank Anderson, dropped out of school to join the service
during World War 11. Martha gave the following description of her first
husband.

When I met that guy, he had four businesses going.

One in (she named four small factory towns). Tarp

repair, made awnings, boat covers. And this man had a

new pickup every couple of years at each business and

he just . . . he had a lot of get up and go, determination,

that he was going to do better than what his family was

where he come from. But he . . . you can only do so

much. You get help that just live for a paycheck and

maybe go out and drink and wreck the trucks, so . . .

after we'd been married a couple years or maybe a year

or two he had to close businesses down because he

couldn't get any good help.
Martha further recalled her first husband as a good man who didn't beat her,
who spent time with his kids, even though he drank heavily. Frank died of lung
cancer when Wendy was two. Her only memory of her father was that
following his cancer surgery she rubbed lotion on his scarred back.

Martha Workman is an attractive woman in her early fifties. During the
reseacher's visits to her home, she was always well dressed and her hair neatly
styled. Martha is a high school drOpout who went back to complete a GED 20
years later. She lives in the home where she and Frank had seven children

together. She lives on welfare and ADC. She has always been a homemaker

and has never worked. Her two youngest daughters, Wendy and Amy, live with

108

her. Martha does not drink or smoke and is troubled by her children's
substance abuse.

Martha married Steve Workman one and one—half years after Franks'
death. This was not a happy marriage. Steve did not get along with the
Anderson children. When Wendy was in seventh grade, Steve and Martha
divorced. Wendy gave the following description of her stepfather, "He was the
only father I ever knew; however, I don't consider him a father now. . . . He

was a drunk, and he still is a drunk."

The Mandrick Family

 

Bob Mandrick, Jr., is a short, heavy set, l7-year-old Caucasian with
sandy hair and freckles. Bob dropped out of the regular high school at age 16.
This followed a middle school experience during which he was retained, placed
in a parochial school, and upon returning to the public schools involved in a
series of discipline problems. He indicated he never actually earned passing
grades, but was always "lifted," that is, given social promotions. Within five
minutes of meeting the researcher, Bob interrupted and said, "What I should
tell you, by the way, is I'm a drug addict and alcoholic—recovering drug addict
and alcoholic, that might help." During his interview, Bob described a history
of alcoholism and substance abuse beginning at age six. He was introduced to
this by older sisters and their friends. Bob smoked heavily during all interview
sessions. He is currently working a part-time job in a local garage. Bob has
enrolled in an alternative program to attempt completion of his diploma.

Bob, Jr., is the youngest of three children born to Norma and Bob
Mandrick, Sr. His two older sisters, Bonnie and Barbara, are both high school

graduates. Bonnie is 19 and Barbara 20. Bonnie and her husband currently live

109

in the finished basement of the Mandrick home. They have just had their first
child. All three of the Mandrick children attended the same schools and were
raised in the same rural home.

Bob, Jr.'s, sister Bonnie was present during all the researcher's visits to
the home. On occasion she sat in on conversations, adding her insight

regarding her brother's difficulties in school.

The Rogers Family

 

Susan Rogers is a short 18-year-old Caucasian with blonde hair and blue
eyes. She dropped out of high school during her junior year. This followed a
period of absence due to illness. Upon her return she indicated that she had
difficulty catching up on her school work. According to Susan, her school
difficulties were complicated by severe problems with several of her peers.
Shortly after dropping out, she discovered that she was pregnant. This past
year she gave birth to a baby girl. The baby's father deserted Susan during her
sixth month of pregnancy and has since denied‘responsibility for the child.
Susan is currently engaged to another young man from the small town where
she grew up. Susan lives with her parents and supports herself and the baby on
ADC payments. She does not work. Susan has been a smoker and has used
drugs and alcohol, but indicates she has discontinued this since the birth of her
baby.

Susan is the youngest of six children born to Bill and Arlene Rogers. Her
oldest sister Sherry is 34 and drOpped out of school in the eleventh grade.
After a family move, she refused to attend high school in the new town. She is
currently living with a man, and they have three children. She does not work.

The next daughter Donna is 32. She is a high school graduate, married, and has

110

five children. She has worked as a grocery clerk, but is currently a
homemaker. The oldest son Billy is 29. After dropping out of high school he
entered the Air Force and has since completed his GED. He plans on making a
career of the service. The next two children, Guy, age 24, and Marsha, age 19,
are both high school graduates. Despite several separations, Bill and Arlene
remain married after nearly 36 years.

Susan is of Irish descent. Her maternal grandmother was Irish Catholic,
but the grandfather did not attend church until the death of one of his sons at
age 16. There were 13 children in this farm family. The paternal side of the
family was also comprised of farmers. In both families the sons left school
‘early to go to work, but the women tended to complete their schooling. As the
profits from the farms declined, men in both families went to the city to work
in the factories. The grandparents on both sides of this family drOpped out.

Susan's paternal grandmother had crippling arthritis. As a result her
father left school at an early age to help out at home. While working on the
family farm, he met Susan's mother. Shortly after meeting Bill, Arlene
became pregnant and had to quit high school. Bill found work as a self-
employed builder, hanging dry wall and doing home construction. He has
continued this work throughout his adult life; however, he has never
maintained steady employment, and the family has often been forced to rely
on welfare or ADC. Susan describes her father as an alcoholic and a chain-
smoker. Arlene Rogers also indicated that he has been a physically abusive
husband. Currently, his health is failing. He has just completed cataract
surgery. He has also been diagnosed with emphysema and a bleeding ulcer.

Despite these conditions, he has not given up smoking or drinking.

111

Arlene Rogers is in her mid-fifties. She has recently completed her
GED, 28 years after drOpping out of high school. She smokes and, for a period
of time, attempted to drink with her husband; but she found this only made
matters worse. Arlene describes herself as a battered wife who has lived with
over 30 years of her husband's alcoholism. She has never worked outside the
home, but has spent her entire adult life raising her six children. Two other

children died in infancy.

The Collins/Hunt Family

 

Mickey Collins is a tall, lS-year-old, brown-haired Caucasian with a
handsome face and an athletic build. Mickey drOpped out of school in his
senior year following an arrest and a period of heavy drug use. At the time he
was living with his natural father and stepmother; however, he spent the
majority of his childhood in the home of his stepfather and mother. Mickey's
number one interest growing up was hunting, but he also tried many other
sports, clubs, and activities. His stepfather refers to him as a "runner"
because he never stayed with or completed any of these activities. Mickey has
worked numerous odd jobs including busing tables at a supper club. At that'
time, according to his natural mother and stepfather, he was also "dealing"
marijuana for his natural father. Mickey is a non-smoker. He is currently in
the armed forces.

Mickey is the only child of Dick and Debbie Collins. They were divorced
when Mickey was only two years old, so he grew up not knowing his father. He
did not get to know his real dad until the fifth grade. Both his father and

mother remarried. His stepfather, Tom Lamb, and his mother have had one

112

child, Mickey's half sister Kim, aged 11. Mickey also has three half brothers
and sisters from his father's second marriage. They are aged 11, 7, and 5.

Mickey's father is Irish Catholic, and his mother is English. There was no
religious upbringing in her home. Neither of Mickey's parents came from
stable families. On the father's side they did some farm and factory work, but
were often dependent on welfare payments. His maternal grandmother was
married four times, and his mother barely knew her natural father. The
grandmother was a bartender and later worked for a greeting card company.
She is currently living on welfare. Mickey's paternal grandparents graduated,
and his maternal grandparents were high school dropouts.

Mickey's mother gave the following description of her first husband.

He dropped out of school after his junior year
to get married. Then he got a job in a factory by
lying about his age; and of course it took them about
two weeks to find out, and when he quit then he
really got involved in drugs and drinking and stuff for
a while. He did eventually, and this was after we
split up so I don't know when, but . . . he did get his
GED. And he went in the service, and then he quit
that. . . . He got out on a medical discharge, which it
was something he had before he even went in . . . he
still doesn't work. He deals drugs. He's a real loser,
and I'm not saying that because he's my ex-
husband . . .

Debby Lamb is an attractive woman in her late thirties. She dropped out
of high school in her junior year. She was pregnant with Mickey at the time.
She was divorced when Mickey was two years old. Two years later, she
remarried and has a daughter from this marriage. Debby returned to school to
complete her GED. She currently has a responsible clerical position, working

for an accounting firm. Mickey describes his mother as being "a hippie and

using drugs" when she was younger. The mother confirmed this, but also

113

indicated that she does not currently use drugs and only drinks socially. She is
a non-smoker.

Mickey's stepfather is a large man, 6'3" in height and weighing upwards
of 250 pounds. Mickey described their relationship as "touch and go." There
were frequent physical punishments with both a belt and a board. On one
occasion, at age four, Mickey was hospitalized because the belt buckle
wrapped around his penis and cut him. Protective services has intervened on
two occasions, and at one time the family was ordered into counseling. Tom
Lamb graduated a year late from a Catholic high school after leaving for a
year in the seventh grade to help out at home after his father died. Mickey
also described his stepfather as a man he respects as a hard worker. Tom
describes himself as a hard worker and a real "son of a bitch." He discussed
having a drinking problem at one time, but currently does not drink to excess.

Tom is a non-smoker.

The Henry/Griggs Family

Ricky Henry, Jr., is a short l9-year-old Caucasian with brown hair and a
sturdy build. Difficulty in school resulted in his transfer from a regular high
school to an alternative program. Unable to comply with its strict attendance
limits, he missed several terms of school but continued to return in an attempt
to complete his diploma. In December of 1988, he was arrested and sentenced
to three to five years in prison. His convictions included a breaking and
entering charge, violation of probation, and two drunk driving charges. He
remains in prison at this time. Ricky was introduced to marijuana and alcohol
use at age six by older cousins who cared for him after his parents' divorce.

He gave this description of his drug use.

114

I was into a little bit of everything. I was doing

cocaine, marijuana, acid, uppers, downers, and

alcohol. Just about anything I could get my hands

on . . .I mean you just got to know the right people,

and I've been hanging around with my cousin, you

know, and all these people knew me from my cousin,

and they knew I wasn't a snitch or anything like that,

so I got into the older crowd when I was younger.
Ricky worked in a small factory during the evenings prior to his arrest. He
holds a varsity letter in football from his high school. He is a heavy smoker.
A tattoo of "mom" decorates his right shoulder.

Ricky is the only child of Sandy and Ricky Henry, Sr. They divorced
when Ricky was six. At that time his mother was forced to take a factory job,
and Ricky was often left to be supervised by older cousins. When Ricky was
nine, his mother married Fred Griggs. Fred has continued to raise Ricky and is
referred to by him as "dad." Ricky's father also remarried so that Ricky has
both stepsisters and half-brothers and half-sisters.

Ricky is of French and Irish descent. On his mother's side of the family,
the Catholic religion was practiced; the father's side was not church-going.
His paternal grandparents were high school graduates; his maternal
grandparents dropped out. Grandfather Henry worked in a factory that
supplied auto parts. The grandmother died of diabetes when Ricky, Sr., was
only 12 years old. Ricky's maternal grandfather worked for a lumber company
until he was disabled by a stroke. The maternal grandmother was also a
factory worker. The grandparents on both sides of the family were alcoholics.

Ricky gave this description of his father.

He's a truck driver. He drinks pretty heavy.
He's a drinker. It's hard to tell. When I turned 16 is
when I really started being with him and that. I'd go
to the bars with him. We looked so much alike I'd

just walk in and not smile or anything like that, and
I'd get served in a bar, 16 years old. He loves me.

115

He'd do anything for me if I asked him to. But I don't

ask him very often, you know, because my mom's

always been there. But he's a good man, I feel.
Ricky's mother portrays her first husband as an alcoholic and a womanizer,
having caught him at home in bed with another woman. She also suspected
that he used his long distance truck runs as an opportunity to cheat on her.
Ricky, Sr., is a heavy smoker. He recently suffered a massive heart attack.
He remains married to his second wife. He is a high school dropout.

Sandy Griggs is a short, stocky, dark-skinned woman in her forties.
After several years of work in a small factory dependent on the auto industry,
she was laid off. She now supports her family working two jobs as a waitress
and bartender. She is a high school graduate and still lives in the town where
she grew up. She enjoyed growing up in this small town and had many friends.
She was a cheerleader and one of the kids in the "in group." Sandy drinks and
is a heavy smoker.

Fred Griggs is of average height with short dark hair. He drOpped out of
high school in his junior year to join the service. He describes himself as
"illiterate." As service life became more demanding and his friends retired,
his inability to read or write eventually led to his discharge. He had wanted to
remain a career serviceman. He went to work doing factory jobs, but injured
his back. Last year he suffered a mild heart attack. Fred is currently
unemployed and is suing for disability. Fred drinks moderately and smokes

heavily.

The Walasek Family
Virginia Walasek is a petite, dark-com plected, 17-year-old with jet black

hair and attractive features. She dropped out of the regular high school

116

program on her sixteenth birthday, literally telling the school, "Screw this."
This followed a series of moves and what she termed "hanging out with the
wrong crowd." She had begun smoking cigarettes in the fifth grade and by the
junior high years was smoking marijuana, drinking, and skipping school. When
her family moved back to her home town, she felt she no longer had any
friends and describes herself as getting farther and farther into drugs and
alcohol. Virginia regards herself as a teenaged alcoholic and attends AA
meetings almost every night of the week. As she stated, "I know I have
another drunk in me, but I don't know if I have another recovery." She is
currently enrolled in an alternative school and hopes to complete her diploma.

Virginia is the youngest of three girls born to Becky and Dan Walasek.
Her oldest sister Vicki is a high school graduate and went on to college. The
middle sister Laticia is also a high school graduate. The oldest sister was the
scholar of the family, and the next sister was the athlete and cheerleader.
Both appear to have enjoyed school. This is an intact family. After a series of
moves, the family returned to live in the home where Virginia lived from age
two on. Her paternal grandfather lives in the home. Both sisters have moved
out.

Virginia's mother is a native of Mexico, born in a small village outside
Mexico City. Her maternal grandparents were poor laborers and orphans.
Neither one completed even an elementary education. This was a strong
Catholic family. The parents raised Becky hoping she would become a nun.
Virginia's father is Polish and was raised Presbyterian; however, his parents
were not church-goers. Her paternal grandfather was a bricklayer and an
alcoholic and eventually deserted the family. The grandmother was a

homemaker. Neither of these grandparents went to school beyond the fifth

117

grade. Virginia's parents met when her father was a missionary in Mexico.
Neither practices religion today. They describe themselves as "atheist or
agnostic."

Dan Walasek is a soft-spoken wiry man in his late forties. He runs his
own construction company. He quit school in the eleventh grade, but went
back and completed the requirements for a diploma through night school. He
has also taken some college level coursework. He describes himself as "pretty
inaccessible emotionally." He enjoyed having his girls, but left raising them to
their mother. Dan drinks an occasional beer or glass of wine, but does not
drink excessively. He does not smoke.

Becky Walasek is a Mexican woman in her late forties. She has freckles
and reddish hair. She graduated from the "collegio" or Mexican high school as
well as earning a high school diploma in the states. She speaks with a heavy
Hispanic accent, but is completely fluent in English. She has worked during
recessionary periods "when you couldn't buy a job in the construction business."
Presently she is taking some junior college courses and staying home. Becky
does not smoke and, although she may take an occasional glass of wine,
generally does not drink alcoholic beverages.

The previous section described the setting. This section provided
additional background. It was found that the generational family is
characterized by low economic aspirations and achievement. The generational
family was also characterized by early maturity, early entrance into the
workforce, and early marriage. High rates of dropping out, alcoholism, and
health problems were discovered in a majority of families.

The following section relates the experiences of the grandparents and

parents with school.

118

Family Members' Experiences with School*

The family is viewed as a collective with its own perspective. As Becker
et a1. (1968) suggest, to understand the family perspective the researcher must
study the family to discover how their activities grow out of their ideas. Their
activities are the "logical extensions" (p. 28) of their ideas. These activities
take the form of behavior patterns which seem "reasonable and appropriate to
the situations they are applied to" (p. 28) and thus their ideas are reinforced by
and grow from their patterns of action. If this researcher were to understand
the meaning of dropping out from the family's perspective, he needed to study
the interactions, that is, the ideas and actions of the acting units related to
educational experiences which generated this perspective.

Respondents were questioned regarding three generations of family. The
dropout was asked to relate knowledge of his/her parents' school experience.
Similarly, the parents were asked directly about their school experiences, as
well as school experiences of their parents. When appropriate, data were also
gathered on stepparents.

The family members' responses were recorded, transcribed, summarized,
and charted. Over 600 pages of transcription were accumulated. Summaries
were limited to two pages per family and focused on demographic data as well
as general statements responding to the research questions. Sixty-two
categories were charted. As data were analyzed, repetition and overlap in the
categories were uncovered. This proved a useful tool for cross-referencing

data as well as in identifying patterns within and among families.

 

*Throughout the remainder of the dissertation, the term "school" is
frequently used to refer to the people and groups who make up school. This
anthrOpomorphic usage is necessary to ensure readability and to simplify
frequent references to family and school.

119

The nature of qualitative data demands the liberal use of quotations. To
repeat all evidence on a given set of interactions or to include all responses
relevant to the tOpic would prove both redundant and cumbersome. Further, it
would hamper the readability of the study without necessarily strengthening
its findings. As a result, representative families were selected to serve as
case studies exemplifying specific findings. This allowed the researcher to
preserve the context of comments. The longer case studies were followed by
brief supporting comments from other families. Table 3, suggested by the
work of Miles and Huberman (1984), provides a summary of the family dropout
history. This may be seen to organize and objectify the qualitative data
presented.

It is the job of the qualitative researcher to search the data and present
the findings in a manageable fashion. All data selected for case study are
representative of patterns found in the investigation. When exceptions to
these patterns existed, data reflecting these exceptions were also cited. The

section closes with an analysis of these findings.

Findings

The data collected on grandparents disclosed a high rate of dropping out.
The grandfathers had a higher dropout rate than the grandmothers. The
primary reason given for males was finding work. Females were reported as
leaving school to help out at home or to marry. The grandparents owned or
worked farms or held blue collar jobs. Several were immigrants. None went
on to college, nor was there any apparent upward movement in social class.

Early deaths and divorce added hardship in several families. Gaining

120

Table 3
Family History of Dropout Behavior

 

Paternal Maternal Paternal Maternal
Grand— Grand- Grand- Grand- Step-
Families father father mother mother Father Mother father

 

 

 

 

Roundtree

/Walker X O O X O O NA
Stanley X NK X NK O (X) NA
Menges X X X X (X) (X) NA
Clinton X X X X O O NA
Vitale x x x x x (X) NA
Sm all/

Beauchamp NK X NK X - (X) X 0
Anderson/

Workman X X X X X (X) X
Mandrick X X O O O O NA
Rogers X X X X X (X) NA
Collins/

Lamb 0 X O X (X) (X) O
Henry/

Griggs X 0 X O X O X
Walasek x x o x (X) 0 NA
X = dropped out prior to high school graduation

(X) = dropped out of high school/earned diploma or GED later
0 = graduated high school/never dropped out

NK = not known*

NA = No answer/does not apply

*In two cases, one due to early death of grandparents and one due to divorce,
respondents did not have information regarding the grandparents' generation.

121

employment was consistently reported as more important than gaining an
education.

The most consistent pattern noted among parent respondents was their
instrumental view of education. When parents were queried regarding their
educational goals, what they expected from an education, or what value having
a diploma held for them, their responses centered around education as work
and the diploma as a ticket into the workplace. It is a view that excludes
learning, growth, enjoyment, personal betterment, or any intrinsic value. The
"examined life" is not part of their thinking about education. An instrumental
view can tolerate only minimal compliance with school demands.

Among those who graduated, there was a greater tendency to have some
sense of the intrinsic value of an education, but this was not a strong or
consistent pattern. When this was the case, it was associated with an external
goal or involvement in extracurricular school programs, not academic school
programs. The instrumental view was common to both graduates and dropouts
in this study. Finally, it was discovered that school behaviors ranged from
conforming and passively resistant to nonconforming and actively resistant.
School is experienced differently by dropouts from each group. Common to
both groups are perceptions of teachers as uncaring people, classes as boring,

and school rewards as limited.

The Grandparents and School

Responses to questions regarding the formal education levels attained by
grandparents disclosed a high rate of dropping out. The parents, and especially
the dropouts, often were unclear regarding details of their grandparents'

school experiences. However, in all 12 families, data were gathered regarding

122

the grandparents' level of school completion. Only two parents were unsure
whether or not their parents had graduated.

Data were recorded for 22 of 24 grandfathers. All but three dropped out
of school, yielding a dropout rate of 86.36%. Many of these did not progress
beyond the eighth grade. The primary reason given for school leaving was
work. This was often related to the needs of large families, the largest of
which contained 19 children. In six of the 12 families, a pattern of going to
work on the family farm was noted. As these grandfathers grew up, they left
the farms to go to work in the factories, coal mines, or trades, settling in rural
areas near small towns or villages.

Among the grandfathers, dropping out was always associated with
entering the workforce. Lee Stanley described his father as a "mover" who
uprooted his family in search of work in a California missile factory. His
father had grown up in the city. Gus Vitale's father was an Italian immigrant
with little education who began work as soon as he came to the United States.
The grandfathers on both sides of the Mandrick family were sons of
immigrants who had come to the city for work. Like their fathers, they went
to work in the factories. DebbyiLamb's father left school and became a truck
driver. Ricky Henry, Sr.'s father left school to work in a factory, and Dan
Walasek's father grew up in the city, leaving school to become a brick layer.
Becky Walasek's father was an orphan who grew up outside Mexico City,
leaving school before age 10. She described him as a "poor laborer."

A high dropout rate was also found among the grandmothers. John
Walker's mother graduated, as did the mothers of Bob Mandrick, Dick Collins,
Dan Walasek, Norma Mandrick, and Sandy Grigg. Sixteen of the 22

grandmothers for whom these data were known dropped out. This yields a

123

dropout rate of 72.72%. The grandm0thers tended to stay in school longer,
often completing a portion of their high school education. Their primary
reasons for school leaving were to help out at home or to marry. The intent of
these women was to become homemakers; however, divorce and hardship often
necessitated their entering the workforce. Donna Menge's mother divorced
and eventually opened an antique business, Mary Vitale's mother worked in a
factory, Debby Lamb's mother was a bartender, and Becky Walasek's mother
worked as a laborer. When Norma Mandrick's father was blinded at age 32, her
mother went to work in a factory and became the family's sole provider.

Because grandparents were not interviewed, information regarding their
interactions with school is limited. Only two grandfathers, John Walker,
stepgrandfather to Tammy Roundtree, and Julio Perez, grandfather to Virginia
Walasek, were present during the researcher's home visits. In both cases the
grandfather could not be interviewed. Due to a severe stroke, John Walker is
unable to speak and Julio Perez, a native of Mexico, speaks only Spanish.
However, some parent respondents did comment on their parents' views about
education.

Becky Walasek recalled that her father did not like school, but for her
"my mom and dad they emphasized school. They did say, 'You go to school.‘
They would sacrifice or (do) anything to (get you to) go to school. . . . they
were always after me. 'Do your homework; do your homework and study.'"
However, her husband Dan recalled his father as never stressing school.

Only one respondent, Tom Clinton, recalled a member of the grandparent
generation being openly hostile toward school. According to Tom, "My mom
was real rebellious. That's probably putting it mildly. I mean as I sit down and

talk to her now and get a feeling from what she thought about school, she was

124

way worse than me . . . " His wife Donna added, "She is today (rebellious
towards school). Any of her grandchildren do something wrong, it's the
school's problem, the school's fault. They drive these kids to do it."
Grandparents, both male and female, left school early to begin work.
This was a generation that moved away from the farms to take what work was
available in the cities. Those who were immigrants moved into the cities;
those from farm backgrounds settled in small towns and rural villages. As the
descriptions of the family backgrounds revealed, it was a generation that
faced hardship. Their children inherited poor economic conditions and a

melting pot of customs and traditions.

The Parents and Schools

 

Background data, Face-to-face conversations with the parents of

 

dropouts allowed the researcher to compile data on their record of school
completion as well as Specific data regarding their school recollections. The
researcher was able to gather data on all 24 of the natural parents in the
study. When one of the parents was not present in the home, the former
spouse served as the primary source for information. When children,
stepparents, or other relatives were present, their input also was welcomed.
Data on stepparents were sought only if they lived in the same house or were
primarily responsible for the dropout's upbringing.

Eight of the 12 natural fathers were high school dropouts. Of the eight
who dropped out, one returned to high school and earned his diploma at age 22,
two completed the GED, and one returned after being out of school for a year
and completed a regular diploma. The other four never completed a high

school education. Information also was gathered on four stepfathers. Of

125

these, two graduated and two dropped out. The primary reason given by
fathers and stepfathers for dropping out was to go to work. In three cases this
was associated with marrying a girl they had gotten pregnant. Several of the
fathers and one stepfather left school to go into the service. None of the
fathers in the study was a college graduate.

Seven of the 12 natural mothers dropped out. Of those who dropped out,
six of the seven completed the equivalent of a high school education. Two
attended junior college programs, one enrolled in night school, and three
others used adult education programs to earn the equivalent of a high school
diploma. Four who completed the diploma requirements did so after being out
of school for over 20 years. For Arlene Rogers, completion came 28 years
after dropping out. One of the mothers who dropped out has earned an
associate arts degree. None of the other mothers holds any type of college
degree.

The primary reason the mothers gave for dropping out was marriage.
This was cited by three mothers, all of whom indicated they were pregnant at
the time. Shirley Stanley indicated her school leaving was a result of
discipline problems, conflicts with teachers and administrators, and what she
described as "my rebellious nature." Donna Menges gave her reason for
leaving school as harassment from other children due to her obesity and
homemade clothing. Bobbi Beauchamp left to help a friend in another state
who was pregnant and whose husband had gone into the service. Finally,
Martha Workman quit at 16 "to be with a boyfriend," but did not marry until
age 19.

The preceding paragraphs present a skeletal picture of school completion

and dropping out in the parents' generation, but like the quantitative dropout

126

studies previously cited these data barely touch upon the relationship with
school. As parents were interviewed and asked to recall high school
experiences their human story emerged. Emphasis is on the interactions
between the parents, as students, and school. As such, whether or not they
completed or drOpped out of high school is of importance only as part of their
pattern of school experiences. Evidence and support will be presented drawing
heavily upon the comments and recollections of the fathers and mothers
interviewed. This will be followed by an analysis regarding parents' school

experiences.

Parent Graduates

 

Data were gathered on eight natural and two stepparent graduates. Each
found a reason to stay in school. Yet, in not one case, was this reason
associated with valuing the school's academic program. Some of these
individuals were positive about learning, but they still held an instrumental
view of the diploma as the ticket to the workplace, just as did their parents
who drOpped out. While they were more likely to have parents that stressed
education, they were no more likely to have parents who had graduated. It
was found that the graduates were similar to the dropouts in all regards,
except that each expressed some reason, external to the academic goals of

school, for being there.

Gayle‘Walker. Gayle Walker is a high school graduate. She described
her reasons for completing school.

My only goal that I had was, mom would tell
me, "Get your diploma for me. Do it for me."
Because her other two kids (she had been married
three times) didn't have a diploma and she wanted to
say, "I've got a kid that's got a diploma, that

127

graduated." 50 I did . . . I like learning . . . maybe it

was because our parents couldn't help us. They

weren't as fortunate as we were. I don't know where

that stems from, you know, mom telling us old war

stories about the depression and things, scary, not

knowing where your next meal is going to come from

and having that diploma meant so much to my mom.
As Gayle continued, she indicated that the importance of the diploma was that
it meant you could get a job. The researcher then asked if the diploma means
that you've got an education. To this she responded, "No, no. I think it's a

misconception. Because when I got my diploma I knew of four of my

classmates that couldn't read. So what good was the diploma?"

Lee Stanley. Lee Stanley described himself as rebellious. He offered

 

the following description of his interaction with school.

I was the first kid kicked off the football team
for refusing to cut my hair. . . . I was smoking whenl
was 12 years old, and I wore pointed shoes, and I
didn't want anybody to bother me . . . so nobody
bothered me. Nobody wanted to fight me or scrap
with me. Just kind of made my own little space.

Yet Lee graduated from high school. Both he and his wife agreed that this was
because he was good at "playing the game." A photographic memory was also
attributed to allowing him to pass tests without studying or making an effort.
During the researcher's follow-up interview, Lee explained what kept him in
schooL
School's the easiest time you ever had if you're
reasonably intelligent and play the game. And there's
lots of single, unattached girls. There's the school
functions that throw you all together. I was a big fan
of school. I cut a lot of classes.
Shirley said, "He was a big fan of girls!" He continued:
I wasn't particularly a big fan of the education

side of school. I was a big fan of what school was as
a place to meet girls. And I don't know, I think that

128

there's living proof. How many single girls do you get
thrown together with now?

Lee gave the following explanation of the value and purpose of a high
school education.
I think the systems geared with the lowest
common denominator. . . . They know how much you
know. They don't know how little you know.
Minimum qualifications for everything . . . I think
school's that way a lot, too. Geared for average . . .
it's consistent with my feelings of what school does.
School gears you to work for Henry Ford.
Lee had played football in an attempt to gain attention from a father who
physically abused him and favored an athletic younger brother. Yet he was not
able to conform to the rules and policies required by the coach. He gave
minimal compliance, fought for his own space, and ultimately came to see his

high school years as preparation for blue collar work and providing

opportunities to meet girls.

The Clintons. Tom and Diane Clinton are both high school graduates.
They are one) of two couples studied who graduated from high school without
dropping out. As a couple, it was found that they provide contrasting negative
views of their education experiences. Tom is a bright, highly verbal, computer
technician. His nonconformity and intellectual curiosity are perhaps best
symbolized by his ongoing participation in an area Dungeons and Dragons Club.
Tom found little value in high school academics and rejected formal education.
He was threatened with expulsion his senior year. Yet, he always felt he was
able to work the system. Diane Clinton struggled throughout school and was
retained in the third grade. She described herself as victimized by the system.
She completed additional coursework in high school so that she could graduate

with her class, marry, and move away from home.

129

When asked what had happened in third grade, she replied as follows.

We were having a test. I remember it very
vividly. We were having a test and this little girl
beside me kept copying off my paper and I kept
trying to hide it and kept trying to hide it and she
kept taking my shoulder and pulling it back and I
spoke out in the middle of the test and I said, "Leave
me alone. You're not copying on my paper." The
teacher came up. She struck me across the hand with
the ruler. She cut my hand, and I hit her. I was sent
to the principal's office. He said, "I will put you on
the paddle machine," which was a big wheel with
several paddles. You bend over and he cranks it and
it goes whack, whack, whack, whack. And I said, "No
you're not. I'm bleeding. I need to go home." And he
said, "You're not going home, and I don't care if
you're bleeding." 1 said, "My father will care if I'm
bleeding," and five minutes later my father, who was
a bus driver, happened to walk into the school to turn
in his route papers and I was sitting there and he
says, "What did you do?" I said, "Daddy, she cut my
hand open with a ruler!" My dad grabbed me. He
took me home. I was expelled for three weeks
because of that. Because I was out three weeks, I
played with the little kid down the road. I caught the
measles; and when I got done with the measles, I
caught the chicken pox. I missed a lot of school and l
repeated third grade. It was flat and simple. I got
kicked out of school, third grade. They suspended me
. . . for hitting a teacher and if she ever hit me again
with a ruler and cut my finger Open again, I'd hit her
again. I didn't learn anything.

Diane recalls this incident as tainting the remainder of her education and
shaping her adult view of education. According to Diane, "Everything the
parents try to teach their children, the teachers take away. . . . They harass
you. They're not pleasant with you. They're not eager to give you extra time if
you're not willing to do the extra work."

Diane attributed staying in school to her parents' strictness. The rule
was, "You walk out of school, you walk out of my life. Don't ever come

hom e."

130

In the following statement, Diane expressed her view on the importance
of a diploma.

Well, my opinion is without a diploma it's twice
as hard to get anywhere. To get a job . . . to get any
kind of career to start, your diploma's the key. After
that everything else is extras. . . . That's my opinion.
I can go anywhere I want to go and I hold it all to the
fact that I do have a diploma. The first question
anybody has ever asked me on every application, "Did
I graduate?" '

In the following sequence of comments, Tom described his experiences
and interactions with school. He portrayed himself as one who worked the
system to his advantage, sorting out what he liked and disliked, but making a
game of it.

When I went to school, I went to classes that I
liked . . . I didn't think twice about working on that
stuff . . . I didn't like doing my English homework and
I didn't like history stuff, but that was only because I
didn't like those classes . . . and I probably tried to
get out of as much homework as possible. . . . I
disrupted class a lot . . . that's very much an
understatement . . . I worked within the system. I
created all sorts of leeway for myself within the
system without coming into major opposition . . . I
almost got expelled in my senior year . . . it was
very, very close. . . . The thing is I worked within, 1
mean, I didn't have direct confrontation. . . . I was in
and out of class all the time . . . I joined the
audiovisual group so that I could come and go
whenever I felt like it. . . . You know all the time
that I'm raising hell in school and doing things, I'm
always looking at the big picture, okay? I have to
pass this class and I know that I'm going to get out
and I'm going to have a high school degree. . . . The
whole trick in high school was learning what your
teacher wanted. What kind of questions he asked . . .
within two weeks of being in a classroom . . . I knew
what that person expected of me or what kind of
questions were going to show up.

The Clintons found little value in their high school education and even less in

going on to college. "We decided that working for a living was better."

131

The Mandricks. Bob and Norma Mandrick are the second couple in the
study who graduated from high school. Both completed their first eight years
of school in parochial systems. They felt this gave them an advantage upon
entering the public school in terms of their academic preparation, but it
disadvantaged them in terms of friendships. Bob used his solid academic base
from the parochial schools to his advantage. He explained it as follows.

I'm always getting into some kind of s . I

mean there ain't no getting around it. I've always

been like that, and I still am, but . . . they gave me a

good background, and they made sure that you

learned it one way or the other. And when I got to

high school, I didn't like high school work. I mean, I

wanted to enjoy myself . . . I didn't have to study. I

could carry Cs and Us all through high school without

studying.
Bob elaborated on his views of high school.

As far as school being a pleasure, it's not a real

pleasure. It's like going into the army; you enjoy it

one time. . . . I needed the diploma because unless

you were going on to college, which I wasn't

interested in, Cs and D5 will get you any place a

diploma will get you. I realized that . . . the diploma

was the only thing that was important.
Bob's wife, Norma, took a similar view. She baby sat "nearly every day and
weekends" and settled for the C grades that were just enough to keep her
parents off her back. Later when she wanted to enter a nursing program, her

grades were not good enough to qualify for admission. She spent the next 15

years as a housewife.

Sandy Griggs. Sandy Griggs is another high school graduate. Of those
interviewed she was one of the more positive about her school experiences.
Yet her interests in school had little to do with an intrinsic view of academic

learning. This was evidenced by the following comments, "My folks were good

132

to me. . . . I cheerleaded (SIC)*. I played girls' basketball. I had a lot of
friends. School was good to me. It never entered my mind to quit. It never
entered my brain to run away." In a second interview, she elaborated Upon her
view of school.

I was in the group. I ran around with (family
name). I ran around with (family name). That was
(SIC) the big names back then. They owned the
stores. Mr. A was the superintendent . . . there was
(SIC) probably 20 of us that run (SIC) around all the
time. . . . When we'd have something going on at
school, they'd say, "We're going to do this . . ."

When asked if her diploma signified that she had gotten a broad academic
background, she replied, "Mine didn't mean that. I was glad I was out. I

accom plished 13 years."

Becky Walasek. Becky Walasek is also a high school graduate, holding
diplomas from both Mexico and the United States. Like Gayle, her school
efforts were closely associated with adult and parental goals and expectations.
She made the following comments about earning a diploma.

I come from a totally different country than
this one, but my mom and dad, they emphasized
school. They did say, "You go to school." . . . Their
idea was you had to do better. "Do better. You've
got to be number one, okay?" The idea was to aim
high. "Get out of this rut. Be something. Do
something. We can't." The message was, "We're
poor, we can't help you, but you can do it . . . " I
grew up very Catholic. I grew up with the nuns and
they wanted to make me a nun.

 

*The abbreviation "SIC" is used only occasionally to remind the reader
that these are exact quotations. The repeated use of SIC after all matters of
incorrect usage was avoided as it disrupts the readability of the quotations.

133

When asked what a diploma means to her, she replied, "It's not enough,
especially nowadays. Maybe a few years ago, it was close to the maximum of

education . . . but nowadays, it really isn't enough."

Larry Beauchamp. Larry Beauchamp, the stepfather of Bobbi Sue Small,
was short and heavy set during his school years. He was picked on by other
children and eventually had to learn to fight to defend himself. He described
standing up to the class bully.

There was one kid who was a typical bully . .

well this guy jumped on me, and he knocked my

school books down on the ground and started a fight

with me, and we wrestled a little bit and I got him in

a head lock . . . I had his face up, and I could have

smashed his nose . . . but I let him go. He never ’

picked on me after that.
He found a place for himself in elementary school in the band and as he stated,
"I stuck with it through junior high and high school." He described himself as

an average student. He viewed the importance of graduation as providing the

diploma he needed to get a factory job.

Tom Lamb. Tom Lamb is stepfather to Mickey Collins. Tom grew up in
a large Catholic family. His father died when Tom was 12. Tom went to work
to help support the family. As he stated, "I had no choice. I went to work or
we were going to starve." According to Tom, the long hours he worked caused
him to fail the seventh grade. Tom had dreamed of going on to college and
becoming a policeman, but there was no money for college; and when the riots
began on campuses, he changed his mind. In terms of education's value, Tom
was brought up to believe that "people that have an education . . . usually

aren't the bums." You go through school so that you can "get a job and buy a

134

car, and you buy a house and somewhere in between you get married and have
some kids and you send them to school . . . "

As had been noted, despite diverse backgrounds and school experiences,
varying from the cheerleading of Sandy Griggs to Lee Stanley's smoking and
getting kicked off the football team to Larry Beauchamp's being picked on, all
these graduates had two things in common. First, they all conceived the value
of a high school diploma instrumentally. School was a requirement; work, a
thing to be tolerated and endured. Second, they all found a reason to continue.
Sandy Griggs "cheerleaded" while Larry Beauchamp joined the band. Gayle
Walker did it for mom, and Bob Clinton made it a game. Diane Clinton saw it
as all she needed before getting married and getting away from home. Bob
and Norma Mandrick used their strong Catholic school academic backgrounds
to coast through public high school, Bob having a good time and Norma
working. Becky Walasek was pushed by her parents and the nuns, and Tom
Lamb never challenged the notion that education kept one from ending up a

burn.

The Dropouts

 

Ten dropout parents were interviewed. Like those who graduated, the
dropout parents viewed education instrumentally. However, unlike the
graduates, the majority did not find positive attachments or interactions in the
school setting. The three dropout parents who were most positive about their
high school experiences were all forced to dropout due to pregnancy. Only one
dropout parent, Shirley Stanley, was Openly rebellious toward school. The
others passively resisted school demands. School experiences, described in

negative terms, centered on boredom, uncaring teachers, and cruel or abusive

135

peers. Difficulties were characterized as accelerating throughout the time in
school. As school demands increased, greater opposition was evidenced. The
more schools pushed for compliance, the wider the rift grew between the

school and the student.

ShirleLStanley. Shirley Stanley holds a Federal Civil Service job. Her

 

husband Lee is an unemployed auto mechanic. They met "skipping school
together" while attending the same high school. According to Shirley, "He was
warned to stay away from me because I was an habitual delinquent, and I
would get him into trouble, and he would never be able to graduate. But he
did." Shirley elaborated upon her school experiences.

I went to school in (small town) all my life. I
wasn't real happy with the experience, didn't really
enjoy school . . . did all right in elementary school.
All kids do all right in elementary school . . . they
love school when they're little, you know. "I want to
go to school. I don't care if I have chicken pox." But
started doing a little worse in middle school, and by
the time I got to high school had a lot of problems.

Asked about the problems, Shirley said,

I was rebellious. Didn't get along with
authority real well. Didn't get along with the
teachers. Didn't get along with the principal. Didn't
enjoy the classes. Didn't care for the teachers.
Didn't get any answers. Asked questions . . . and they
didn't have the time or information to answer them.
Nobody else bothered to ask any questions mostly
anyways, and they didn't seem to want you to ask any
questions.

When asked if there were teachers who took an interest in her, she replied,
"Not after grade school. Not for me."
In the same conversation, the researcher asked how it gets to the point

where a person says, "When I'm 16, I'm out of here." Shirley replied.

I36

I got lost somewhere. I started having some
problems understanding some of the work that we got
into. Maybe I was just distracted and didn't pay
enough attention, but I didn't get any help either.
And it got to the point that it was somewhat
frustrating, and when I went back . . . started high
school and went in and talked to the counselor and
said, "I'm really going to try this year." . . . She was
kind of snotty and just had a bad opinion of me from
the start. and just the way I was treated eventually
made me decide to quit. The counselor . . . when
something was stolen, she accused me of stealing.
I've never stole (SIC) anything in my life. Accused
me of stealing. Swore that I did it and how much
trouble I was going to get into when I didn't admit it.
My school principal, when I refused to take gym class
with the other girls because it was embarrassing and
I'd never had—being an only child--I'd never had the
kind of experience of being with a group and having
to do that kind of thing, called me a whore in front of
the whole class and made some remarks about my
modesty. And so I had this constant kind of
aggravation from the counselor, from the principal,
from several of the teachers who thought I was a
trouble maker, and finally just said, "Hell with it."
Couldn't get out quick enough.

The researcher reflected, "You didn't want to be those things?"
I wasn't any of those things they said I was. But

the fact that I tended to respond when somebody

treats me that way, I tend to respond very coldly and

naturally, very angrily. So the more they harassed

me, the angrier and the more difficult I got. I was

somewhat rebellious to begin with and then when

they started pressuring me, I got really rebellious.

Gave them a lot of trouble.
Shirley completed a GED at a local junior college. She needed the certificate
to qualify for her current job. She described the importance of the diploma as
the thing she needed to get the job she wanted. Once she had this goal, she
found that getting the GED did not require what she termed "great

intelligence."

137

Donna Menges. Donna is a large woman of Czechoslovakian descent. In

 

her high school years, she weighed 260 pounds and wore homemade dresses.
She felt rejected by her father who she believes doubted she was his child.
Her parents had to get married. She has raised her four children on welfare
and ADC, never having worked a full-time job since her marriage. She
completed her diploma through adult education in 1988. She quit school at age
16 and left home to work as a live-in babysitter. She gave three reasons for
quitting: cruelty from other children, sibling rivalry, and parental neglect.
She also gave her views on the value of an education. As she commented on
cruelty from other children, her son asked, "You weigh 230 right now, don't
you?" Donna said, "Approximately. And kids are mean, nasty, you know, when
you're like that. They can be awful cruel and it hurts. That's the main reason
I quit."
On the subject of sibling rivalry, Donna stated the following.
After my younger sister was born . . . she got
everything she wanted. There is so much . . . I want
to love my sister, but I hate her. You know, she's my
sister. She's my only sister really. . . . Because of my
weight . . . she was always teasing me on that. She
was always skinny, skinny, skinny.

On parental concern for education, Donna replied, "There's a lot of anger
there. . . . My parents didn't care if I finished or not. They didn't . . . they
didn't care. I don't think they really cared what happened to me. Like I said, I
was mostly ignored. Mostly by my dad."

Donna's instrumental view of education was evidenced by the following.

Ah, education's just about everything these
days. It is. If you got a good education, you can get
a lot farther. Like I said, back when I quit at 16, 24
years ago, you know, it was no big deal. It wasn't.

The thing was get married and have a family, you
know, raise kids. But it changed.

138

The researcher asked what was different. Donna replied, "What's different?
The almighty dollar." She was then asked if she could get a job without a
diploma. "Not very well . . . for small jobs maybe. Something that don't really
require a lot of education. Yeah, you can't even hardly get into Burger King or
McDonald's without now at least a high school diploma."

In a follow-up conversation, she spoke further about a diploma. "You
can't put no value on it. . . . It's invaluable, education. (without it) You're
spoofed. . . . You ain't getting nowhere."

Whenever the researcher pressed the value of an education, the response

came back to its basic function as a ticket into the workplace.

The Vitales. Gus Vitale quit high school, entered and dropped out of a

 

trade school, then joined the service to be a paratrooper. He recalls his years
in Catholic schools largely in terms of the nuns, "beating the s_" out of
him. Gus' father deserted the family. Gus spent much of his childhood in
orphanages, supporting himself by taking whatever odd jobs were available. As
Gus stated, "I didn't care if I had to dig a s_ house, I'd dig one just as long as
the man paid me at the end of the day."

His wife Mary liked school, but there was no parental support for getting
an education. Efforts in school were left up to the children in this Polish

immigrant family. When Mary became pregnant in high school, she was not

allowed to continue.

Bobbi Beauchamp. Bobbi dropped out in her senior year to stay with a
pregnant friend whose husband was stationed overseas with the Air Force.

Though she never completed the diploma, she has always told employers that

139

she did. Bobbi described herself as a person who, "nicely, but politely," told

her English teacher what she thought of MacBeth.

Martha Workman. Martha Workman described school as being hard for

 

her. In her farm family, she stated, "It wasn't really important to graduate."
Girls were raised believing,
. . you got married; fell in love and got
married. You had your children, and you were the
mother and stayed home and done the work, took
care of the kids. . . . For the boys working on the
farm was far more important than going to that last
year of school.
Martha quit school at 16. "I had a boyfriend, and I decided to quit," she
recalled. At 19 she married a 32-year-old dropout who ran several tarp and

awning businesses. They had seven children prior to his death. Her youngest

was then two years old. He had quit school to join the service in World War II.

Arlene Rogers. Arlene Rogers dropped out of high school. She was

 

pregnant and shortly after drOpping out married. Her grandparents were
farmers in the North. Her father had moved his family south to find work in
the auto factories. She was raised in an Irish Catholic home. Like Martha
Workman, she grew up believing that her role was to fall in love, marry, and
raise children. A high school education had little value to her, though she did

complete her diploma 28 years later.

Debby Lamb. Debby Lamb was the only woman in the study to complete

 

an associate arts degree. For her, education has been a vehicle for lifting
herself past the circumstances of her childhood. She summarized her high

school experience as follows.

140

I came from a broken home, also. My mother's
been married four times. So I was always brought up
with a stepfather. I liked school. I found school as
an escape because I wasn't all that thrilled with my
home life, although I did drop out before my senior
year because I was pregnant. And then I went
back . . .I went to night school. . . . That was one
thing I always . . . I swore I would not dr0p out of
school because there's like nobody in my family who's
graduated. . . . My parents drOpped out like in eighth
grade, and that was just one thingl wanted to do, was
finish high school.

When asked the value of a high school diploma, she stated, "It's just the very

minimum you need for, you know, to survive."

Fred Griggs. Sandy Grigg's second husband Fred drOpped out of high

 

school in his junior year, went down to the post office, and enlisted. When
asked what his high school experience was like, he related the following.

For me? Hard. I fought all the way through
school. When I went to school, I didn't have to have a
C or a D average to play sports. If you carried an E
average, you played sports if you was (SIC) good
enough. . . . As long as I showed up for school, walked
me right up to the eleventh grade. . . . Sports and art
is the only thing that kept me in school. I failed
every grade. To keep me with my class, they put me
in there. . . . I've‘got some friends that are in the
same boat that I am. . . . Pushed along and never
learned. Right today, 1 don't (read or write). You
can look back and say, "I'm not going to let reading
and writing stop me." I never have. I have a brand
new house. I have a brand new car, a new truck. I've
raised my family. I married Sandy. I don't see where
reading and writing has hurt me a bit.

Dan Walasek. Dan Walasek's school experiences provide a stark contrast
to those of his wife Becky. While Becky enjoyed the push of parents and nuns
interested in her education, Dan told a different story.

My father had a fifth grade education. My

mother graduated from high school. Neither stressed
school. When I was in high school, I could skip or say

141

Iwas sick andI used to do that all the time because I
didn't like to go. And they never stressed school. No
stress whatsoever. I personally hated school, so I
finished the eleventh grade and then I quit. . . . You
know, I was emotionally disturbed. I had a tough
time getting along. I really had an inferiority
complex. I thought everyone disliked me. I didn't
have any close friends. I really resented the having
to sit down and listen to a lecture . . . extremely
boring . . . I hate arithmetic.

There were no books in Dan's childhood home. He stated that he entered
school never having seen books like they used in school. He was quickly
labeled a slow learner. Up until then, as Dan said, "I never knew I was slow."
Today Dan Walasek owns his own construction company.

When Dan was asked the value of a high school education, he replied with
the following.

I see no use except to say a stepping stone to
college . . . a high school education; you can't do very
much . . . if you take all the chemistry, all the math,
all the English that they offer through high school,
you still can't get a job as a chemist or a
mathematician or a journalist, anything along those
lines. You get entry level jobs in the factory or
receptionist, and you can work any fast food joint,
but (high school) really doesn't prepare you.

Like the graduates, the parent dropouts took an instrumental view of
education. The majority found few rewards in their school experiences. Those
who did were unable to avoid other problems external to school which led to
their dropping out. For Shirley Stanley, quitting was an angry act of defiance,
a refusal to tolerate any longer what she saw as the unfair harassment of
school officials. Even for those who chose to conform, school problems
seemed to be related to the instrumental view of education exacerbated by a

general lack of parental support or involvement in their educational endeavors,

lower socioeconomic status, sibling rivalries, peer problems, and what was

142

frequently portrayed as uncaring teachers. At its worst, school was
experienced as an unfriendly, hostile place, which discriminated against and
punished one.

A further finding regarding the return to complete the diploma deserves
mention. There was no evidence indicating that members of the grandparents'
generation returned to school subsequent to dropping out. However, four of
the eight fathers and six of the seven mothers who dropped out completed
diploma requirements or the GED later. When high school completion is
viewed separately from drOpping out, 8 of 12 fathers and II of 12 mothers

achieve school completion.

Analysis of the Findings. In this section data regarding the educational

 

experiences of the drOpout's family have been presented. The grandparents'
and parents' generations have been discussed. The grandparents' stories are
limited largely to demographic data, as no members of this generation were
interviewed. Data regarding the parents provide the additional dimension of
recalled experiences and interactions based on multiple-site interviews.

The data review demonstrated a high rate of dropping out within
families. Even in families where one or both grandparents graduated,
respondents indicated that siblings of this generation dropped out. This
pattern also appears in the parents' generation. Tom Clinton was the only
respondent who indicated all his siblings graduated from high school. Gayle
Walker graduated, but several of her brothers and stepbrothers and sisters
dropped out. Lee Stanley graduated, as did his younger brother; but his

younger sister dropped out. Arlene Rogers was reared in a family of II. All

143

her brothers drOpped out of school. Becky Walasek graduated, but had a
younger brother who did not.

The value of a diploma was repeatedly characterized as a ticket or
requirement for obtaining work. As such, a GED, an adult education, or night
school diploma are equally valued. Evidence has been cited which
demonstrates that these individuals' school efforts are based upon minimal
compliance with the school's expectations. Cs and D5 are discussed as leading
to the same diploma as As and B5. In no instance was any mention made of the
intrinsic value of an education, nor was the belief in education as an
intellectual endeavor discussed.

The school behaviors of those interviewed ranged from the conformity
and participation in extracurricular activities of Sandy Griggs, to the overt
rebelliousness of Shirley Stanley. It was found that even those who conformed
and found rewards in their school interactions did so in areas unrelated to the
academic program. While these individuals had a greater tendency to
graduate, they still left the experience thankful to have it over and with little
regard for the education they received.

Some students who conformed, such as Donna Menges or Dan Walasek,
had very unpleasant school experiences and eventually dropped out. This was
found to be related to problems with peers and a general sense of rejection or
lack of affiliation with the groups that make up schools. It was also noted that
a lack of parental interest in education exacerbated their school problems.
The culture of their families provided little in the way of preparation for
school, and at its worst actually opposed school culture. These individuals

found low rewards within the structure of school and dropped out.

144

For those who took both an instrumental view and exhibited
nonconformity, school was described in terms of unfair policies,
discrimination, uncaring teachers and counselors, and harsh administrators. In
turn, their own nonconformity or resistance seemed to cause school to be
perceived as a cold bureaucracy. Men in this group got women pregnant, got
caught drinking and were asked to leave, were threatened with expulsion, or
simply quit in anger. Women in this group got pregnant, skipped school, and
defied authority by refusing to "dress out" for gym or complete work. For
both the men and women, dropping out was an angry response to the school's
punitive side. It is a different kind of dropping out than those who conform,
who leave feeling pushed out and unwanted. Rather than accepting the low
rewards that school provides, they attack existing school structures and seek
rewards elsewhere.

This suggests that taking an instrumental view of education is the
critical factor shared among parent dropouts. For both the passively and
actively resistant groups, education was experienced as a cold bureaucracy,
staffed with boring and uncaring teachers. Even the most modest school
demands were viewed as inconveniences or unreasonable. Neither group could
find adequate rewards to justify meeting schools' demands. The passive group
was moved or lifted along, experiencing frustration, failure, and alienation
from the groups that make up school. The active group was also moved along,
but they denied schools the right to enforce a set of standards upon them.
Rather, they formed their own group(s) and defied the establishment. While
the first group left quietly, the later group left with a bang. As they fought
the school, the school fought back through its policies, enforcing order and

exerting control.

1‘15

The data presented suggest that. these families share an instrumental
conception of education as required work, duty, something which must be
endured. Therefore, as students they do not come to school understanding or
prepared to accept intrinsic educational values and beliefs around which
schools organize. Rather they bring with them the preconceptions of their
family group. The culture of the home in which they have been reared and to
which they have adapted does not mesh with the culture of the school. Family
education and training bears little resemblance to school education and
training.

In the next section of this chapter the experiences of the dropout within
his/her family will be addressed. The focus will be on the interactions within
the family, again viewing family as the primary reference group of the
dropout. As the chapter is developed, patterns noted in the parents'

generation will be examined in terms of the dropouts.

The Dropout's Family Experience

 

Section three of this chapter presented a family history of school
experiences. The argument was that the generational family gave repeated
evidence of low academic aspirations and achievement. An instrumental view
of education, a history of early maturity, early assumption of adult roles, and
low school achievement supported this argument.

In this section the researcher reports the dropout's family experience. It
focuses on the drOpout as a member of the family collective. Experience is
defined according to Barnhart and Barnhart (1983) as "what happens to a
person; what is seen, done, felt, or lived through" (p. 748). It is "all of the

actions, events, or states which make up the life of a person" as well as the

146

"knowledge or skill gained by doing, observing, or living through things" (p.
7%).

Each dropout and each parent interviewed was asked about family
experiences, the meaning of family, family hierarchies, socioeconomic status,
culture, traditions, family health, and important events. This allowed the
researcher to explore the quality of one's family experiences in relation to the

quality of his/her school experiences.

Findings

The argument is that the dropout's family experiences are characterized
by conditions commonly associated with family dysfunction. The phrase "risk
factors" is used to refer to such conditions which may interfere with normal
child development (Schorr, 1988). These risk factors constitute or are part of
the dropout's family culture.

It is further argued that multiple risk factors are present in each family
and that there is an "interaction effect" (Schorr, 1988) among these risk
factors. The presence of a second risk does not merely add to problems
attendant to the first risk, but compounds and creates more severe problems.
Among these are excessive drinking and alcoholism, abuse of both women and
children, marginal employment, unemployment, frequent moves, poor health,
termination of religious practice, and poor male role models.

Finally, it is argued that these experiences result in families conferring
adult status on the dropouts at an early age. Early on, the dropouts drink, take
drugs, become socially active, and get into trouble with authorities.

Frequent use of alcohol was reported by 9 of 12 families. Eight families

gave accounts of alcoholism and they viewed it as severe. All 12 dropouts

147

discussed their own use of alcohol and/or illegal substances. Five of the 12
referred to themselves as alcoholic. Mental and/or physical abuse was
reported by nine drOpout families. Four mothers reported being physically
abused by their husbands and/or boyfriends.

Four families were found to be at the poverty level, relying on welfare
and ADC for their financial survival. In two others unemployment was a
problem. Frequent moves, often Spurred by financial difficulties or divorce
were reported by six families.

Two natural fathers are deceased. One dropout lives apart from her
family, but was raised from age 1 to 17 by a single mother. Two additional
families are provided for by single mothers. Stepfathers are present in three
homes. Six of the 12 families are intact.

Eleven of 12 families have discontinued or never practiced religion.
Family traditions erode in the parents' generation. Nine of 12 families
evidenced heavy smoking and/or serious health issues among parents. Eleven
of 12 dropouts evidenced problems related to health issues. Nine of 12 dropouts
were heavy smokers. Five of them had criminal records ranging from multiple
drunk driving convictions to grand theft/breaking and entering.

Social capital was also considered. According to Coleman (1988), parents
have "skills and capabilities that make them . . . productive" (p. 221). This is
their human capital. Their ability to form relations with their children in
order that the children may benefit from the parents' human capital is "the
social capital of the family" (p. 223). Absent parents, parents lacking human
capital, and parents' failing to form strong parent-child relations are
antecedents of low social capital. Coleman divides low social capital into

structural deficiencies, i. e., the physical absence of a parent, and functional

148

deficiencies, i. e., the absence of strong relations. The term low social capital
will be used herein to refer to both categories. Low social capital was
evidenced in 10 of 12 families.

Poor male role-modeling was listed as a separate category. It is
acknowledged that poor male role-modeling may be related to low social
capital, alcoholism, abuse, or unemployment. However, by placing this as a
separate category, the researcher could focus on the effects of males in a '
variety of roles: as fathers, stepfathers, husbands, or ex-husbands, either
present or absent from the home. Nine of 12 dropouts experienced poor male
role-models. For all nine this was viewed as problematic. These findings are
summarized in Table 4.

The preceding findings are viewed as risk factors, conditions associated
with family dysfunction. However, to stereotype these families as
dysfunctional would be an oversimplification. It is not the researcher's intent
to discredit or minimize the importance of the family unit to these individuals.
These are families that describe the meaning of family as "love." As
mentioned, six of these families are intact, with natural parents raising their
offspring. Camping and fishing trips, caroling together, and walking through
neighborhoods to view Christmas lights were also discussed. Not one of the
dropouts has been turned out by his/her family, no matter how severe his/her
problems. Even for those who run away, like Bobbi Sue Small and Virginia
Walasek, the door remains open. Invariably, the dropouts return to the family.

What is of importance is to capture the quality of the dropout's family
experience. As such, the presence of risk factors is important only to the

extent that it affects the dropout's interactions with family members and

149

 

frequent or traumatic moves
termination of religious
practice

smoking; poor health, parents
smoking; poor health, dropouts

Table4
Family Experiences as Risk Factors
Families A B C Q E
Roundtree/
Walker X X X X X
Stanley X X O X O
Menges X X X X X
Clinton O X X O O
Vitale X X X O X
Small/
Beauchamp O X X 0 X
Anderson/
Workman X X O X X
Mandrick X X O O O
Rogers X X X X X
Collins/
Lamb X X X O O
Henry/
Griggs X X X X
Walasek O X X O O
A : alcoholism/substance abuse
parents
B : alcoholism/substance abuse
dropouts
C: physical,mental,or
sexual abuse
D: unemployment
E: welfare/ADC/social
security/disability
F
G
H

but
II

I”?!

O X ><><><

**Totals shown are purely numerical.

the factors.

9 _H_ l 2 5 .1. _Totals”
X X X X X* 0 11
X X X X X O 9
X X X X X* X 12
X X X X O X 8
X X X X X O 9
X X X X X* O 9
X O X X X* O 8
X _X X 0 O X 6
X X X O X O 9
O O O X X* X 6
X X X X X* X 11
X O X X O O 6
J : low social capital
K : poor male role model
L = criminal record: dropout
X : evidenced in family
O : not evidenced in family
- : father
: : stepfather
- - : mother
. .-- : stepmother
* .7.

natural father not present
due to death or divorce

No attempt has been made to weight

150

subsequently the extent to which these interactions affect his/her ability to
function in the larger society.

It was found that multiple risk factors are present in the dropout
families studied. Schorr (1988) found an interaction effect when multiple risk
factors are present in the child's constitution and environment. The
researcher accepted this argument and found that the effects of one
environmental risk factor are associated with the presence of additional
environmental risk factors. For example, a higher rate of risk factors was
found in alcoholic families and a lower rate was found in intact families.
Therefore, the presence of multiple risk factors may be seen as eroding the
quality of family life and, subsequently, the individual family member's ability
to function outside the family group.

It was also found that the dropouts studied all have adult status and
adopt adult behaviors early in life. A family culture grows from and is part of
the multiple risk factors. The family culture confers or enables the dropout
youth to claim adult status. In the context of family, the dropouts' adult
status is accepted. However, it will be seen later that this early adult status
which includes smoking, drinking, early sexual activity, and rejection of
authority is not as readily accepted outside the family. This creates problems
for the dropouts, particularly at school where a doctrine of adolescent
inferiority denies children adult status. Punitive school policies, designed to

control adult behaviors, are invoked against the dropouts.

Family Experiences

 

The researcher enters the discussion of family experiences associated

with dysfunction cautiously. The primary concern is that the use of the term

151

"dysfunction" be qualified and understood. To claim a family dysfunction is to
claim some element or factor of family life is not functioning normally or
within accepted norms. The difficulty becomes obvious when one asks "whose
norms?" The importance of addressing this question resides in its centrality to
the proposition that the dropout's family experiences are directly related to
his/her school experiences.

Two simple guidelines were applied in identifying family experiences as
creating conditions associated with dysfunction. The first was whether or not
the family members described the behaviors and experiences as causing
problems. For example, the researcher could not presume to identify an
alcoholic based upon limited contact with the family. However, when a wife,
a cousin, and a sister all reported trouble resulting from a father's alcoholism,
then alcoholism was deemed a problem and was treated as factual. The second
guideline was the existence of laws or standards by which the behavior could
be judged. For example, physical abuse is documented when social services
personnel are called, just as criminal behaviors are documented by conviction.

The detailed descriptions which follow are not designed to
sensationalize, expose, blame, or place judgment upon these families. The
intent is to provide a thorough understanding of the conditions to which the
dropout has been exposed and to develop an understanding and'appreciation of
his/her lived experiences. The dropouts have experienced a much wider range
of behaviors than schools can allow and, consequently, have a different sense
of "acceptable and normal" than that presented by schools. The argument that
the conflict which grows from the lack of congruity between what the school
expects and how the dropout behaves is central to understanding the act of

dropping out.

152

Alcoholism and Abuse

 

Respondents expressed concern with alcoholism, abuse, or the
combination of the two in 11 of 12 families interviewed. Use of alcohol and/or
substance abuse was reported by all 12 dropouts interviewed. In five of the
eight families which cited severe problems with parental alcoholism, physical
abuse was also discussed. Physical abuse was also present in three additional
families which did not view alcoholism as problematic. Definitive statements
regarding the mental abuse associated with alcoholic behaviors and physical
abuse are difficult. The trauma of watching a mother beaten by an angry
boyfriend cannot be expressed as a quantity. Further, communication
regarding these events is often guarded. As Black (1981) reports, the alcoholic
household creates codes of "don't talk, don't trust, don't feel" (p. 2'1). Adult
and child roles become confused and are often reversed. Changing rules and
inconsistencies are daily events. The following paragraphs present the

dropouts' experiences with parental alcoholism and abuse.

 

Through the dropout's eyes. Tammy Roundtree was one year old and her
sister Denise was three when their parents divorced. Both girls described their
parents as alcoholic. According to Tammy, both parents came from "drinking
families." After their father left, their mother had a series of unsuccessful
male relationships. Finally, when Tammy was in her late elementary years,
her mother, Gayle Walker, said, "I'm not interested in any more men. There
will be no more men." To which Tammy responded, "Fine, if you don't want
any more men in your life, then we won't ask you for a daddy any more. You

don't bring any more men home, and we won't ask for a dad."

153

She recalled another event from her childhood. During her fourth grade
year, Tammy remembered that "mom had a boyfriend then and he beat her."
The beatings were so severe that Gayle Walker sent her girls away. Tammy
went to live with an aunt; Denise went to live with her father. The girls were
told it was just for a vacation. They later learned that it was part of the
mother's plan to leave the boyfriend who had threatened to kill her if she did
so. Tammy described the beatings this way.

This is terrifying. You don't know which way
they are going to turn. One time I remember he
knocked Mom down, and it looked like she was out
cold. He went after Denise, but Mom got right back
up. She wasn't afraid of a fight. She was a fighter,
too. There was a lot of blood shown . . . sometimes,
mother would scratch him. One time he hit her head
into a cinder block wall.

Denise was more outspoken regarding her father who died in a flaming, late
night car wreck, as well as about men in general.

He was an a_hole. . . . The way he treated
women, and he always tried to put guilt trips on us
kids for everything. I hate men, all of them. I trust
them less than I could throw them . . . maybe this
will shed some light on it. As a child, I was molested
by my mother's brothers. I remember as a wee little
thing, we were not to go near my mother's dad. None
of the girls were to be anywhere near grandpa. We
weren't to sit on his lap. I was well endowed as an 11
or 12 year old, and a couple of my mother's brothers .
. . at first, I thought they were playing tag. It didn't
take long to find out that's not what they were doing.
I've always had that seated in the back of my mind.
Watch your relatives! . . . That might be why there
aren't very many men in our lives. It's just that fear
of being mauled, manhandled.

Tommy Menges also described both of his parents as alcoholic. His
father left the family before Tommy entered kindergarten, and Tommy
indicated he has only heard from his dad when "he is drunk." He recalled his

mother as drinking a lot of wine. On one occasion, a female friend came over

154

to their house and smashed the wine bottles in the sink, saying, "I'm staying
with you until you've dried out."

Many of Tommy's childhood memories of his father are a combination of
things he vaguely recalls plus the stories his mother has related. The following
incident stood out in Tommy's mind.

He did stupid things. He got drunk a lot. One
time he put razor blades in my mom's underwear.
She put her pants on, and it really cut her up. I never
confronted him with that, but it really p ed me
off.

Not all physical abuse was associated with alcoholism. Tom Clinton's
father, Tom, Sr., does not drink. Yet Tom, Jr., recalled being beaten and
being fearful of his father. "I remember one time he bruised my forehead. He
would hit me with a leather belt. He would make me pull my pants down.
Then he would whip me." When asked why he would be beaten, Tom indicated,

. . . for lying. For breaking the rules, like going
onto different streets that were off boundaries. Dad
would also call me stUpid. I would be confused,
because he would come back later, then, and say, "I
love you." He was a scary man. Over six feet tall
and 200 pounds with a deep voice. I'm still scared of
him.

Other punishments included the father's making Tom stand naked in a room
while he smashed Tom's stereo. Tom added, "One day he beat me and realized
he was wrong. That was the last time he beat me. He didn't do it after
that . . .but he abused me for a long time." These beatings affected the
entire family. Often Tom's mother had to come in and scream for the father
to stop; and on at least one occasion, Tom's sister Joyce threatened to call

protective services.

Sonny Vitale described his parents' drinking.

155

They're both recovering alcoholics. During
their younger days, they could do some heavy
drinking. I grew up in the tail end of it, which was
the worst. That was when my dad's disease had
progressed to the max, where it was either keep
drinking and you're dying or quit drinking and you
live. I guess he wanted to live.

He went on to talk about his relationship with his father.

I never really knew he was getting drunk until I
was 10 years old. Then I knew what it was about. He
was a great father. He was always thinking of me.
He'd be on his way home from a bar . . . right close to
the factory. He'd be smashed and really drunk . . .
always st0p at a store and buy me something. Some
candy or . . . beef jerky. Whatever, he always thought
of the kids. . . . That was really good . . . that really
made me look up to him all my life . . . he could take
time out of his night, where he's out having a good
time. He always took the time to spend with me if
he could . . . if it was time with me or go and get
drunk with his buddies, he would sit around and get
drunk and spend time with me. As long as he had his
booze, just to have his booze . . . we'd go build balsa
wood planes, and those are not easy to build; but he
would not miss cut, miss glue anything.

Sonny also described the childhood beatings he received.

He hit me with a belt . . . once I reached middle
school, then it was the canoe paddle, and there's no
way you did not cry when he belted you across the
a_ . . . about 10 years old, I got the first crack with
that paddle. He would never whip you on the cracks
of your a__; he would always beat the backs of your
legs from the bottom of your cheek to the bottom of
your knee. Couldn't sit; had to stand in class the next
day, maybe two.

The element of mental abuse was often added to the physical punishments. On
one occasion the father beat an older son by surprising him in his sleep. With
Sonny he added the following strategy to the beatings with a paddle.

He would just sit there and go swissshhh (with the

paddle). Stop and not touch me . . . he'd do that
several times, and then he'd lay it on me. It was no

156

big deal because I was already crying. It wasn't
because of the pain; it was just because I knew the
pain was going to be there.

Bobbi Sue Small's father used a belt to beat her until she ran away at the
end of her eighth grade year. She was also exposed to other forms of abuse, as
is evidenced by the following accounts.

Well, he used to whip us and stuff like that and
slap us. One thing that I hate . . . he stuck a gun up
to my real mom's head. He said if you touch these
d kids, I'll blow your brains out.

This was just before the divorce when the mother and father were fighting for
custody of Bobbi Sue and her older sister. Bobbi Sue also related how she was
blamed for the death of her 18 year old stepbrother who died in a car accident.

After my stepbrother got killed, I got blamed
for it and I couldn't take it. You know how pe0ple
want to take something out on somebody; well, it got
taken out on me . . . he (her dad) wanted someone to
blame, and he didn't have no one (SIC) . . . and I'd be
there. He'd say, "It's all your fault that (stepbrother)
died."

Susan Rogers gave one of the more detailed descriptions of life in an
alcoholic home. Her father only beat her once, and then an older brother
pulled the father off and in turn beat him. Susan was a victim of other types
of abuse.

My parents drank. My dad was an alcoholic.
He would go to the bar every night after work and
not come home until eight or nine o'clock. When he
would come home, he'd yell. He'd do things like rip
the phone off the wall. We would always have to
wait for him to have dinner.

She described a scene at Christmas one year.

He would do crazy things. One time he threw
the Christmas tree out of the front door. He'd come
home drunk. We were all sitting around wrapping
presents. He came in and said, "Santa Claus is
supposed to be doing that." And he took the

157

Christmas tree and threw it out the front door. 50
we unwrapped all his presents; and the next day, we
told him since Santa couldn't wrap his presents, we
were going to take them back. I guess that was a
mean thing to do, but we were really angry with him.

Mickey Collins justified the physical beatings he received from his
stepfather, Tom Lamb. As he put it, "I was a real little son of a b__. My
stepdad didn't give me anything I didn't deserve." Protective services has
intervened twice and ordered the family into counseling on one occasion.
Once was when Mickey was four, his stepfather had beaten him with a belt.
The buckle caught Mickey's penis, and Mickey had to be hospitalized. After
this Tom used a paddle which did not leave marks.

The second occasion was when Mickey was left with a family friend
while the parents were away. The stepfather had sent the paddle along in case
Mickey needed to be corrected. After wetting the bed, however, Mickey was
placed in a tub of scalding hot water. He received second and third degree
burns and was again hospitalized. To avoid charges of abuse, the friend gave
evidence to the police regarding the stepfather's abuse. Tom was subsequently
charged with child abuse.

As Mickey got older, he attempted to stand up to Tom, a large man
weighing over 250 pounds. Mickey described a scene where his stepfather
came home extremely drunk. Mickey was a sophomore. Tom began slap-
fighting with Mickey's half sister Kim. Soon the sister was in tears. At this
point Mickey's mother came into the room and began beating on Tom, slapping
him forcefully in the face. When Mickey went to the bathroom, Tom came

after him. Tom pushed the door in. The scene ended with Mickey, who had

become a high school wrestler, wedging his stepfather between the counter

158
and the toilet. Mickey recalled this as being an embarrassing situation for
Tom.

Ricky Henry, Jr's., parents divorced when he was six. He has childhood
memories of them fighting. At age nine his mother remarried. He recalled an
incident in which his mother and stepfather got into a fight.

He's hit my mom before, too. She had some
marks on her neck. I was outraged. I was going to
hurt him when I saw him . . . my mom said, "No."
Then I saw Fred, and he had marks all over his face.
I told my mom, "I don't care if he hits you, and you
maul him. When I get out of here (prison), I'm going
to seriously hurt him. I'm going to put him back in
the hospital."

Ricky's natural father is an alcoholic, and his grandparents on both sides
of the family are alcoholic. Recalling his childhood, Ricky described waiting
for his father. He then described the relationship they have now.

He'd get sidetracked easy sometimes. 'Cause
he'd stop somewhere on his way to the house and get
to drinking . . . so I quit waiting around for him . . .
recently he's been trying to keep a better time
schedule. When I turned 16, we made an agreement
that he would ask me to do things--he would not tell
me. So we're on a friendship basis. We're like best
buddies instead of a father-son relationship.

Sometimes frustration with children's behaviors triggers physical
punishment. Such was the case with Virginia Walasek. Virginia's mother used
spankings as a normal course of childhood punishment. Her father did not use
physical punishment when Virginia was young. As problems in school
accelerated, in middle school and high school, physical punishments were
intensified, and the father began to use physical punishment. Virginia related
an incident in which she skipped school and lied to her mother. Caught in the

lie, Virginia went to a boyfriend's house and did not go home that night. When

she did go home, her mother beat her with a belt and bruised her. Her

159

boyfriend noticed the bruises, told his parents, and protective services was
called.

These dropouts relate stories of alcoholism and physical, mental, and
sexual abuse. When alcoholism was evidenced, other forms of abuse were also
present. They use descriptors such as "terrifying," "scared," and "confused."
Yet these children also found ways to accommodate and justify their parents'
behavior. Their responses ranged from the fear and terror expressed by
Tammy Roundtree and Tom Clinton to the bitterness of Denise Roundtree and
the anger of Ricky Henry, Jr. As Denise grew less trusting of males, she grew
closer to her mother. Ricky threatens to hospitalize a stepfather for hurting
his mother. What is perhaps most striking is symbolized by Ricky when, in the
same conversation in which he described crying, waiting in the driveway for
hours for a father who never showed up, he said, "He loves me. . . . He'd do
anything for me if I asked him to . . . he's a good man, I feel." Like a mobile
thrown out of balance by an added weight, these children find ways to adapt
and survive and restore balance to their lives. They do not reject their
families; to do so would be to alienate themselves from the family group and,
in turn, to face rejection. The consequences of these adaptations are revealed

when one explores their behaviors and early entrance into adult status.

Early Adult Status: Dropout Behaviors

Part of the researcher's thesis is that the dropouts come from families
that allow, even encourage, them to grow up quickly. Part of that "growing
up" can be seen in their cigarette smoking, their alcohol and drug use, their

sexual activity, and their involvement in crime.

160

Nine of the 12 dropouts interviewed smoke cigarettes. All 12 discussed
use of alcohol and other illegal substances. For 10 of the 12, evidence was
given that suggests the level of their use interferes with normal functioning.
Five call themselves alcoholics. Five have criminal records. All 12 discussed
being sexually active. Tammy Roundtree's boyfriend "sleeps over" at her
trailer. Nick Menges is planning to move in with his girlfriend and her
illegitimate child. Bobbi Sue Small has run away to be with a boyfriend.
Wendy Anderson is seeing a man 10 years her senior. Susan Rogers has already
had her first child. Though the father deserted, another local boy has offered
to marry her. Mickey Collins left a high school girl pregnant with his child and
joined the Marines. Virginia Walasek is a recovering alcoholic and has an
alcoholic boyfriend.

The researcher does not claim to present a causal argument accounting
for these behaviors. However, there appear to be relevant and attendant
circumstances. In seven of the families, the mother worked full time or went
to work during the child's early elementary years. Three mothers were raising
their children alone. In six of the families, the natural father was absent. The
three stepfathers interviewed expressed difficulty disciplining their
stepchildren.

The family dynamics created by alcoholic parents appear to be a
contributing factor. The children in these homes had to take on adult
responsibilities, sometimes taking care of their parents, sometimes joining
their parents in negative behaviors. Mickey Collins dealt drugs for his father.
Ricky Henry, Sr., began taking his son to bars when Ricky, Jr., was 16.

Two other factors deserve mention: lack of supervision and lack of

expectations. Tammy and Denise Roundtree were left alone for long hours

161

from their early elementary years on. Jason Stanley stayed home from school
60 or more days a year. His method was to leave for school and return home
when his parents left for work. Art Mandrick ran with his older sisters and
their friends who introduced him to drug use. Ricky Henry was supervised by
older cousins while his mom worked. At age six he was smoking marijuana.

Finally, and, perhaps most importantly, growing up fast was natural.
Their grandparents began work and started families at early ages, as did their
parents. Delaying entrance into the world of work through colleges or trade
schools was not done in these families.

Regardless of cause or reason, a pattern of early entrance into adult
status was found. The ease with which they found their way into drug and
alcohol use is indicative of their gaining adult status.

Tammy Roundtree began smoking marijuana at age 13 with friends after
school. Her older sister, Denise was also heavily involved in drugs and
encouraged her sister's use. Tammy added drinking behavior in the eighth
grade and described herself as alcoholic by the end of that year. After her
father's death at the end of her freshman year, her use increased. Tammy
used pot, cocaine, popped pills, and took acid. She was hospitalized on two
occasions. Tammy's mother is an alcoholic. Until Tammy went to her and
asked for help to try and "dry out," her mother neither intervened or appeared
to recognize the severity of Tammy's use.

Jason Stanley's drug of choice is marijuana. His father is an alcoholic
and regular marijuana user. Jason's parents are aware of his drug use. Jason
describes himself as having flashbacks after a bad drug experience. He finds it

difficult to concentrate in school.

162

Tommy Menges described his drug use. "In middle school, that is where I
was introduced to drugs." Tommy indicated that his cousins introduced him to
marijuana. "We got high every day. Got high all the time." When asked why,
he responded, "We got all the attention. All of a sudden, I was in a bigger
group. I was accepted. My last name had brought me down, big time. Now
that I was on drugs, I had a group of friends." Tommy's drug of choice became
alcohol.

I used to come home drunk every night. Whenl
was 17 or 18, I drank all during the summer. I
remember one week, 1 came home everyday for a
week drunk . . . I love alcohol. I used to drink around
the clock.

Tom Clinton and Susan Rogers described their alcohol and drug use as
occasional. Susan quit drinking and smoking pot when she found out she was
pregnant. Sonny Vitale is currently receiving counseling for his alcohol
problem. Bob Mandrick, Jr., has been to an in-patient treatment center and is
a recovering alcoholic. Virginia Walasek is also a recovering alcoholic. She
has reached the level in her AA meetings where she is seeking a sponsor. She
is 17. Bobbi Sue Small began her drug use in middle school. She and a friend
stole marijuana from the friend's father. Bobbi Sue also pops pills. In the past
year she has joined a chemical dependency support group. Currently her
mother and stepfather are fearful that she has relapsed. Wendy Anderson was
introduced to marijuana by older brothers. All her brothers and sisters use
marijuana. One sister is a heroin addict. This sister is currently in jail.

Ricky Henry, Jr., has had severe drinking and drug problems. He is
currently serving a jail sentence for multiple drunk driving offenses. His

drinking behavior also resulted in assaulting a police officer and a breaking and

entering charge. Ricky indicated that he did not remember much of this

163

because he often blacked out. He was introduced to drug use by older cousins.
His father is an alcoholic who took his son to bars. Ricky described some of
his drinking behaviors.
I was into a little bit of everything. I was doing

cocaine, marijuana, acid, uppers, downers, alcohol.

Just about anything that I could get my hands on. It

was available in (small town). I mean, you got to

know the right people . . . when we stopped down to

the corner store . . . we was (SIC) drinking. (male

friend) broke in. I was the driver . . . the police

showed up . . . we was drinking 151 (rum) again . . . I

got really drunk, and I think we smoked a couple of

joints. I blacked out . : . I was standing by the side of

the road, and some guy almost hit me in his car. Sol

kicked it. The passenger got out, and I punched him

as fast as he stood up . . . all I can remember is blood

all over the place . . .
Ricky went on to describe a series of muggings, drinking every night of the
week, going on hinges, and blacking out. What he found amazing through all of
this was that his mother and stepfather were not aware of his behaviors.

As the dropouts reached their teenage years, they took on behaviors
society usually reserved for adults. Sometimes this was due to lack of
supervision and without adult knowledge. In other cases, as with Ricky Henry
and Mickey Collins, such behavior was actually encouraged by their fathers.
For others, becoming adult was a matter of survival or a natural by-product of
their role in the family. These behaviors included smoking, drinking, use of
drugs, and sexual activity.

There were consequences for these behaviors. For some the issue
became poor health. Others came up against the legal system and established
criminal records. One girl's sexual activity led to pregnancy. One of the

males indicated he had "gotten a girl pregnant." For all of the dropouts, their

early adult status led to problems in school.

1614

Other Family Risk Factors

 

The family experiences related to alcoholism and gaining adult status at
an early age have been discussed separately. This was for two reasons. First,
they were the strongest patterns of risk noted. The second reason is related to
the first. The number of responses which referenced the behaviors and
experiences related to these patterns as problematic required this separate
treatment. However, the argument is that there is an interrelatedness to all
the experiences categorized as risk factors. Thus, one problem may contribute
to, cause, or result in another. To capture this interrelatedness, the remainder

of the discussion proceeds by looking at each dropout separately.

Tammy Roundtree. Tammy Roundtree was raised by her mother, Gayle

 

Walker. Gayle had trouble keeping steady employment and had a series of
failed male relationships. Tammy moved frequently and on occasion was sent
to live with relatives. Though Tammy did not like to refer to her family as
poor, she was aware that they relied on welfare and ADC for their financial
survival. Her parents and her mother's male companions were alcoholic.
Tammy was exposed to violence and physical abuse. Her experiences with
adult males were largely negative. She was unsupervised during much of her
childhood and has low social capital. All adults in the Roundtree/Walker
family smoke. Tammy has a chronic smoker's cough and discussed a history of
respiratory problems. As in 11 of the 12 families, religious practice has been
discontinued.

Tammy's family experiences give evidence of 11 of the 12 risk factors.

Jason Stanley. Jason has been raised by his natural parents. His father

Lee is an unemployed auto mechanic. Lee is alcoholic and is currently on

165

probation for his second drunk driving conviction. Lee has also been ordered
by the court to attend AA meetings and obtain professional counseling for his
alcoholism. Jason moved from his suburban childhood home to a remote rural
setting in his early elementary years. He described himself as not making new
friends and not being accepted after this move. At age nine his mother went
to work. From that age on he was responsible for getting himself ready for
school. Jason became a chronic truant, often missing 60 or more days of
school each year. His parents were threatened with court action regarding
Jason's truancy. Jason reads The Bible but does not practice formal religion.
Jason has a history of poor health. He has an ulcer and suffers what he refers
to as "flashbacks" from a bad drug experience. He has been treated by a
psychiatrist.

Jason's family experiences give evidence of nine of the 12 risk factors.

Tommy Menges. Tommy Menges' father Nick deserted the family when

 

Tommy was four. Since then his family has lived on welfare and ADC. His
mother has never worked; however, she did return to school to complete her
diploma. The father has never paid child support. Tommy described frequent
moves in his childhood. "We moved from place to place. We moved . . . the
landlord died. We lived with another guy." Both parents are alcoholic.
Tommy has only heard from his father when the father is drunk. Tommy has
very few memories of his father. Tommy is one of four children. All the
children and the mother smoke. Tommy is also an alcoholic. He has been
convicted twice for drunk driving. Tommy makes $88 a month as a plasma

donor. His arms are scarred from his twice-weekly donations. At the time of

166

the second interview, he had a large, infected sore on one arm from what he
called "a dirty needle." Religion is not practiced by the Menges family.

Tommy's family experiences give evidence of all 12 risk factors.

Tom Clinton, Jr. Tom Clinton, Jr., has been raised by his natural

 

parents. Both have worked throughout his life. They have moved every year.
Tom never attended the same school system for more than two consecutive
years. Both Tom and his mother are heavy smokers. At age 15 Tom was
charged with grand theft/breaking and entering. He was convicted, but given
probation because he confessed and gave evidence. Four older boys were
involved and convicted. According to the Clinton parents, Tom has been
further traumatized by the suicides of two of these boys. Religion is not
practiced by the Clintons.

Tom's family experiences give evidence of 8 of the 12 risk factors.

Sonny Vitale. Sonny has been raised by his natural parents. His father is
disabled and his mother still works. He is the youngest of five children. Both
' parents are alcoholic. Sonny moved between his junior high and high school
years. He did not make a successful adjustment to the new school. Religion is
not practiced in the Vitale home. Both parents and Sonny are heavy smokers.
Sonny is currently in counseling for his alcohol use.

Sonny's family experiences give evidence of 9 of the 12 risk factors.

Bobbi Sue Small. Bobbi Sue was raised primarily by an abusive father

 

and stepmother. She ran away two years ago and came to live with her mother
and stepfather. She does not get along with her stepfather and has also run

away from this home. Her mother does not work based upon the advice of a

167

doctor. However, she does not receive disability. Bobbi Sue has moved
frequently throughout her childhood. There has been no religious practice in
either household. Bobbi Sue and her stepfather are heavy smokers.

Bobbi Sue's family experiences give evidence of 9 of the 12 risk factors.

Wendy Anderson. Wendy Anderson was raised from age 2 to age 13 by

 

her mother and stepfather. Her natural father died of lung cancer when she
was two. At 13 her stepfather divorced Wendy's mother. Both her natural
father and stepfather were heavy drinkers. She refers to her stepfather as a
"drunk." When her stepfather left the family, Wendy made a conscious
decision to ignore adult authority. Wendy still resides in the home where she
was born. Since age 13, she, her mother, and her half-sister have lived on
social security and ADC. Her mother has never worked, although she did go
back to complete a high school education. Religion is not practiced in the
Anderson/Workman household. Wendy is a heavy smoker, and she drinks and
uses drugs.

Wendy's family experiences give evidence of 8 of the 12 risk factors.

Bob Mandrick, Jr. Bob has been raised by his natural parents. He has

 

always lived in the same house and attended the same schools. His father has
30 years seniority at an auto factory. His mother did not work until Bob was
in the sixth grade. Religious practice was discontinued when Bob was an
infant. Bob refers to himself as a recovering alcoholic. He is a heavy smoker.
He has been arrested for drunk driving and for breaking and entering. He
wasn't convicted of the breaking and entering because it was during the school
day; and since the teacher forgot to take attendance, it could not be proven

that he was not in school. However, the other youth involved was convicted

168

and sent to a detention center. Whenever Bob has had legal difficulties, his
father has provided a lawyer.

Bob's family experiences give evidence of 6 of the 12 risk factors.

Susan Rogers. Susan Rogers has been raised by her natural parents. Her

 

father hangs drywall for a living and is often unemployed. The mother does
not work. The family has had to rely on welfare, ADC, and unemployment
compensation. The children have supplemented their finances through summer
employment in a Job Training Partnership Act program. Susan's father is an
alcoholic. His wife drank with him for nearly 20 years. The father is
currently suffering from emphysema. He is recovering from cataract surgery.
Both parents are heavy smokers. Susan quit smoking and drinking when she
found out she was pregnant. Religion is not practiced in this household.

Susan's family experiences give evidence of 9 of the 12 risk factors.

Mickey Collins. Mickey Collins was raised primarily by his stepfather

 

and mother; however, from seventh grade on, he frequently left to live with
his natural father. His mother and stepfather are both employed. Mickey's
mother has always worked. His natural father, Dick collins, is reported to be
heavily involved in drugs. According to Mickey's mother, Dick has involved
Mickey in selling drugs. Mickey referred to his father's family as "low lifes."
Dick Collins is unemployed. Mickey was charged with auto theft and was on
probation at the time of this study. The Collins/Lamb family observes regular
religious practice.

Mickey's family experiences give evidence of 6 of the 12 risk factors.

169

Ricky Henry, Jr. Ricky Henry has been raised primarily by his mother.

 

His natural father, a truck driver, left the family when Ricky was six. His
father is an alcoholic and is currently recovering from a severe heart attack.
At age nine Ricky's mother remarried a man named Fred Griggs. Fred is
currently disabled, has also suffered a heart attack, and is suing for disability.
Sandy Griggs supports the family by working two jobs as a waitress and
bartender. Ricky and all his parents are heavy smokers. Ricky is also
alcoholic and is currently serving a three- to five-year sentence for crimes
related to his alcoholism. Ricky was moved frequently in his early years, but
his mother eventually settled in her home town. Ricky's family does not
attend church, although on occasion Ricky has attended with an aunt. From
age six on, Ricky has been supervised by cousins. They introduced him to
marijuana use at age six. At 16 his natural father began taking Ricky out
drinking.

Ricky's family experiences give evidence of 11 of the 12 risk factors.

Virginia Walasek. Virginia has been raised by her natural parents. Her

 

father works construction, and her mother is primarily a homemaker. Due to
economic hardship, the family moved to a different state when Virginia was in
fifth grade. They had moved once previously. The parents indicated that both
moves were traumatic for Virginia. At the same time as the fifth grade move,
Virginia's mother also went to work. Virginia describes herself as a recovering
alcoholic. Her past experience with substance abuse has been extensive. She
is a heavy smoker. The Walasek family does not practice religion.

Virginia's family experiences give evidence of 6 of the 12 risk factors.

170

Summary. The review of family risk factors discovered that multiple
problems are experienced by the dropouts. As was shown in Table 4, an
average of 8.67 risk factors were found in each family. The interrelatedness
and interactive effect of these risk factors appear to erode the quality of
family life experienced. Low social capital and gaining early adult status
appear to create problems for the dropout when he/she interacts with the
larger society.

The parents and dropouts adjust to and accommodate one another's
behaviors. Family membership may change. A natural parent may leave; a
stepparent may be added. Siblings and relatives move in and out. There are
separations and reunions. Tempers flare; abuses are meted out. Through it
all, a family collective persists. The following paragraphs demonstrate that
despite family conditions associated with dysfunction, positive interactions

also are experienced.

Quality Life Experiences

 

Establishing a specific set of descriptors to capture or symbolize a
family's quality of life is a difficult task. The list adopted by this researcher
does not claim to be the only possible list or an an all-encompassing one. It is
based, quite simply, on those factors commonly associated with a happy or
functioning home environment. These factors include such things as stability,
an established hierarchy, recognized authority, gainful adult employment,
clear expectations and defined roles, shared experiences, supportive
relationships, established traditions, and celebrated holidays. The presence of

these factors was evidenced through the events and descriptions related by

171

respondents. In varying degrees, high quality life experiences were found in all

families studied.

Roundtree/Walker. Tammy Roundtree lives in a rented trailer. Tammy

 

stated that she and her mother cannot live together. Her mother, Gayle
Walker, lives 80 miles away in the family home where Gayle grew up.
Tammy's older sister, her sister's two small children, and her stepgrandfather
all live in the small family home. Tammy found the conditions chaotic and
moved out. Yet, as she is quick to add, "I'm still close to my mom." Her
mother makes frequent visits to the trailer, often bringing groceries and other
supplies.
Gayle knew how she wanted to raise her daughters.
I wanted them to understand that if you want
it, there's a way to get it and you have to work for it.
. . . I wanted them to treat other people good. . . . I
had it in my mind that I was going to raise them to
like themselves.
She was also clear about her priorities and values.
A caseworker someplace along the line told me
I was poor. . .. I said . . . "I am not poor." There
wasn't anything that I needed. . . . 1 had my kids; we
had clothes on our backs; we had food in our belly and
a roof over our head. There's nothing we really
needed . . . we had each other, and that's what I
wanted them to grow up and feel and learn. . . .
Intelligence is something the world puts a price tag
on. . . . You have to learn to care for other people,
and that's nothing that can be taught in school.
For Gayle Walker and her daughters, "It's just you and me baby. . You
and me against the world." They recalled family holidays and the daughters
laughed about sending their mom 3 Father's Day card. Though Tammy's

parents divorced when she was an infant, she recalled her father taking her to

the park or coming to see her in high school when she earned an award as a

172

member of Future Farmers of America. For the Roundtree/Walker family, the

central theme is "be good to other people."

The Stanleys. The Stanleys have been married for over 20 years. For 14

 

of those years, they have lived in the same house. Shirley has 10 years
seniority in her Federal Civil Service job. Though Lee's parents are deceased,
the family is still close to Shirley's parents and other extended family.
Holidays and birthdays have always been celebrated together. Angela and
Jason both play the guitar.

Lee and Shirley Stanley set out to raise their children free of the
physical abuse Lee had experienced as a child and free of the strict rules
against which Shirley had rebelled. Shirley spent time with her son Jason and
"taught him to read long before he went to school . . . taught him to write."
From her he learned to enjoy reading and continues to be an avid reader. His
favorite book is The Bible.

Though the parents deny being "outwardly affectionate," they talk
comfortably about the love they have for their children. Despite the lack of
overt displays of affection, when Jason was asked how the family functioned,
he responded, "We have family closeness . . . the relaxed atmosphere. . . . It
works well. . . . We can be honest with each other."

When asked what family means to them, the father replied, "That's the
place when you don't have any place to go. They can't throw you out." To
which Jason added, "It's the group of people that when . . . there are a whole
bunch of people f_ing with ya . . . you have someone to back you." To the
Stanleys, family is a home, a safe place where you can say what's on your mind

and get acceptance.

173

The Menges. For the Menges, family is mom, whether "mom" is really

 

Aunt Donna or just a caring adult. Donna Menges has stood by her four
children for over 23 years, and her kids know they can come to her. As Donna
stated, "If they're in trouble, it's, 'Mom, help me!"' When nieces or friends of
her children are in trouble, she takes them in. She has always made sure that
holidays are "done up right." Her life centers around taking care of the house,
fixing meals, and making ends meet. Each spring she plants flowers along the
drive to brighten up the yard. She sees her role as cleaning, cooking, and

caring for her kids. As she puts it, "I'm a natural born mom."

The Clintons. The Clintons have been married over 20 years. They are

 

both employed and present a history of steady employment and hard work.
They provide a modest, well-kept house for their children, Tom and Joyce.
The children have been taught the value of a dollar, have regular household
chores, and when they were smaller had regular study times.

The primary theme which guides this family is "unconditional
acceptance." Each person is accepted and loved as who s/he is . Meeting or
failing to meet expectations does not alter the love bond. The mother, Diane
phrased it as follows.

Tommy has been brought up to the fact that I
don't care if you write on the walls or don't write on
the walls. I love you anyway. I love you for who you
are, not what you can do for me. . . . Good or bad,
he's loved.

This is also a household that values voicing one's opinion and stating one's
beliefs. You don't have to accept the other person's Opinion, and you don't

have to be afraid to challenge or argue. Yet it is also a household in which

adults clearly hold the authority.

174

The Clintons spend time together as a family. They enjoy going out to
dinner or a movie or watching movies together on their video cassette
recorder. They play games, and the father and son are members of the same
Dungeons and Dragons Club. They live in a house on the same street where
the father was born. The children are exposed to many of their extended
family. During the Christmas holidays, they go caroling. They "laugh . . . and
giggle . . . and sing" and walk the surrounding neighborhood to look at the
lights. Mother and daughter enjoy shopping together and going to Tupperware
parties. As Diane Clinton stated, the bottom line for a member of the Clinton

family is, "No matter what problems we face, I still love you."

The Vitales. Gus and Mary Vitale have been married for over 30 years.

 

Both came from broken homes and vowed they would never be separated. As
Gus said, "We loved each other; that's why we're still married." They recently
moved from the city to a custom-built home on a river where they can boat
and fish. Their youngest child Sonny still lives with them. Gus described his
relationship with his children. "I've always been close to Sonny . . . as a
matter of fact, I've been close with all of my kids . . . " Gus described some of
their family experiences.
We've always been a close knit family. We've
always done a lot with our kids . . . started camping
when they were just babies in diapers, in a 9x9 little
tent with a playpen in it for the kids. We've always
camped with them. . . . They've always knew (SIC)
what the outdoors was.
The Vitales are characterized by hard work. The number one rule for the
family is, "If you want something, you get your a_ out and work for it." Gus

is a disabled auto worker who put in 29 years before sustaining a back injury.

During their early years, Gus worked seven days a week tarring roofs, blowing

175

soot out of rafters, and taking odd jobs in addition to his work at the auto
factory. Mary still works.

When asked what holds the family together, he replied, "Love for each
other. If one hurts, we all hurt. There's a deep sense of feeling . . . and
respect for one another." This respect extends to the values he tried to teach
his children. Gus stated he taught his children, "You don't bother people, but

you don't let people bother you."

The Beauchamps. Gary and Bobbi Beauchamp are stepfather and natural

 

mother to Bobbi Sue Small. After running away from the home of her natural
father and stepmother two years ago, she came to live with the Beauchamps.
The Beauchamps have been married for 12 years. They represent traditional
values. Larry works two jobs so that his wife can stay home. Their modern
mobile home is neat and well-kept. They have joined support groups and hired
a counselor to assist them in dealing with Bobbi Sue's problems. The qualities
that they provide Bobbi Sue are support, consistency, traditional values, and

clear boundaries.

Workman/Anderson. After the death of her first husband and an
unsuccessful second marriage, Martha Workman has been on her own raising
her eight children. Here is another home where family equals mom. She has
kept the same large farmhouse for over 30 years. It is still the place where all
the older children return for holidays and special occasions. Relatives in the
North also provide a cottage where Martha can take her younger children and
where the older children can bring their families.

Martha was raised on a farm and grew Up believing her role was as a

mother and good homemaker. She has never abandoned this role. She

176

describes the years when her first husband was still alive in romantic terms.
The large family spent time together, the bigger kids looking out for the
younger ones. Evenings in the living room were depicted as older brothers
jostling and bouncing younger sisters on their knees. Vacations included

boating, hunting, fishing, and camping.

The Mandricks. Bob and Norma Mandrick have raised their three

 

children in the same house. They have been married for over 22 years. Both
parents are from Catholic backgrounds, and they brought their children up in
the church although they no longer attend regularly. Bob works in the auto
industry and has 30 years seniority. For 15 years Norma stayed home with the
children and now works part-time in a video store.

Living near a lake provided the children numerous childhood adventures
such as fishing and boating. Fun and adventure characterize the early years of
the Mandrick children. Bob shared numerous photo albums of camping, fishing,
and hunting trips. When the children were younger, Bob took each one on a
special trip so that he could spend time alone with them.

The Mandrick home was one where people were always welcome and
often drOpped in. Their basement was the site of frequent neighborhood or
family parties. They make " a fuss" over holidays and birthdays. They
describe vacations as some of the best times they've shared. Bob and Norma
agreed they have enjoyed themselves since they were first married.

Authority is shared .in the Mandrick household. Problems are talked out
although the parents do some "preaching." They view themselves as a

traditional family. "Taking care of each other" is their family motto. The

177

fact that Bob provides a home for his daughter and son-in—law in the basement

of their home is a testimony to the sincerity of this motto.

The Rogers. Bill and Arlene Rogers have been married for over 30 years.

 

They have moved once in this time. Their six children all have attended the
same small rural schools. Arlene has always been home for her children. She
was brought up in a family where women did not work outside the home, and
she came to see her role as did Martha Workmanuhomemaker and provider.
When asked what held her family together, she says "the utmost thing was
love."

Bill is the dominant authority in the ROgers' home. Because his parents
didn't care how he did in school, Bill "gets after" his kids. He lets them know
this is because he cares. Arlene Rogers instilled values in her children. She
taught them that if they did wrong, they would be punished. Their six children
had chores and study times.

The Rogers enjoy family gatherings. As Arlene stated, "It doesn't matter
whose side of the family." The family gets together for holidays such as
Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. At Christmas they have separate parties
for the adults, the teenagers, and the younger children. Different families

take turns hosting the parties.

The Lambs. Tom and Debby Lamb are stepfather and natural mother to
Mickey Collins. Since age four, Tom has helped raise Mickey. Tom began
work at age 12 when his father died, and the terms "hard work and more hard
work" describe his strongest values. Mickey grew up respecting his stepfather
for his hard work and learned to value work himself. Structure would

characterize the Lamb household. The children have always had chores and

178

expectations have been clear. This work ethic continues with Debby who also
works full time and has put herself through school and earned an associate arts
degree.

The Lambs attend church regularly. They send their daughter Kim to a
private religious school. Mickey has also maintained his interest in and
practice of religion.

The Lambs have always enjoyed camping with their kids. As Debby said,
"We've camped right from day one. We're big campers. . . . Now we've bought
a cabin." These trips have provided Mickey the chance to hunt, fish, and trap.
When Mickey wanted to join scouts, his stepdad volunteered to chaperone a
campout.

The Lamb children have had lots of exposure to extended family. The
major family get togethers are usually at Christmas time. They describe their
extended family as "relatively close" and often open their house for family

parties. They have lived in this house for 11 years.

Henry/Griggs. Ricky Henry, Jr., was nine when his mother married Fred

 

Griggs. Ricky gets along with his stepdad, and Fred describes Ricky as "a good
boy"; but to Ricky, family is still mom. Ricky's mother has always been there
for him, providing love and support. Since Fred is disabled, Sandy Griggs is
also the wage-earner.

The Griggs saw to it that Ricky had chores and learned responsibilities.
In his early school years, there was study time, and mom would help him with
his homework. When it came time for fun or adventure, it was also mom.
Even though she did not know how to fish or hunt, she would go with her son.

She saw to it that they attended family gatherings. When he was little, she

179

also made sure he attended church with her sister's family. They have lived in

the same small house in the same small town all of Ricky's life.

The Walaseks. Dan and Becky Walasek met in Mexico city over 25 years

 

ago. He was there as a missionary; she was studying to be a nun. They fell in
love and married. They have raised three girls together. Dan has been the
provider, busy running his own construction company, and Becky has been an
active and involved homemaker.

The Walaseks are best characterized as firm and demanding of their
children. Becky took an active role in her girls' lives. When Virginia became a
Brownie, Becky became a leader. She taught them their letters and numbers
to prepare them for school and was always there to structure study time.
Accomplishments are valued in the Walasek home.

As a young girl, Virginia showed interest in horses. When able to afford
it, the Walaseks bought her a horse. They take family vacations together.
When Virginia began to have problems in secondary school, they joined a
parent support group and helped her with counseling. Through the years they

have remained a strong couple.

Summary. The primary purpose of this review of family experiences was
to demonstrate that some high quality life experiences could be found in all
the families studied. Some families, such as the Clintons, have a clear
definition of family and what holds family together. Others have clearly
defined roles. Some, like the Walaseks, hold highly traditional values. Others,
like the Stanleys, are laissez-faire. As in most families, holidays are
celebrated, family trips and vacations are planned, and the basic needs of the

family members are met.

180

Because the study of family experiences and events was focused on
dropping out and, therefore, on the relationship between family and school
experiences, this skeletal review does not portray day-to-day life within these
families. At best, it captures a family theme or some events and experiences
shared by the family members. Therefore, these findings may present a
distorted picture of family life. The researcher must uncover critical events,
behaviors, and issues if he is to understand the ideas and actions which more
dramatically shape the lives of family members.

That quality of life composites are so sketchy may be attributed to the
presence of multiple risk factors. The argument is that these risk factors
erode the quality of family life. The following paragraphs present an analysis

of the findings regarding the dropout's family experience.

Analysis of Findings

In this section data were presented regarding the dropout's family
experiences. It was found that high quality life experiences are evidenced in
each family, but that focusing on these experiences does not capture a true
picture of family life. When the data were searched for critical family events,
strong patterns of risk factors were found. Twelve categories of risk were
identified. These risk factors appeared to erode or limit the quality of the
dropout's family experience. While no single pattern of risk factors was noted,
every family evidenced multiple risk factors. Intact families averaged
approximately one and one-half fewer risk factors than stepparent or single
parent families.

The dominant risk factors associated with parent behaviors were

alcoholism and physical or mental abuse. Alcoholism was found in nine

181

families. In six of these families, abuse was also discovered. Abuse not
related to alcoholism was found in an additional three families. The dominant
pattern of drOpout behavior was labeled "conferring early adult status." It was
found that all 12 dropouts are sexually active and have used drugs and alcohol
regularly. Five of the 12 referred to themselves as alcoholic. One additional
dropout has "flashbacks." Five have criminal records. The presence of other
risk factors has also been reviewed.

The level of adult problems experienced by the dropout families resulted
in 10 of 12 drOpouts having low social capital. Using Coleman's definition, this
category was described as the absence of adult involvement with the child and
the failure of parents to use their human capital to benefit their children.
These children are left alone at an early age or left to the care of older and
often irresponsible relatives or friends. The dropouts described a lack of
parental supervision and few parental expectations.

Few socializing experiences were provided by adults. Virginia Walasek's
mother served as a Brownie leader, and Mickey Collins' stepfather took him to
3 Scout sleepout, but these are exceptions. Eleven of 12 families do not attend
church. Participation in other community activities was not evidenced.

Health issues are problematic in many of these families. The majority of
the parents and dropouts are heavy smokers. Two fathers are deceased. One
father has had a heart attack. The stepfather from the same family also has
suffered a heart attack. One father, one mother, and one stepfather are
disabled and unable to continue work. Yet, even a heart attack or the
diagnosis of emphysema did not curb smoking or drinking.

The researcher's review of the data discovered two key findings. The

first was that, while no single pattern of risk factors was noted, all drOpouts

182

experienced multiple risk factors in their upbringing. It is argued that one
problem condition may not have a lasting or damaging effect. It is further
argued that, when one risk factor is combined with another, there is a
compounding of problems and what Schorr (1988) refers to as an "interaction
effect." This effect is to erode the quality of family life and thus impair the
child development experienced by the dropout.

The second finding is that the family remains the reference group of the
drOpout. Regardless of multiple risk factors, the dropout continues to see
him/herself as a member of the family collective. Even when the father is
absent or family conditions are chaotic, the drOpout always has a sense of a
family unit. At the minimum, family becomes "mom." Though the fathers left
the families in half of the cases studied, in every family the mother was
regarded as fulfilling roles of nurturance and support.

On the other hand, poor male role models were observed in a majority of
the 12 families. Alcoholism, physical abuse of wives and/or children,
unemployment, desertion, refusal to pay court-ordered child support, and
reported womanizing were treated as determinants of a poor male role model.
Male alcoholism and substance abuse as well as physical abuse of wives or
children were most frequent, affecting nine families. Two fathers refused to
pay child support; four wives reported "catching" their husbands with other
women; in three families, the males do not work.

It is difficult to determine the effect these adult male behaviors have
had on the drOpouts. Frequent references made by dropouts, comparing their
drug or alcohol use to that of their fathers, suggests that the modeling of
negative behaviors was a major contributor to the family's conferring early

adult status on the dropouts. The poor male role model also may be associated

183

with the dropouts' lack of resilience and tendency to give up when faced with
difficulties.

Comments from wives divorced from these men suggest that the
peripatetic males found in these families become so out of some inherent
weakness of character. As Gayle Walker stated, "It's caused by a liver
disorder. . . . There is something imbalance (SIC) in their system . . . it's
hereditary." An alternative explanation would be that these males lacked a
legitimate role and also embraced the belief that external conditions were
beyond their control. The move from the farms to. the factories in their and
their parents' generations, recession, lack of stable jobs, and the decline of
well paying factory positions, eroded the traditional male role of provider.
Faced with the consequences this failure has on their families, these men
deserted, became alcoholic, and often repeated their behaviors in second
families.

Returning to the notion of retaining family membership, it was found
that neither the family rejects the child, nor does the child reject the family.
Even for Tammy Roundtree, who felt at 17 that she could no longer live with
her mother, family was still "mom"; and she still saw herself as Helen Reddy's
song depicts, as a partner with her mother and sister "against the world."
Sonny Vitale refers to his father as a great man in the same conversation in
which he describes being beaten with a canoe paddle. Ricky Henry believes
that his father would do anything for him, though he has often- been left
waiting and has gotten used to his father's stopping to get drunk and never
showing up. These parents do not reject their children. No matter how severe
the trouble their children get into, the family stands together. They refer to

their sons in diminutives as Ricky, Tommy, and Mickey. These are the same

184

sons who have accumulated three breaking and entering and grand theft
charges, as well as a number of drunk driving convictions. The parents hire
lawyers when needed and send their children to treatment centers to deal with
their alcoholism. They join support groups and hire counselors. The dropout is
not rejected by the family, nor can the dropout reject the family. To do so is

to reject him/herself.

The Dropouts' School Experiences

 

In section four of this chapter the dropouts' family experiences were ‘
presented. The focus' was on the dropout as a member of the family
collective. It was argued that the dropout's family is characterized by low
social capital, poor male role models, frequent alcoholism, physical abuse of
wives and children, alcohol and substance abuse by the drOpouts, poverty and
unemployment, and the claiming of early adult status by the youth.

In this section the findings regarding the dropouts' school experiences are
presented. The focus shifts to the dropout as family representative. It will be
argued that the dropouts carry behavior and experience patterns to school that
are learned, practiced, and acceptable in the family, but are not taught, are
not to be learned, and are not acceptable in school. The result is that the
students' behavior conflicts with the schools' expectations at several key
points. In this section it will be argued that the combination of the dropouts
unacceptable behaviors and the school's punitive reaction to that behavior is a

contributing factor to dropping out.

Findings
Schools have both a formal and an informal side. For the students, the

formal side is the academic expectations, their class performance, their

185

general demeanor in class, their relations with their teachers, their
compliance with rules and regulations, and their combining of the different
experiences into some coherent educational plan. On the informal side is their
relationship with their peers, which several researchers have described, and
their informal relations with teachers and administrators.

It was found that the dropouts experience conflict both in the formal
organization and in the informal organization with their peers. Their
behaviors conflict with the formal school policies and practices designed to
control and maintain order. Their behaviors also create conflict with other
students who reject or ignore the dropouts. The result is that the dropouts are
both disconnected from their schools and cast out from their peer groups.

A further finding is the exaggerated and hyperbolic quality with which
the dropouts express their school conflicts. When confronted or punished at
school, the dropouts tended to minimize their negative behaviors, portraying
themselves as victimized or harassed. They portray school personnel as
uncaring and unsympathetic, discriminating against the dropouts. Peers are
characterized as cruel and unfriendly.

For example, when Tommy Menges revealed his expulsion for "selling six
joints," he made no mention of previous drug dealing. When reminded of
earlier statements about his drug involvement, he acknowledged that he had
been an active drug dealer for two years before being caught. However, in a
later interview in the presence of his mother, he retold the story of being
caught, arrested, and forced to submit to a lie detector test. Once again, his
drug dealing was glossed over and his wrong doing minimized by referring to it

as his "first offense."

186

Similarly, fights were recalled as battles. Sonny Vitale related numerous
fights in which he was always the winner, and his opponent, always guilty of
some wrong doing, was left cut and bleeding. When Sonny's father Gus was
asked abut these events, he stated, "I think Sonny exaggerates a lot on that
problem."

This same element of exaggeration and self-portrayal as victimized
individuals fighting back against a punitive system was noted in the parent
interviews. This will be discussed in the sixth section of this chapter.

The researcher accepted such statements as the dropout's version of
reality, then probed and cross-referenced previous data to gain a more
accurate view. Jason Stanley recalls his winter school-skipping experiences in
terms of preferring frostbite to being in school. It would seem evident that
Jason has never suffered frostbite. However, these descriptions are repeated
as representative of the conflict between the dropout and the school. That
their responses may serve as defense mechanisms to save face, minimize the
hurt of rejection, or justify their failure is an important part of the dropout's
story.

The researcher's analysis of the data gathered relating dropouts' school
experiences disclosed strong patterns of negative interaction with all aspects
of the school. When one considers that this is an environment in which the
dropout spends significant amounts of time, the degree of negative interaction
defies simple explanations which attribute dropping out to poverty, divorce, or
other demographic characteristics. What is found is a history of experiences
which begins negatively and grows increasingly negative throughout the school

years. Dropping out is the end product of a process begun in the early grades.

187

Four of the dropouts expressed dislike for school beginning in
kindergarten. Mickey Collins skipped the first weeks hiding in bushes near a
busy highway. Wendy Workman recalled feeling "stupid and dumb." Susan
Rogers and Bobbi Sue Small stated that they have "always hated school." The
others began school more positively, but by first grade Bob Mandrick no longer
liked school, by second grade Virginia Walasek and Tom Clinton were both
threatened with retention, and by the sixth grade 4 of the 12 dropouts had been
retained.

Seven of the 12 dropouts had reading difficulties. Five were sent into
special programs ranging from gifted and talented to speech therapy. Tammy
Roundtree expressed her upset at being sent to a speech therapist by refusing
to speak during one solid year of one-on-one meetings. Tracking, sorting, and
labeling experiences are described with resentment, anger, and
embarrassment.

Severe peer problems begin early and grow worse over time. Ricky
Henry began "beating children up" in the first grade. Bob Mandrick was
"beaten up" regularly beginning in the first grade. When he would tell his older
sisters, they would tease and mock him before "taking care of" those who beat
him. Tom Clinton never made friends at school, and others like Bobbi Sue
Small and Virginia Walasek simply accepted whatever friends would accept
them.

By middle school Sonny Vitale and Mickey Collins relate engaging in
regular, often daily, fights. It should be pointed out that these two males were
the most violently abused children studied. When a girl put gum in the hair of

Tammy Roundtree's older sister, Tammy waited and "beat the girl up as she

188

stepped off the bus." By middle school Tammy and her sister were both called
"sluts" by the other children.

The pattern of negative interactions grew stronger each year. During
the early elementary years, the dropouts were moved to the lower tracks,
were placed in special programs, or were retained. As work requirements
increased their refusal or inability to work isolated them from school rewards
based largely on achievements and accomplishments.

As informal groups mature, they also base membership on achievements
or accomplishments and confer status. The dropouts were gradually excluded
from and eventually rejected by peer groups which required academic,
athletic, or social skill. Cut off from formal and informal school structures,
the dropouts formed groups with others like themselves. They became
disconnected and outcast.

The dropouts described their high school years in terms of boredom,
discipline problems, alcohol and substance abuse, and refusal to comply with
even the most minimal requirements. The dropouts viewed a diploma's value
in the same instrumental terms as their parents. It is "unpaid work," "required
to keep living at home," "a ticket to a job," "what you've got to have to even
get by." All 12 dropouts indicated that by high school, they refused to do
homework.

All 12 dropouts discussed alcohol and drug use during high school. Nine
openly discussed frequently "getting high" or drunk before or during school.
Three were drug dealers. Tommy Menges was expelled for selling "joints" to
an eighth grade girl. All 12 dropouts evidenced skipping school, skipping
classes, going to class late, or walking out in anger. Jason Stanley's skipping

was so excessive, the high school reported his truancy to the courts and a

189

truancy officer was assigned to his case. His parents were sent warning
letters and, when the problem persisted, threatened with fines and more
severe penalties.

By high school, 11 of the 12 dropouts were taking the lowest track courses
offered. Jason Stanley was spared this by a gifted/talented teacher who
moved him back into the higher track, where he failed every class. He ended
up in an alternative program after leaving school in his junior year.

Nine of the 12 dropouts did not participate in extracurricular programs.
The three who did reported their behaviors would improve during the sport
season; but as soon as the season was over, they returned to their normal
patterns. For Mickey Collins and Ricky Henry, the football season did not
disrupt drug use. Mickey took steroids to "bulk up" and took speed to help him
play better. Ricky got drunk after games.

Though the dropouts described classes as boring and teachers as
uncaring, this was not to say that some teachers weren't "cool." The majority
of dropouts were able to recall at least one teacher who took a special
interest.

The dropout's school life was one of few rewards, frequent clashes with
the formal system, and problems within the informal networks that make up
school. These data are summarized in Table 5. The following paragraphs

relate their experiences.

A Day at School
Each dropout was asked to describe a day at school. Tom Clinton gave

the following response.

190

You hate getting up early. The day begins
riding a crowded bus. I don't like being crowded in
like that. When you get to school, it is loud. You are
half asleep. The halls are crowded and I'm tired.
You stop at your locker and it's a mess because you
threw your things in there getting ready to leave on
the bus the night before. The first hour you walk in,
it's half asleep . . . it's English and there is a pop
quiz. You are expected to know this stuff right from
sleeping. I see the words, but I can't understand it.
Sometimes I have to read a question five or six times.
I'm frustrated. Sometimes I just put my name on the
paper and turn it over 501 don't have to look at it. I
don't care if I pass it or not.

When asked what class was like, he added the following.

Teacher talking--teaching talking all the time.
No time to know what you just learned. Then the bell
rings (you go to the next class, math). This is an easy
subject for me. The problems are on the board. You
have to get them done, and this really wakes you up.

Tom talked about homework and the remainder of his school day.

I still don't do homework. When the teacher
calls on you and asks for it, it can be embarrassing. 1
get ignored. The teachers play favorites. If you
don't have your homework, they ignore you for the
rest of the hour. Sol ignore them. I do things to bug
the teacher. I don‘t think the teachers are God
Almighty. They are arrogant and they act like they
are better than you, but they have the answer book
with all the answers written in it. How do you know
they know anything you don't. Then there is lunch
time. You smoke a cigarette; you have some fun.
Homeroom follows that. You gotta like homeroom.
It is a class where you don't have anything. After
that I go to history. I hate it. I've always flunked
history. Why should we know what happened a
hundred years ago? I can't see why the past matters.
It is only the present and the future. Tomorrow a
bomb could blow up everything . . . the whole world
could be blown up any second.

Other descriptions echoed Tom's sentiments. Classroom boredom; being

ignored by teachers; finding relief at break, lunch, or in a gym class; and

191

Table 5
Dropouts' School Experiences

 

_LDVO ut A a 9 2 5 5 s a l 1 IS.
Tammy
Roundtree X X X X X X X X O X O
Jason Stanley X X X X X 0 X O X X X
Tommy Menges X X X X O X X X X X X
Tom Clinton X X X X 0 X X 0 X X X
Sonny Vitale X X X X X X X X X X X
Bobbi Sue
Small X X X X X X X O X X X
Wendy
Anderson X X X X O X 0 X X X X
Bob Mandrick X X X X X X X O X X X
Susan Rogers X X X X O X X 0 O X X
Mickey Collins X X X X O X O O X X O
Ricky Henry X X X X O X X O X X O
Virginia
Walasek X X X X O X X O O X_ X
A = instrumental view of education J = failure and/or retention
B : refusal to do homework K : no participation in extra-
C : attendance, tardiness, curricular activities
skipping school
D : discipline problems/ substance
abuse X = evidenced
E : special programs tested or O : not evidenced
qualified
F : lower track/basic curriculum
G : poor peer relations (bad crowd) ~ : retained
H : family representative discrimina- »~ - : reading difficulty

tion/bad family name
uncaring teachers/ negative
teacher examples

t—s
ll

192

waiting for the day to end were typical and frequent comments. Other

dropouts focused in on the treatment they received from teachers.

Teacher Traum as

 

Wendy Anderson's teacher troubles began in kindergarten. She attended
a small rural elementary school and recalled her teacher as being mean and
playing favorites. According to Wendy, the teacher made students feel dumb.
As an example, Wendy related this incident. It was freezing outside, and
Wendy stuck her tongue on a pole. Several layers of skin were torn from her
tongue, and she bled a good deal. During the remainder of the day, the
teacher repeatedly reminded the class what a stupid thing Wendy had done.
Wendy was sent home with a note saying that she had done "a stupid thing at
school today." Her tongue was still bleeding when she arrived home. In a later .
conversation, Wendy's mother, Martha Workman, related the same story.

Tommy Menges' teacher troubles also began early. This is how he
remembered the first day of second grade.

On the first day of school, I remember I
dropped a pencil. I bent down to pick it up. That's
all I did was bend down to pick it up. . . . This
teacher, Mrs. P., came by and pulled me by the hair
and lifted me back into the seat. She was weird. I
hated that teacher. She was an older lady. . . . She
was hard on everybody. One of the things she liked
to do to punish you was, she would make you put your
arms out straight; she would stack books on your
arms. After awhile, things would get heavy, and you
would start pulling your arms in closer, and she would
come by and straighten your arms out.

As Tommy got older, his problems continued.

There was this kid in fifth grade—had always
picked on me. He was the lowest person in the school
. . . in seventh gradel picked on him . . . one day this
PE teacher named S. saw me picking on this kid. I
had been throwing the basketball at him real hard and

193

hitting him over and over. S. grabbed me by the
neck. He took me into the locker room and shoved
me up against the wall. He kept banging my head
against the locker . . . hitting my head against the
locker. Finally, I got really p_ed and said, "Knock
it off!" and I hit his arms, but he slammed my head
against the locker again. . . . I told my mom. . . . S
denied the whole thing. I really hated that guy for
that.

Other students, like Mickey Collins, recalled being slammed against
walls by male teachers. Ricky Henry came home bruised from being carried
by the shoulders, feet in the air, to the office. “There were also more subtle
abuses. After a lengthy illness, Tom Clinton returned to class, taking flowers
to his second grade teacher. She threw them in the trash and told Tom it was
a more pleasant class without him. Tom's mother had brought him to the
classroom door and overhead the exchange. Tom refused to stay in class,
refused to participate for the remainder of the year, and was retained as a
third grader. The matter was settled before the School Board. In a later
conversation, Tom's mother confirmed the incident and indicated Tom hated
school from that moment on.

Tom and Wendy have never forgotten early school traumas. For Nick,
not getting along with teachers was a pattern. Mickey did not express any
lasting feelings about his teacher encounters and ended up liking the teacher
who threw him against the wall. Despite the recollection of such traumas, the

majority of the dropouts recalled some pleasant teacher experiences. In the

following paragraphs, the researcher presents some of those experiences.

Teachers Who Care

 

Even Tommy Menges, who stated, "Teachers . . . they're jerks . . . they'll

help certain ones out, but not a kid like me," recalled a third grade teacher

194

who cared. Tommy described the way the teacher managed his behavior when
he began stealing things.

Mrs. V., she was pretty sweet. I was stealing
some things from class, small things. Mrs. V. began
to congratulate me for getting my work done . . . for
getting my times tables. I was smarter than they
(Nick used "they" repeatedly in referring to Mrs. V)
thoughtl was. I knew what they were trying to do. I
realized they were trying to straighten me out, so I
stopped stealing things. . . . They made me feel good
about myself. She took me out of class one time and
gave me a ribbon. I went back into class, and I told
everybody about it. That felt really good.

Tammy Roundtree recalled pleasant early elementary experiences.

I was an A student, that is, up until fifth grade
. . .I made friends. I thought we (Tammy's mother
and sister had just moved to a new town with one of
her mother's boyfriends) would be there for awhile
. . .I made friends . . . I liked to read . . . I didn't
have a care. . . . In fourth grade Mrs. M had twins.
She brought them in, and we each got to hold them.
Mrs. M. made school seem like a playground, but you
were really learning. She would take words, and she
would associate their meanings with things on the
playground . . .

To Bob Mandrick, who hated school from kindergarten on, teachers only

matter if "they treat you like a person." He explained as follows.

There's Mr. O in . . . high school. He's cool. I

mean, we got along great. I go and visit him once in

awhile and laugh at all the kids . . . (the teachers who

care) might screw with you . . . they might ignore you

every once in awhile, but . . . you sit around and joke

with them . . . you've got something funny going on in

the class while you're learning.

Whenever the dropouts described a positive teacher experience or
recalled a pleasant school event, it was associated with teachers who cared.
These were teachers who emphasized affect and made classroom activity

interesting and creative. The important factor was being recognized, being

accepted regardless of their behaviors, as Mrs. V. ignored Tommy's stealing,

195

and being treated "like a person." However, the limited references to caring
teachers were overshadowed by school policies and practices which tended to

track and label the dropouts.

TrackingLand Labeling

 

Schools both track and label students. Johnson (1985) found that this can
begin as early as kindergarten. Tracking is done through grouping students
within classes and through offering different curriculum levels. Some tracking
occurs through special programs. Labeling occurs simultaneously with
tracking in both subtle and obvious ways. The labels attached to being in a
lower track or the lowest group are not official. Those such as "learning
disabled" and "emotionally impaired" are official and grew out of federal
legislation, particularly Public Law 94-142. Five dropouts were labeled
through special programs. All experienced tracking in the elementary grades.
Nine of the 12 were placed in low groups. By high school all 12 were in the
lowest track offered. Jason Stanley was lifted out of this track through the
efforts of a gifted-talented coordinator.

Wendy Workman felt "dumb and stupid" in kindergarten. She was always
placed in the lowest groups during her elementary years. She recalled tracking
experiences.

When you're in one of those groups, you are not
one of the good kids. All the kids in my grOUps
weren't as smart as everybody else. We had to go out
to the portable to get our instruction. I just don't
feel like I'm capable of doing things as well as other
people . . . I hated to read out loud. You always had
to read out loud. I was always in the lower book. I
think I got further behind than the other kids.

In middle school, when grades were given out, Wendy remembers failing

at least a fourth of her classes. She never got grades better than Cs or Ds.

196

She was always placed in the most basic or general classes, such as general
math and basic reading. She indicated she was unable to do the work, so she
stopped trying. She was assigned homework, but would not do it. As she said,
"Once I went to school, I couldn't wait to get out. I couldn't wait to get it over
with. Once school was out, I would go play." The pattern continued into high
school where Wendy was placed in a general math class, general science, basic
English, physical education, social studies, and study hall.
Wendy's tracking experiences revealed lowered esteem and loss of
confidence. Tommy Menges had a different response to his tracking.
(In sixth grade) I was put into a reading group. I
was put right down at one end. It . . . had groups
called Kaleidoscope and Galaxies. I knewI was in the
lowest group, but I just made up my mind that I was
going to work my way up to the highest . . . it made
me mad, but it also made me work.
Tommy responded with anger to being tracked. He also expressed upset
regarding the way he felt teachers labeled him.
Unless you are rich, you are not going to do
well in school. If they find out in (small town) that
you are on ADC, you are automatically one of the
bad group . . . once you get an E (failing grade), you
are screwed. You are going to get Es all the way . . .
if you are in a class and a smart kid says, "I've got a
question," the teacher will call on that smart kid
first. It doesn't matter if you have had your hand up
for five minutes. They are going to favor the smart
kid . . . I think it's discrimination.
Tommy was one of the four dropouts who made this strong association between
smart and rich and poor and dumb. All four felt the teachers and students,
i.e., the school, treated them unfairly.
Retention is the ultimate tracking devise. Tom Clinton, Jr., Bobbi Sue

Small, Bob Mandrick, and Susan Rogers were all retained. Tom, Jr., felt his

retention in third grade resulted from his traumatic second grade year. Bobbi

I97

Sue was labeled learning disabled. Her difficulty was reading. She stated she
was retained because "I didn't like it (school work), so I wouldn't do none (SIC)
of the work."

Bob Mandrick felt he was "lifted" (socially promoted) every year and that
he never really passed any grade. His problem also was reading. His parents
put him in a parochial school to repeat sixth grade, but he was no more
successful there and in seventh grade returned to the public schools. Susan
Rogers was retained because she would not do the work. Even when she did
work, she would not turn it in. She stated this was because she did not like her
teachers or her parents. None of the students expressed upset over being
retained.

Ricky Henry was another student who felt he was lifted every year. He
got by cheating and by "learning to spy" on other students' work and copying
answers. He felt that being retained might have helped him be more
successful in school. Bobbi Sue described being lifted. "They would pass me
on just to get rid of me."

Wendy Workman and Sonny Vitale felt they couldn't earn passing grades
in high school no matter how hard they would work. Others flatly refused to
do work. Schools were not consistent in their response to these failures. Some
dropouts were retained; others were lifted or passed along.

Being tracked and labeled brought responses ranging from the self-defeat
experienced by Wendy to the anger expressed by Tommy. All the dropouts
experienced tracking. Nine were sent to the lowest tracks during their
elementary years. Four were retained and five were placed in special

programs. By high school, all 12 dropouts were in the lowest curriculum track.

198

Tracking was just one way the schools responded to the dropout's
behavior and performance. The dropout's minimal behavioral compliance and
poor performance also conflicted directly with policies designed to maintain

and organize schools.

Conflict with the Formal Organization

 

Schools attempt to both set and maintain standards. There are limits
regarding acceptable behavior and performance. Policies are designed to
uphold and enforce these limits. Schools accommodate some deviance from
these standards, but when behavior and performance deviate to the point of
threatening standards, the school responds through its maintenance and‘
organization functions. Policies are invoked which reveal the punitive
underside of the school bureaucracy. The dropouts express their opposition to
school culture and standards through their behavior both in and outside the
classroom, their refusal to do homework, coming to class late, and skipping.
These behaviors bring them into direct conflict with school policy.

Sonny Vitale's description of his school years captures the conflict as it
progressed.

I remember kindergarten . . . like it was . . .
yesterday. . . . 1 was sort of the smart one . . . not so
much as the school work. I could color good, and I
stayed in the lines . . . if kids' toys would break, I
would be the one who fixed it (SIC). . . . . Once it
progressed, once I got up, third grade . . . I wasn't so
hot in social studies and stuff like that . . . the way I
looked at it, I don't need this history. I don't care
about this history. ['11 never use this stuff in my
lifetime. . . . When I first started reading, I really
tried hard. . . . I was up in level . . . and then we
started getting into the hard words. My level started
coming down. . . . Once I hit . . . fourth grade I
started knocking kids around. I didn't take no (SIC)
other s_. . . . Eighth grade I started not digging all
the rules and the regulations they were strapping on

199

my back. I wasn't allowed to do this or that . . .
where some other human being can tie you up; to me
it's like uncool . . .

As Sonny began getting into frequent fights, the schools responded.

When I did get punished . . . that sucked
because it made me want to kick the kid's face in
worse because I was the one that got punished. Mr.
E. . . . He had this paddle, and every time he would
swat you, you had to write your name on it. He had
to fill up two paddles with my name on it.

Sonny received his first suspension in the fifth grade. By middle school,
he was smoking and skipping classes. Sometimes a teacher would catch Sonny
and just crush the cigarettes or send him back to class. Other times he would
end up dealing with a disciplinary administrator. When he got off lightly, he
felt things were "cool."

Mr. M caught me smoking cigarettes . . . there
was this big rock, that was the hang. Everybody hung
out. . . . He was really cool about it. He goes (SIC),
"you like smoking these? I ought to make you smoke
every one of these right here. . . . I says (SIC), "Yeah,
that would be cool." I was just about in tears. He
goes, "No, I'm not going to make you smoke all these
cigarettes. I'm just going to crush them. . . . That
was cool.

When he was disciplined formally, he had a different reaction.

I got suspended out of that school. About how
many days are in a school year? I got suspended at
least 100. They couldn't (expel me); I've got a reading
handicap, and I was only 15. I'm a slow reader . . . I
have a hard time reading . . . I tried and I tried, and I
would pass exams . . . I wouldn't get all the work done
because I didn't have the time . . . when I really put
my mind to it and worked to my potential. I still
couldn't . . . I still didn't get no (SIC) credit; that's
uncool. . . . All that I pumped out wasn't good enough
. . . I couldn't make it in high school, man. I couldn't
deal with the teachers. I had a real foul mouth. I
mean me (SIC) and a teacher could get into a
discussion or dispute, and I would just stand up and
say, "F_ you, bitch; stick it right in your a_hole."

200

The review of Sonny's school experience disclosed that, as academic
problems increase, so do behavioral problems. This was progressive over his
time in school. As his behavior became more disruptive, the school reSponded
with stronger and stronger disciplinary measures. In the fifth grade, he
received swats and was suspended for two days. By his sophomore year of high
school, he was being suspended frequently, sometimes for as long as 10 _days.
Before his sixteenth birthday, two high school administrators drove him home
and advised his father Gus to take Sonny out of school or have him face
expulsion. Gus Vitale was unaware that Sonny's handicapped label would have
made such an action virtually impossible or that Sonny was guaranteed school
services until age 26. Gus withdrew Sonny from school.

Sonny's inability to complete work and his refusal to complete
assignments as homework had two consequences: failure and movement into
the most general or remedial courses offered by the schools he attended.
Similar experiences were shared by all 12 dropouts.

Three explanations were offered regarding academic difficulties.
Neither Tammy Roundtree, Jason Stanley, Tom Clinton, nor Mickey Collins
expressed difficulty with school work. They all simply found reasons to refuse
to do work. They recalled being described as students who did not work up to
their potential. Angry after yet another move, Tammy Roundtree stated that
she refused to talk or do classwork from fifth through eighth grades. She went
from being an A-B student to being a C-D student. Each made a choice to
refuse to complete work they were capable of doing. All refused to do
homework.

Tommy Menges, Sonny Vitale, Bobbi Sue Small, Wendy Anderson, Bob

Mandrick, and Virginia Walasek all evidenced difficulties with reading and

201

stated that they were unable to do much of the required work. They could not
complete assignments within the allotted time and did not score well on tests.
Their refusal to do homework or to spend additional time at school studying
also led to failure and lower track placement.

A unique rationale for not completing work was offered by Susan Rogers
who was retained in fourth grade.

I wouldn't do the work. I didn't like the

teacher, and I didn't like my mom and dad. So even if

I did my work, I wouldn't turn it in. They often found

my work in my desk. I had completed it. I just didn't

want to turn it in. I was angry with my mom and dad

because they were talking about moving out of the

state at the time.
In her case, as in the other two, the consequence was failure and placement in
the lower track.

There was no evidence that the failure to complete work, due either to
choice or lack of ability, was responded to by punitive school-wide policies.
This was apparently a classroom behavior to be dealt with at the teacher level.
Tommy Menges described his way of dealing with the teacher's pressure to
work.

If you're in a class and a teacher comes by and
says, "Aren't you doing any work?" You do a
problem. Then you just lay back and watch
everybody else. But if a teacher would leave me
alone, I wouldn't do any work.

However, as the dropouts matured, carrying their adult behaviors to
school, more overt forms of noncompliance such as skipping and smoking were
evidenced. The school responded with punitive measures. The standard
responses were detention and suspension; however, as in the case of Jason

Stanley, the courts could be involved.

Jason gave his reasons for skipping.

202

I was having a s_ty time. I got'tired of going
to school and being f_ed with every day. . . . I've
got plenty of better places to be. I used to skip, me
and my best friend . . . in the middle of December.
Get frost bit, walking uptown to buy cigarettes, and I
smoked for probably a good six months until they
(school officials) kicked me out toward the end of the
year . . . I'd rather be out and be frost bit than hang
out at school.

Jason's skipping brought him into direct conflict with the attendance
policy. In his high school, when 10 or more days were missed, all credit in a
course was lost. As a result, Jason failed his entire freshman year. Unexcused
absences also resulted in suspension. After five unexcused absences a court
referral for truancy was made. Despite these consequences, Jason continued
to skip, losing credit in both his sophomore and junior year, before dropping
out of the: regular high school program.

Not all students were trapped by punitive policies. Tommy Menges found
a loophole which allowed him to skip without penalty other than failure. At
age 18 Tommy's high school allowed students to obtain an "age of majority
card." Once the card was signed by a parent, the student could then sign
him/herself out of school. Tommy related the following.

As soon as I figured this signing out stuff, I'd do
it whenever I could. All you were required to do was
go to the office and say you needed to go home. . . .
You could sign out. My attendance dropped off big
time after I figured that out.

Other students also figured out how to manipulate the policies to
accomplish their own agendas. Bobbi Sue Small and Virginia Walasek's high
schools also had attendance policies that set limits on the number of days you
could miss and still earn credit. Both skipped school until they had lost all

chance for credit. When Virginia reached the limit, after failing to complete

one full week of her sophomore year, she simply told her teachers, "Screw

203

this!" and quit school. Once Bobbi Sue knew all her credit was lost, it became
her excuse for refusing to do work and for skipping class to be with friends.

The school's response failed to correct or even retard the skipping and
other misbehaviors of the dropouts. As punishments were increased the
dropouts became more resistant. They looked for loopholes and challenged the
limits of the policies. The conflict and rejection worsened as they engaged in
more severe forms of misbehavior. Alcohol and substance abuse were
described as behaviors attendant to skipping, smoking, boredom, and failure in
the academic program. Yet schools did not confront this level of misbehavior
directly. The policies designed to enforce attendance and discipline were
merely invoked more frequently. The threat of removal through expulsion, the
school's ultimate punitive weapon, was only used once in direct connection
with drug problems.

All 12 dropouts discussed use of alcohol and illegal substances. Nine
discussed use at school. Two acknowledged selling drugs at school, and one
was expelled for his drug dealing activities. One other student reported
dealing drugs for his father, but indicated this was done at work, not at school.

Section four of this chapter revealed that many of the dropouts were
introduced to drug use by family members. Ricky Henry was given pot by
cousins who sat for him. Mickey Collins got his dope from his father. Bobbi
Sue Small and her friend stole marijuana from the friend's father. Tommy
Menges got high daily with his older cousins. Bob Mandrick, Tammy
Roundtree, Wendy Workman, and Virginia Walasek all had older siblings who
used drugs. These siblings introduced drugs to their younger brothers and

sisters.

204

The dropouts' drinking and drug use was carried into the school. The
review of the interview data established that this use was extensive. It was
found that drinking and drug use often had the short term rewards of meeting
needs for affiliation and belongingness. For some, dealing and drug use
conferred a status and group membership they had not enjoyed in high school.
It also provided escape from the boredom and unhappiness of their school
experiences. It provided a reason for skipping and its own set Of behaviors and
rewards. Ultimately, the long term consequences Of alcohol and drug use were
intensified conflict with school, inability to concentrate or function in class,
school failure, and problems outside of school.

Tammy Roundtree began drinking in sixth grade and drug use in middle
school. By the end of eighth grade, she felt she was alcoholic. She described
the rewards and consequences Of her use.

When I was drunk, it felt like I was in a
playground; but when a teacher would yell at you,
then it's like you're in a steel box. When you are
drunk, you can laugh at things, even if they aren't
funny. It was Okay if they left you alone. Then it
was Okay.
Tammy had a speech impediment. When she moved to a new school in the
fifth grade, she was mocked by students. From fifth through eighth grade,
Tammy did not Speak and describes herself as withdrawing from everything at
school. She behaved differently when she was drunk. "Kids said, 'It's not the
same Tammy.’ I just started talking. I became rowdy. I made fun out Of
nothing. That's when I began tO pull away from books." The researcher asked

if the school disciplined Tammy for this behavior. "Yes, I was sent to the

Office and they would say, 'Are you drunk?’ And I would say, 'What if I am?‘

205

. . .but they never kicked me out." Tammy indicated she could make it
through a school day consuming large amounts Of alcohol and being high.
I never did any homework . . . yet I was able to

maintain a B and C average. You know, I don't know

how I did that. I really don't even remember school

work. . . . It's Okay (being drunk or high) until you

come down and you start feeling lonely and scared

again . . . you go and do it again.
For Tammy the real consequence was not school penalties, but her dependence
on drugs and alcohol and her impaired ability to function. Tammy recalled
"drinking heavily, using pot, popping pills, taking acid, and doing cocaine" in
her sophomore year. She indicated being hospitalized on two occasions. She
described herself as getting through school days, mostly in an intoxicated
condition. She quit school in her sophomore year. Recalling her attempt to
continue functioning in school, Tammy stated, "School was an all around
disaster."

Wendy Workman also described her drug use during school. She would
get a ride with a friend and "smoke a joint on the way to school." She and her
friends would go up to the "hill" and smoke marijuana during lunch. They
would go to their afternoon classes "high." Wendy indicated it was hard to go
through school high because "you can't remember." Wendy recalled her drug
experiences.

I didn't skip school to get out Of class. I skipped
to get high. I would sit in classes and think, "If I was
out Of school, I wouldn't have to be worrying about all
Of this, and I could get high and do whatever I wanted
to do." . . . If something else felt good to do, I would
lOOk at school and say I didn't want the commitment.
Wendy received suspensions and lost credit in school for skipping. Like

the other female drOpouts, the school did not deal directly with her substance

abuse. Bobbi Sue Small and Virginia Walasek also described getting high at

206

school and skipping classes to "get high." For both of them it was skipping, not
drug use, that the schools punished.

Bob Mandrick was suspended in eighth grade for selling "speeders." He
described these as caffeine pills. By high school he was being "kicked out Of
class" for rude and insubordinate behavior and suspended for skipping, fighting,
and smoking. He was not suspended for his drug use or for selling alcohol in
high school. Bob has been to treatment for his alcoholism. He described his
use.

_When you're high, you don't give a s_. On
drugs or alcohol or whatever, it's like something
happens to you. But when you get sober . . . that's
another story. SO when you get sober, you have to
get high again. You have to go and do it again. . . .
You're problems go away when you're stoned, but
when you go back, they're there. . . . You want a
constant high, so it doesn't matter.
Bob described selling beer at school. He indicated that the only time he
carried his book bag was when he had "a 12 pack to sell." He related details
regarding dealing and other behaviors outside Of school.
Totaled up cars, drinking and driving, scared
the s_ out of me. . . . Stealing. . . . I broke into a
lot Of houses in the neighborhood, stealing from
parents. . . . I got caught quite a few times. . . . It
(dealing) wasn't for pure profit, but I'd buy it. I'd do
it just so I'd have money in my pocket, and I'd still
have enough to smoke or do myself.

Five Of the seven male dropouts discussed drug use at school. Each of
the males was frequently suspended and known to high school officials as a
discipline problem. However, only Tommy Menges' drug behavior was dealt
with directly. Tommy related the rewards and consequences Of his drug use

and dealing.

I became popular. People came to see me.
They wanted to buy and that felt good. . . . As soon

207

as the drugs were gone, they dropped me. . . . I sold
this joint to a girl in the morning. I had sold six
joints. I had six dollars. It was lunch hour. I was by
the road. All I had was some roaches and some Visine
. . . someone yelled, "Hey, Tommy, they're coming to
get you." . . . My mom had called down to the school.
. . . They set me up for a lie detector . . . I really got
nailed. I got $470 in fines. I got 70 hours Of
community service. I was expelled. . . . The eighth
grade girl, that was her third Offense, but Mr. D. (the
principal) kicked me out. I think it was
discrimination.

Jason Stanley was "harassed and intimidated" by a school substance
abuse counselor who told Jason, "You'll be dead before the year's over if you
don't go to treatment." Sonny Vitale's father was told by an assistant principal
that his son was "on drugs." Gus took Sonny to be tested. According to Gus,
Sonny's results came back "clean." However, Sonny's drug Of choice is alcohol,
and he was not tested for this. Sonny is currently in counseling for alcoholism.
Mickey Collins quit school after getting drunk and stealing a truck. He did not
want to return to school because he knew the police could look for him there.

Schools do not deal directly with the dropouts' alcohol and substance
abuse, but the problems associated with alcohol and drug use continue to bring
the drOpouts to the attention Of school and community authorities. The
dropouts come to school "high," skip classes tO take drugs, or drink from
bottles of liquor they keep in their lockers. Yet the suspensions they receive
are for cigarette smoking, fighting, and skipping, not for drinking or taking
drugs. The more serious misbehaviors appear to be ignored or overlooked. As
Tammy Roundtree stated, even when she admitted drinking she was "never
kicked out."

The dropouts' alcohol and drug use has other consequences. It impairs

their ability to function or concentrate in class. They describe having trouble

208

remembering their school work. These effects of drug use contribute to the
dropouts' academic failure. Tommy Menges recalled being so "stoned" in
typing class that he had to go to the nurse to lie down. At its most severe, as
with Jason Stanley, flashbacks continue to disrupt normal functioning after
drug use is discontinued. Beyond their school problems, four Of the five
dropouts' criminal records were directly related to drinking, drug use, or the

sale of drugs.

Conflicts with Peers

 

Ten Of the 12 dropouts recalled having problems with their peers.
Problems ranged from having difficulty making friends to being beaten up and
harassed. Like their conflicts with the formal organization, these problems
also began early and accelerated throughout the drOpouts' school years. The
late elementary years were found to mark a downturn in the dropouts' peer
relations. By high school the drOpouts described being "put down" for the
clothes they wore, their lower class status, or even their family name.

Ricky Henry described frequent fights with other children in the early
elementary years. Bob Mandrick was picked on and called "Bob the Slob."
Tom Clinton described himself as unpopular. Kids were always wanting to
fight with him. He related the following story.

Kids don't like me. Everywhere I've lived, I've
only made one or two good friends . . . I remember a
kid asking me to stay after school . . . I don't
remember exactly what happened, but it ended up he
turned the lights off and then he jumped me.
Sonny Vitale had pleasant memories of his early elementary experiences with

peers, but by fifth grade he was getting into fights. He talked about his

fighting.

209

I love boxing . . . when I was little I said, "Yeah,
I can do that . . . go up and box somebody's nose in a
few times . . . " I was the fastest person in the
school. There was nobody to take me. I hit 'em four
or five times in the face and jump (SIC) around and
put lumps on the backs of their heads. . . . This one
kid, I had troubles with him for three straight years.
He just kept coming back, thinking he could stomp
me . . . I got really progressive where I really started
hurting people in middle school . . . fifth grade, I tore
this one kid up real bad . . . he had cuts all over his
whole face. . . . His nose was cut up. . . . His eyes
were split wide. His lips were all tore up.

Tammy Roundtree also began having problems with peers in the fifth
grade. She indicated that she had a speech impediment. She said her Rs like
Ws, so that the word "rabbi t" came out "wabbit." She was said to have "a lazy
tongue." She described events after she moved to a new town during her fifth
grade year.

In (small town) the kids picked on me for that.

It immediately started out as soon as we moved there

. . . I didn't want anyone around. I didn't get along

with anyone. I was just shutting everything out. I did

through fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade . . . I

only had three friends I'd talk to. I stuck with them

most of the time.
It was during this time that Tammy began drinking alcohol. The three girls she
had made friends with introduced her to marijuana.

Tammy's father died at the end of her freshman year. After this she
described her drug use and drinking as getting heavier. She discovered a new
type Of peer problem after trying to quit drugs during the summer between her
sophomore and junior years.

I was cocky when I was doing drugs. I came
back quiet and calm. I had gotten a job and a car.
The people kept bugging me to party. The more
pressure they put on me, the more I skipped school.

One way to stay clean was to stay away from school.
I drOpped out after first quarter. My mom said,

210

"You've got a quarter to get your 5 together, then
you are going back to school." . . . It started all over
again.

Jason Stanley never felt accepted by the other students in school. He
described his friends as "a fat girl and a guy with bugs in his hair." But he was
not physically harassed until high school. Jason described the first day of his
freshman year.

A kid pushed me to get out of the cafeteria.
Just decided he was going to push me, and I turned
around and pushed him back, and we got into a scrap
right there on the first day of school.

Jason's peer problems continued in his gym class.

I'm a skinny, non-athletic kid. . . . I hated
dressing up in my shorts in front of everybody else
and doing 5 that I didn't do well. And I used to
get into all kinds of scraps in the locker room. . . . I
used to fight every day in the locker room . . . peOple
just f ed with me.

 

When Bobbi Sue Small was asked if she felt she belonged in her high
school, she described her peer group and her way of dealing with being "picked

on."

I got along with the burnouts. That's what they
(the other students) called us. I never got along with
the jocks. . . . I was in the burnout crowd . . . we'd sit
around and talk and everything, so it really didn't
bother me . . . I figured I had my own way of being
. . . if they were going to pick on me because I
wasn't like . . . they wanted me to be . . . I really
didn't care . . . I wasn't going to sit there and let that
bother me.

Susan Rogers was affected more deeply by the actions of her peers. She
attributed her reasons for drOpping out to fights with other girls.

(A girl) turned everyone against me. School
wasn't the reason I quit. I would have needed to get
out Of all the classes she was in. But I was also
fighting with (another girl). . . . In school, it was the
people I had problems with. It was the students.

211

They spread rumors. You know, when I came to
school, everyone knew when I was pregnant. I never
got to tell anyone. They already knew. And they
screwed everything around about the story.

Mickey Collins described himself as being in the "in-crowd" in
elementary school. But all this changed.

What changed? Material things. The in-crowd,

things mattered to them that didn't matter to me. It

not only didn't matter, it wasn't possible for me . . . I

was pretty poor then. I guess we were pretty poor.

My stepdad worked in construction, and around third

grade I remember my mom got fired from her job.

. . .I went from being leader in elementary school

whereI was top dog . . . I coulda (SIC) did (SIC) good.

I looked at the smart kids and said, "I could do that."
By high school, Mickey looked around and said, "I don't have any friends." He
began going to the "hill" where students "smoked dope and got wasted."
Mickey left this high school and moved north to live with his father and enroll
in a smaller school.

I wanted to be special. . . . It seemed like

everything was lost here. I had no crowd. I had no

one special. I wanted to be special, but things didn't

work out. . . . You know, I thought I was better than I

really was.
Up north Mickey continued his drug use, got into trouble with the police and
quit school.

Interview data, when analyzed, displayed a pattern of negative peer
interactions which grew worse over time. Peer problems were not evidenced
as severe in the early elementary years. However, by fifth grade the dropouts
were found to be engaging in fights with their peers, withdrawing in the face
of various forms of harassment and becoming isolated from the "in-crowd."

High school peer relations were described in terms of limited friendships and

more severe harassment. The dropouts banded together with those like

212

themselves in "the black leather jacket crowd" or the "burnout crowd." Here
their smoking, drinking, substance abuse, skipping, fighting, and academic

failure were accepted and reinforced.

Analysis Of Findings

 

Conflict with the formal school organization increases as the drOpouts
mature, claim more adult status, and bring their adult behaviors to school. At
the same time academic failure intensifies. The required work, the school's
notion of achievement and effort, and its future rewards conflict with the
dropouts' instrumental) view of education, low effort, and presentism. Both
combine to bring 'the dropouts directly into conflict with the punitive
underside of the school bureaucracy. This conflict is central to their dropping
out.

School personnel who enforce policies, whether teachers or
administrators, are recalled as uncaring and discriminatory by the dropouts.
However, each dropout was able to recall a teacher s/he perceived as caring or
a school experience perceived as positive. Creativity in the classroom and
recognizing the student as a person were central to these perceptions. Even
the teacher who "crushed" Sonny Vitale's cigarettes was perceived as "cool"
because he made an exception from the rules on Sonny's behalf. In the case of
Tommy Menges, a third grade teacher's willingness to ignore his "stealing" and
reward him for positive behaviors helped bring an end to Tommy's bad
behavior.

Not all attempts to accommodate the dropouts achieved positive results.
Jason Stanley used the freedom of his gifted/talented program as increased

opportunity for skipping, smoking, and "getting high." Tommy Menges used his

213

age of majority card to legitimize his skipping. Virginia Walasek and Bobe
Sue Small traded compliant classroom behavior in return for little pressure to
do work. The dropouts were willing to accept failure in return for being left
alone by teachers and other school personnel.

However, the dropouts' behaviors conflict with attendance and discipline
policies designed to maintain order and control within the school's formal
organization. The school responds to the dropouts' noncompliance through
punishments such as detention, suspension, and the threat of expulsion. Yet,
schools and their policies appear ineffective in dealing with the more severe
dropout behaviors. Substance abuse and alcoholism are dealt with indirectly
through policies designed to maintain contrOl and force regular attendance.

The problems associated with managing students who refuse to comply '
with minimal behavioral expectations and who are either unwilling or unable to
complete class or homework are intensified when peers harass, reject, or
exclude the drOpouts. Academic failure, lack of involvement with school
activities, low social status, and adult behaviors serve to cut the dropouts off
from the mainstream student population. Outcast by their peers, the dropouts
form groups with Others like themselves. Here the dropouts are accepted and
their behaviors reinforced.

Disconnected from the formal organization and outcast by peers, the
dropouts are relegated to the lowest levels of the school hierarchy. They are
placed in the lowest curriculum tracks, where schools attempt to
accommodate the drOpouts. They form groups which accept and reinforce the
behaviors which bring them into direct conflict with punitive school policies.
The process of increasingly negative interactions culminates in the decision to

drop out.

214

Finally, the dropouts recall the experiences leading up to their dropping
out in exaggerated terms. Tammy Roundtree claimed the ability to consume a
fifth of whiskey during a school day and still function in class. Sonny Vitale
won battle after battle with adversaries described as "f_ing dope heads" and
"bad a_es." Ricky Henry discussed smoking "seven joints a day" at school.
Administrators who confront the dropouts are referred to as "child molesters."
Peers who reject them are described as "harassing" and "f_ing" with the
dropouts every day. According to Susan Rogers, the other students drove her
out of school. Such hyperbole is part of the reality of the dropouts' lived
experiences at school. It is a self-justifying portrayal. Initially, they are
passive. As the elementary years pass, the dropouts are Oppressed and put
upon. 'Their later school problems are recalled in terms of rising up and
fighting back against a punitive system staffed with uncaring individuals. As

such, dropping out is an act of self-defense, an action which makes sense and

is reasonable under the given conditions.

The Dropout, the Family, and the School

 

In previous sections of this chapter findings regarding the dropouts and
their families have been presented. Sections one and two introduced the
dropouts and their generational families. Section three focused on the
grandparents and parents' school experiences, and section four focused on the
dropouts' family experiences. Section five presented the data regarding the
dropouts' school experiences.

It has been argued that the dropouts carry to school behavior and
experience patterns that are learned, practiced, and accepted in the family,

but are not taught, are not to be learned, and are not accepted in school. The

215

low academic aspirations of the family culture do not mesh with the
competition and demands for achievement found in the school culture. As
school demands increase, the dropouts' instrumental view of education,
characterized by low effort and minimal compliance, contributes to the
conflict between the dropout and the school.

It has been further argued that the dropout families confer or enable
their children to claim adult status early in life. Prolonged adolescence is not
part of the dropout family's culture. At school the dropouts become
increasingly insubordinate, smoke, skip classes, get into fights, and engage in
substance abuse. The schools respond through punitive policies designed to
control student behaviors and maintain school routines. The combination of
their own negative behaviors and the schools' punitive reaction to those
behaviors contributes to the decision to dropout of high school.

What remains to be described and explained is the family perspective
regarding school experiences, the family-school conflict, and the individual
youth's decision to drop out. Therefore, this section brings together the
dropout, the family, and the school and focuses _on the interactions between
and among all three.

There are two parts to the argument. The first is that the parents
perceive the schools' interactions with themselves and their children
negatively. They see schools as punitive, teachers as uncaring, and peers as
unfriendly. This perception is the family's response to the dropout's failure in
and rejection by the school. According to Comer (1980), "the lack of interest
in schools shown by many of the parents is defensive" (p. 25).

The second part of the argument deals with the failure of the cultures of

family and school to mesh. The family has a culture which it passes to its

216

children. The school imposes a foreign culture on the family. School
interactions thus become a source of conflict in the family. At school the
dropouts experience rejection by the formal school organization and/or
rejection by positive peers. At the same time the dropouts are accepted by
others like themselves who reinforce their minimal compliance and negative
behavior. Dropping out is a way of reducing conflict both within the school
and the family. It has little to do with educational aspirations or accepting
academic failure.

The following paragraphs present the findings regarding the family
perspective; the conflict among the dropouts, the family, and the school; and

the individual's decision to drop out of high school.

Findings

It was found that the parents have limited involvement with their
children's education (see Table 6). Student failure or bad behavior results in
negative messages being sent home. The dropouts also bring home their
version of school events, told from the perspective of a family representative,
and accepted by the family. The limited involvement, the schools' negative
communication, and the child's version of school events combine to form the
family perspective. The parents perceive schools as punitive. They hear and
repeat stories of uncaring teachers, harsh administrators, and cruel students.
The meaning parents and youth give to dropping out stems from their family
perspective.

Additionally, it was found that the culture of the family conflicts with
the culture of the school at key points. The conflicts stem from differences

between the cultures of the family and the school. The dropout families

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6
Parental Involvement with School*
Father
Mother SteEfather
High involvement: sets appointments, Diane Clinton none
confers with teachers, observes
classes, calls school to check on
child's progress
Regular involvement: attends parent 0 Martha Work- 0 Bob Man-
conferences, open houses, other man (Ander- drick, Sr.
selected school events son)
Norma Mandrick
o Arlene Rogers
0- Sandy Griggs
o Becky Walasek
Low involvement: occasionally 0 Gayle Walker John Roundtree
attends parent conferences, O Shirley Stanley (deceased)
Open house, other scheduled O Donna Menges
school events Mary Vitale
o Debby Lamb
/ Bobbi Beau- / Larry Beau-
champ (Small) champ
Negative involvement: only goes to 0 Tom Clinton,
school when required to deal with Sr.
matters of discipline or problems 0 Gus Vitale
with attendance Fred Griggs
(Henry)
Non-involvement: no evidence that Lee Stanley
parent ever went to school Nick Menges
Frank Anderson
(deceased)
Steve Workman
(Anderson)

Bill Rogers
Dick Collins
Tom Lamb
(Collins)
Dan Walasek

 

Takes primary responsibility with discipline/attendance problems

Did not have custodial rights until child was in secondary school; made
no visits at elementary level

KO
"ll

* - At all levels, across all families, as child's years in school increase
visits to school decrease

218

accept their children unconditionally and have low expectations. The schools
accept the children conditionally based upon effort and performance. The
family confers or enables claiming adult status. The school denies adult
status. The family has an instrumental view of education. The school has a
normative, intrinsic view of education.

The result of the conflict is that the dropouts experience the punitive
underside of the school organization. As conflicts intensify over time in
school, parents are often forced to deal with the dropouts' negative school
interactions. Thus, school becomes a source of conflict within the family and
disrupts the balance of the family collective.

The researcher found that dropping out does not alter educational
aspirations. Students and parents want a diploma from high school. They
characterize the diploma as a "ticket to the workplace," "what you have to
have to get by." This instrumental view of the endeavor suggests that
alternative education, the GED, adult education, night school, junior college,
and the military are equal, if not more attractive, environments in which to
complete the diploma.

Finally, it was found that the individual's decision to drop out Of high
school brings an end to conflicts. For the dropouts whose negative behaviors
and/or school failures lead to family-school conflict, dropping out is an act of
loyalty to family. For others, whose primary conflicts are with peers, or
between themselves and School, dropping out is a way of reducing conflict in
their own lives. It is an escape from a negative environment. For both,
dropping out is the end of a process which began early in the dropout's school

career. The dropping out process is characterized by increasing difficulty and

219

conflict among the dropout, the family, and the school. The conflict between

family culture and school culture is the central factor and drives the process.

The Family Perspective

 

Limited parental involvement and limited communication with school
were found in all the dropout families. When communication did occur, the
mothers took primary responsibility. Diane Clinton was the only parent highly
involved in her child's early elementary experiences. She attended scheduled
school activities and on several occasions went to school and observed classes.
Five other mothers had regular school involvement during the children's
elementary years. Six had low involvement, making only occasional visits to
school, and only for school-initiated events. For all the mothers, involvement
with school decreased over the child's time in school. Many, like Shirley
Stanley, discontinued school visits when their children began to have problems
in school.

Only one father, Bob Mandrick, made regular visits to school. John
Roundtree went to school occasionally until his death at the end of his _
daughter's ninth grade year. Larry Beauchamp, Bobbi Sue Small's stepfather,
went to school and joined a parent support group; however, he did not become
involved in Bobbi's life until she was a freshman in high school. Three fathers,
Tom. Clinton, Sr., Gus Vitale, and Fred Griggs, had only negative involvement
with school. The other fathers had no involvement in terms of going to school
on their children's behalf (see Table 6).

By the high school years, the primary parental involvement with school

was negative. The only reported instance of a parent-initiated contact with

220

high school was Sandy Grigg's appointment with a school counselor to review
her son's credits toward graduation. Sandy described this visit.
I didn't get any help . . . even after I talked to his

counselor. . . . Her and I (SIC) didn't have a thing in

common. . . . She had his (Ricky's) last year (of credits)

so messed up. . . . Well, I went up there, and I didn't

understand it. She (the counselor) said, "I really don't

have the time"; and I said, "Well, you're going to have

to make the time. We've got to know what this boy

needs. He needs extra help."
When asked her feelings about going to school for planned activities such as
parent conferences, she gave the following response.

I‘ve never felt welcome up there. I didn't feel

comfortable when I went to parent conferences. I guess

because Ricky wasn't all As . . . I didn't feel welcome at

all. . . . You might have 10 minutes with a teacher.

. . . If they're talking to somebody that's got an all A

student, then they're not going to take time out for me.
Her husband, Fred Griggs, added this comment, "There's only one teacher up to
that high school right now thatI can walk in and talk to, and he'll treat me just
like anybody else, and he'll do the same to her."

The Griggs did not feel welcome or comfortable at school. They felt no
better about them selves as parents at school than their child did as a student.
And Ricky did not feel accepted or good about himself as a student. Yet
Ricky was accepted at home and in the community. Sandy summed it up
thusly, "I'll tell you one thing. I get a lot of compliments on Ricky from my
friends and older people. He has a lot of respect. He didn't up at school."

Other families also experienced school personnel as acting superior or
snobbish. Bob Mandrick, a father who made regular visits to school, put it this
way.

Since Arthur was in grade school, he had a couple

teachers . . . making $15-18,000 a year. And I'm making
$30-35,000, and they were sticking their noses up in the

221

air everytime I talked to them. I'm looking at the

bottom of their nostrils. . . . It was the attitude.

. . . I've got my job to do in this life, and they've got

their job, and they decided to be teachers. They should

do their job. Maybe they don't like my attitude because

I knowI didn't like most of their attitudes.
When asked what the attitude was, Bob explained.

. . . that we weren't doing enough with our kid.

We didn't have him under control. . . . How could we

control him when they have him from nine to three?

They (the teachers) wanted us to teach him everything

they needed, just so they could get by.
Bob Mandrick's comments revealed a second element of the family
perspective. Not only did the dropouts' parents feel unwelcome and looked
down upon at school, but they also felt criticized as parents. The researcher
tested the argument that the family culture did not mesh with the school
culture by making the following statement.

So they (school personnel) didn't want any trouble

with Bob, Jr. They wanted him to walk through the

door and be ready to do things their way; and when he

presented problems, their answer was, "You fix it

because that's not our job."
To this, Bob replied, "That's right. That's exactly right."

Another aspect of the family perspective is the portrayal of teachers and
other school personnel as uncaring and inattentive to the needs of the
dropouts. When problems arise, the parents and their children never find
justice, their problems are never resolved. At the extreme, school is
portrayed as punitive and sometimes Openly hostile toward the dropouts.

The stories told by the families, describing teachers and schools, often
evidenced the qualities of "set pieces" and exaggeration. The stories are

repeated as told because they represent the family perspective, the family's

version of reality. An example of what happens when the stories are

222

confronted or challenged appears later in this section. Understanding the
stories as defense mechanisms which portray school personnel as adversaries is
key to understanding the family perspective.

From the dropout family's perspective, teachers are an uncaring, even
abusive lot. Another element of the family perspective is blaming the school
for their children's behavior. This perception begins early in the dropout's
school career. Wendy Anderson's mother, Martha Workman, described a
kindergarten experience.

I thought she (Wendy) was an intelligent little girl,
but when she went to school, she didn't like school. She
cried and said, "I don't think that teacher likes me." I
thought, "My gosh, why would anyone not like this little
dark-haired girls that's (SIC) so quiet. I mean why
wouldn't she (the teacher) love her, or at least like
her?" But I got a note from the teacher one day . . . it
was before Christmas . . . the chill . . . the wind just
would feel like it was going to rip your face off . . . the
note said Wendy done (SIC) a very stupid thing today;
she stuck her tongue on a metal pipe . . . it was still
bleeding at 8:00 at night. I called Mr. C. (the
superintendent) . . . never got any good results from
him yet, don't know why I expected I would today (that
day). . . . Well, he said he would tend to it, but he
doubted this and he doubted that. I mean the guy was
just 100% negative to me. Sticking up for his teacher
100%.

In both interviews with Sandy Griggs, she told the story about her son
Ricky's trouble with a second grade teacher. In each case the details and
events were identical.

He (Ricky) had a big bruise under his arm. I told
you about that (indicating our previous conversation). I
said, "Where'd that come from, son?" And he said,
"Mrs. P, mama; my feet never hit the floor all the way
to the office." I said, "What?" Well, she got mad at
him for talking or something. So the next day, I went
to school and I raised his arm and I said, "Do you see
this?" She said, "Yeah." I said, "You did it." She said,
"No, I didn't." I said, "Yes, you did; and if you ever do
it again, you're going to have two of them." Mr. S. (the

223

principal) walked in and he said, "Sandy, calm down."
And I said, "I don't put bruises like that on my son, and
she's not going to do it." She says, "Well, I don't like
Ricky." Right there. And Ricky was standing right
there. And I said, "Well, excuse me, I'll get him out of
your class if you've got that big of a problem." How
much wrong can a second grader do? . . . Mr. 5. said,
"Sandy, let's just leave him where he's at." (SIC) I said,
"She don't (SIC) want to touch him again." He says,
"Okay, I will chat with her" (the teacher). She passed
him, more than likely just to get rid of him. 'Cause she
didn't like him.

By middle school, Ricky was being suspended for his behaviors. In the
seventh grade, he was caught with a bottle of liquor and suspended for three
days. Ricky denied drinking. Fred and Sandy Griggs believed Ricky was
suspended primarily because he refused to tell on the other boys who had been
drinking and who really brought the bottle to school. They felt this suspension
was unjust, just as they felt the high school administrator who searched
Ricky's car and found "roaches" and a roach clip (butts from marijuana
cigarettes and devices used to hold marijuana cigarettes) was unjust for telling
them that their son had a drug problem.

Connected to being looked down upon, criticized, and treated unfairly is
the feeling that school personnel discriminate against dropout families from
the lower class. The lower class families claim that because of their economic
status, the teachers do not need to help them. The family perspective is that
their children's specific needs are ignored or dealt with through programs that
further label and discriminate against the dropouts. Teachers refuse to call
upon or help these dropouts, even when they make an effort. Parent requests
for help for their children are ignored. The feelings of being ignored and

labeled, held by both the parents and the children, reinforce the family

perspective of schools as adversaries.

224

The perception of schools as refusing to help, communicating poorly, and
labeling families came together in the following response from Donna Menges
when she was asked how schools have treated her and her children.

They favor the ones that got lots of money (SIC),
that are into sports, cheerleaders, and stuff like that.
The students that really need the help, they (teachers)
won't help them. . . . If the teacher asks a question, can
anybody answer it? . . . She'll (daughter Mandy) raise up-
(SIC) her hand and she (teacher) will not ask her the
answer. . . . She (Mandy) gets frustrated and angry, and
then she does rotten because she's retaliating. I think
he (Tommy) probably did the same thing . . .

Donna went on to describe how school personnel have ignored Tommy's needs.
He (Tommy) is totally deaf in one ear. I'd go
down .there (to school). Where is he? Way in the back
and, of course, being young, he didn't want to tell them
. . . I mean he could get half way through the school
year and he's getting bad grades, and they can't figure
out why he's getting bad grades because he knows the
work. It's 'cause he don't (SIC) hear what's going on.
When asked if the school ever tries to help, Donna gave the following
explanation of Mandy's special education placement.
She's 17, and they've got her in these classes that
are . . . like special ed. And I know darn well she can
do regular work. And yet they won't give it to her. She
constantly comes home, "This is too easy. I'm bored."
And when she's bored she won't do the work.

Knowing that special education placement can only be made with parent
permission, the researcher asked about the placement and why the mother had
signed the papers required under Public Law 94-142. Donna and Tommy both
responded.

T: They just picked her out.
D: I think so; I really do.

T: They just look at the students, and they'll pick out
the so-called lower class ones.

225

Right.
And they'll put them in special classes.

'Cause we're on ADC; we're low class.

:‘UZ‘U

Since they stick them (lower class students) in
those classes, they're going to be low class for the
whole year.

D: Or probably the rest of their years in school. . . . I
detested doing it (signing those papers). It was
either that or they (school personnel) claim that
she wouldn't be getting any farther ahead. That
she'd be doing worse. . . . If you don't sign them,
they'll make up your mind for you.

Teachers refusing to call on the dropouts, treating dropouts as lower
class, and discriminating against the dropouts were patterns repeated in each
poverty-level and lower-class family. This perspective was not only held by
families living on welfare or ADC, such as the Mengeses and the Walkers, but
was also expressed by lower-middle and middle-class families, such as the
Mandricks, the Clintons, and the Vitales.

Another element of the family perspective was that schools not only
ignore the needs of the drOpouts, but schools are also portrayed as having poor
and largely negative communication with the families. According to the
parents, the dropouts' low achievement is reported through progress reports
and failure notices, never through personal calls, even when requested. The
only time the family is called is when there is a discipline problem, and then
only if the behavior disrupts the school routine or threatens control. When the
parents go to school, they claim they are not given clear reasons or answers,
and that problems are glossed over.

It is important to note that what the parents criticize as poor and

negative is correct and legal school policy and practice. School personnel

226

regularly send out progress reports, call regarding attendance and discipline
issues, and so forth. The family perspective, that schools are cold and
uncaring, stems from the negative messages parents receive about their
children, their own failure to initiate communication, and the dropouts'
versions of school events.
Fred and Sandy Griggs eXpressed their frustration with the schools'
handling of progress notices.
S: Those are from three weeks ago. Why am I just
getting those in the mail? . . . They‘ve been
sitting in the office for three weeks to a month.
That's the way they (the school personnel) work it.
F: Which is true, because I was custodian up there.
. . . I'd go into the Office and clean around and
dump the waste baskets. They had stacks of
deficiencies . . . this high. They hadn't sent them
out . . . and they'd be there a week later, the

same stack.

S: I was getting the deficiency notices for classes he
was doing better in. . . . You couldn't go by those.

Conferences didn't help either, according to Sandy.
5: All they would say was, "You have 15 minutes" . . .
and "Ricky's doing fine." I didn't know any more
when I left up there than when I went in. The
conferences didn't do a whole lot for me.
The Griggs' comments evidence frustration with the school bureaucracy as
well as implying that schools intentionally withhold information from the
families.
Becky and Dan Walasek also expressed their frustration with the schools'
lack of communication.
When she was in the third grade, they (school
personnel) called to tell me that they had to push her
back. They were going to push her back in reading

because she was a slow reader; she was below level. So
I said, "Why do I hear this now?" She (the teacher) said,

227

"Well, they never should have promoted her from the
second grade." I said, "I never heard anything in the
second grade. I never heard anything in the first grade.
Why didn't I hear about it?" . . . They (teachers) were
negligent.

Hearing about problems when it was already too late to do anything about
them, or not hearing at all, were patterns repeated in interviews with the
Mandricks, the Stanleys, and other dropout families. Virginia Walasek failed
her entire freshman year due primarily to skipping. She dropped out as a
sophomore. Her parents gave this report of the school's failure to
communicate and their perception as to why the school ignored Virginia's
behavior.
B: She (Virginia) didn't go in the hallway smoking.
She didn't go to class drunk or she didn't hit
anybody. She didn't swear at anybody. She wasn't
disrespectful. She simply didn't show up for class,
so they (school personnel) didn't care.
D: It goes back to the function of a teacher. You've
got too many lessons to get through in a year . . .
to keep your job; and if somebody isn't destructive
in class, they're doing fine because they're not
creating any problems for you, although they
personally may have problems.
B: I asked the teachers individually, "If you suspect
anything, if you see anything, please tell me.
Please call me." I never heard anything from
anybody.

Virginia Walasek's skipping did not inconvenience teachers; and,
therefore, according to her parents, her behaviors were ignored. Her dropping
out was characterized as a matter of school neglect. However, when skipping
or more overt discipline problems are dealt with directly by the school, there
are two results. First, the criticism felt by parents intensifies. The parents

feel punished for their child's behavior. Second, the punitive actions taken by

schools result in family dissention.

228

Shirley Stanley described how her son Jason's skipping affected her.

Three quarters of the way through the year, when
somebody (from the school attendance office) says, "Do
you know how many absences he's had?" . . . I didn't
know he was gone 21 days. . . . What are you going to
do? I said, "Jason, G_ d it. Go to school. You're
going to get me in trouble." . . . It came to the point
where the teacher said to me, "Do you know how much
he's been missing?" I said, "Yes. He was sick." They
(the teacher) said, "I don't believe he's actually sick. If
you don't make sure he's in school, somebody is going to
be in trouble here." They made it my reSpOnsibility.
. . . What can I do to make sure the kid goes to school?
. . . He can walk down the hall and out the door and
take off? Is that my fault? That's not my fault. . . . I
can't force him to be there. I can only suggest,
threaten, plead, and after that if it don't work, it don't
work. (SIC)

Her husband Lee added the following comment. "Parents, 1 think, take the rap
for the kids' failure to perform academically, socially . . . they had a terrible
home life . . . there wasn't a lot of affection; they weren't nurtured. So they
did poorly in school."

Shirley responded, "They (referring to her children) did poorly in school."

The parent's perspective, that schools were critical of their parenting,
was repeated in family after family. Bob Mandrick captured the school's
message to parents with this brief comment. "We weren't doing enough with
our kid. We didn't have him under control."

Gus Vitale's son Sonny had frequent discipline problems and was regularly
suspended from school. The family perspective of school as a primarily
punitive institution came across strongly.

That assistant principal. As far as I'm concerned,
he's not a teacher. He's an a_hole. . . . He expects
those kids to be like him. . . . "We are an all A student
school here. You abide by our laws, and that's it." Not,
"Can we talk to you? Maybe you have a problem." . . .

Several times they kicked him out of school for no
reasons. I mean throwing paper on the floor. He don't

229

(SIC) deserve a week off school for that bulls_ . . .
the assistant principal insisted that Sonny had to be
punished. And he's going by the book. .He lied to me
on top of that. I know he lied through his d_ teeth
when he told me Sonny had to quit school before his
birthday . . .he (the assistant principal) was going to do
this or that or they were just going to . . . give him a
bad reference and all this bulls_ . . . I could have took
(SIC) that a_hole to court. Because Sonny is under
special ed . . .and Sonny is supposed to stay in that G_
d_ school, and there ain't (SIC) nothin' that ass

can _do about it.

The dissention Sonny's school problems created in the Vitale family was
evidenced by this exchange between Sonny's parents. Gus said the following.
So, we're failures. We got the message. You're a
failure. . . . You know, it's hard in a way . . . when it
comes to failure, you look at yourself and like the
school d__ near told us, "Sonny's a failure." And we
look at ourselves . . . Jesus Christ. What did we do so
G_ d_ wrong?
Mary said, "We failed him." Gus added the following.
So if he's a failure, then we're a failure, because
we failed to bring him up properly, where he should be
an A student . . . I don't feel happy about the way Sonny
is now. . . . It's something that I can't overlook. It's
going to kick me in the a_ a,nd every time the kid gets
into any trouble . . . the blame has to come back here.
It's always got to come back home.

Whenever school punishments increased, conflict in the family was found
to increase. Families responded defensively, claiming that schools are unable
to control other students. According to drOpout parents, schools also ignore
the cruelty of the other students toward the dropout youth. At the same time,
the drOpout families portray their children as being singled out and
discriminated against. Thus, the rejection and failure experienced by the
dropouts are transferred to the failures of the schools. The schools' lack of

control over other students and the cruelty of other students were important

aspects of the family perspective.

230

Tom and Debby Lamb gave their description of conditions in the public
schools. Tom worked for a school district for eight years, and Debby
frequently took her daughter to neighboring schools for gymnastic meets.
They both formed strong opinions.

T: You go in there (the school) and there's kids
screaming, yelling . . . there's kids throwing
things. The teacher's writing on the blackboard or
talking, and there are fist fights going on in the
classrooms. There's kids up and around going zig
zag across the room. . . . It's just organized chaos
. . . I haven't seen one good one (public school).

D: My daughter takes gymnastics . . . I went to the
bathroom, and I came home, and I said I could not
believe the filth that's written on those walls in
there by these girls.

T: The teachers just don't have any power. . . . The
governments taken away any power that they used
to have . . . I seen a (SIC) incident one time. . . .
The kids bombarded out of the cafeteria. . . . He
(a teacher) put his arms out . . . and he says,
"Come on kids, get back in the cafeteria." . . . I
was watching him. . . . A kid tripped, stumbled,
and smacked his face right into the door pole. His
dad was a state policeman and sued the teacher
and won.

In all the families where discipline problems resulted in detentions and
suspensions, stories of teachers' inabilities to control students were told. A
pattern noted was the portrayal of cruel peers treating the dropouts badly and
"getting away with it." When the dropouts reacted to their peers, the dropouts
were punished by school personnel. Bob Mandrick, Jr., was picked on by other
kids. When he fought back, he was suspended. An older girl put gum in the
hair of Tammy Roundtree's sister. When Tammy beat the girl up at the bus

stop, Tammy was suspended. Tom Clinton was made fun of in class. When he

stood up and yelled, he was sent to the office.

231

The family perspective grows from the interactions of the dropout, the
family, and the school. As each aspect or element of the family perspective
was discovered, three factors were found to be central to the shaping of their
perspective. The factors were (a) the families' choice to have limited
involvement with schools, (b) the schools' punitive response to the dropouts'
minimal compliance and negative behaviors, and (c) the version of school
events related to the parents by the dropouts.

The family perspective was characterized by the portrayal of schools as
adversaries and teachers as uncaring and unfriendly. Teachers ignore the
dropouts, even when they make an effort. Administrators single out and
harass the dropouts. Both the teachers and administrators act superior and are
dictatorial and discriminatory toward dropouts.

Finally, the family perspective was that communications from the school
are poor, contradictory, and/or negative. The dropouts were seen as victims
of a social system which will not intercede on the dropouts' behalf. Rather, it
is a system which punishes the dropouts when they react to unfair treatment.
Parents were found to feel unwanted and uncomfortable at school. They
related stories of school personnel criticizing their parenting, and at worst felt
they were being punished. When the dropouts failed, the parents described
themselves as failures.

Confrontinj the Family's
Version of Really

Families related stories regarding the treatment they had received from
schools. The stories had a "set" quality. Strong language and an absence of
specific details also gave the stories an exaggerated quality. On occasion the

researcher verified these set and exaggerated qualities by probing for more

232

details and asking additional questions. Frequently, the responses were fuzzy,
even evasive. The following conversation with the Menges family may be seen
as representative of the outcome when stories were confronted.
T: When we had to ride on the bus, we had to stand
up . . . and we were the last ones picked up . . .
we're low class people.
D: My oldest son, some high schooler banged his head
against the window on the bus, and it gave him a
concussion. The school wouldn't do anything
about it.
The researcher asked if she felt the school would have helped her children if
they were well-tO-do. She answered, "Yeah." This comment followed, "They
(school personnel) told me he (Tommy) was ignorant, stupid, and lazy and I
said, 'Bulls_!'"

The researcher asked if a teacher used those exact words,if this was said
in person or over the phone, and asked for the name of a specific person.
Donna and Tommy gave the following responses.

D: I wish I knew the name of that one teacher. . . .
It's when I went in there and says, "Well, where is
Tommy sitting?" Probably ninth or tenth grade.

T: It was probably Mr. K.

D: No, it was a woman.

At this point several female teachers were named. Donna thought one
name sounded familiar, but Tommy indicated it couldn't have been that
teacher because she was "sweet." The grade level, the gender of the teacher,
and the teacher's name were all lost; but each time Donna was asked, "What

were the exact words?" she repeated "ignorant, stupid, and lazy."

Understanding that these stories were the family's portrayal and their version

233

of reality was important in gaining the proper understanding of the family
perspective.

The remaining divisions of this chapter present the areas of conflict
between the family culture and the school and the meaning of the individual's

decision to drop out of high school.

Family-school conflict. Low expectations for youth, low academic

 

aspirations, and risk factors frequently associated with family dysfunction
were discovered in each dropout family. An instrumental view of education
and claimed or conferred adult status are sociocultural characteristics which
grow from the family culture. The doctrine of adolescent inferiority, subject
matter specialization, and a future reward orientation are characteristics
found in the schools' culture (Stinchcombe, 1964). The interaction of the
sociocultural characteristics of the family and the sociocultural
characteristics of the school creates conflict.

Other sociocultural characteristics identified by Stinchcombe (1964)
reinforce and are drawn into the conflict. For example, routinization of
activity and batch processing of students reinforce and support subject matter
specialization. In turn, both the routinization and batch processing are
reinforced and supported by rules and regulations. Rules and regulations also
reinforce the doctrine of adolescent inferiority. Therefore, the key areas of
conflict serve to bring the dropout into conflict with the larger school system.
The dropout's minimal compliance and/or negative behaviors are responded to
through school policies designed to control and maintain schools, and by the

personnel in charge of those policies. It is a conflict of cultures.

234

It is argued that the conflict between the dropout and the school begins
in the early elementary years and intensifies over time. The conflict leads to
outcomes which include discipline problems, movement to lower tracks, being
labeled, and retention. The dropout's rejection of authority, rejection of
school routine, and rejection of the delayed rewards of school reinforce the
outcomes. There are also short and long term consequences, the end result of
which is the act of dropping out.

The process which leads to dropping out begins when the child enters
school. The school has a culture and the very nature of the
superordinate/subordinate teacher/learner relationship imposes the school's
culture on the child. An example of this process is found in Johnson's leg
M (1984). The child brings his/her family culture to school and carries
messages home from school. Therefore, the dropout youth not only represents
the family culture at school, but also represents the school culture at home.
Caught in the middle of this cultural incongruence, the dropout becomes the
source of potential conflict at school. Consequently, the dropouts'
interactions at school become sources of potential conflict at home. The
result is family failures are exposed at school, and school failures are exposed
at home.

Evidence of the dropping out process was found in every family. It is
important to note that, early in the process, parents do respond to their
children's school difficulties. It was also found that conflicts both at home and
at school intensify when parents attempt to deal with their children's minimal
compliance, school failure, and negative behaviors. Parents responded to
family-school conflicts in one of three ways: feelings of failure, justifying

their parenting, and denying responsibility.

235

The example of the failure felt by the Vitales has already been cited.
The Stanleys explained their family expectations. The Stanleys were among
those who justified their parenting. Shirley put it as follows.

Most parents seem to have a lot of expectations
of their kids, what they want them to accomplish . . .
we've never done that with him (Jason). We've never
said, "Get out there and play football. We really enjoy
this, and you should be a star." We've never pushed him
academically . . . we've never done any of that. I don't
think I've had any serious expectations. I just sent him
and let him work at it and waited to see what happened.
. ..I didn't care what he became as long as he was
happy with what he was.

Later her husband Lee added the following comment, revealing the
instrumental view of education.

To my way of thinking, that's what it's all about.
They condition you for 12 years . . . to function in . . .
society, to plug you right into the hydromatic. . . . You
knew (speaking to Jason) how to read and write when
you got there, but what you didn't learn was how to get
there at 8:00 O'clock every morning and stay until 4:30
in the afternoon.

Lee and Shirley described Jason's school difficulties as being unwilling to adapt
to the "conditioning" aspect of schooling. They also revealed that there "is a
price to pay if you don't."

In the same conversation, questions regarding the Stanley's relationship
with school and what happened when Jason went to school led to these
responses.

We didn't participate a lot. I went to a couple of
open houses . . . as long as everything was Okay. I
would continue to go, but that's when he was having a
lot of problems with his grades . . . I tried to talk to
him and say, "Hey, what's the matter? You're going to
have to work at it some more." . . . I thought every
thing was all right; and then the next time you get a
report card, it's worse. . . . I finally said, "If you don't
care, I don't care. . . . If I don't see some effort from

236

- you, I'm not going to another one," and I never went to
another one.

Asked how this felt, Jason responded, "It kind of sucked through school. I used
to get real bumbed out because they didn't go to Open houses and stuff."
Shirley continued, describing Jason's school failure and truancy.

We never really knew he was having problems
until we heard from the school . . . I was always at work
and when he was about nine years old . . . I put the
responsibility on him. I said, "Son, you seem to be
responsible, andI think you can handle getting up in the
morning and getting ready, and you go catch the bus
and when time comes to come home, you catch the bus
and come home." I trusted him. I believed he could
handle it. We had no idea how much he was missing.

Jason skipped frequently in elementary and middle schools and daily in high
school. His truancy was eventually dealt with through the courts.
Shirley and Lee defended their parenting.

S: It doesn't matter how good a parent you are . . . if
you're doing everything you know how to do,
there's no reason you should ever feel like a
failure. . . . What happens, even if the kid drOps
out and becomes a drug dealer? You've done your
best. You've got nothing to be ashamed of.
Nothing to feel a failure over.

L: Jason did poorly in school academically, but what
do I have to figure? He did that because he
wasn't loved? How do you show them they're
loved? If you don't beat on them and you feed
them and you play with them once in a while,
what more can you do?

Shirley responded to Lee's comment, explaining her understanding of the
problem.

We had a problem. . . . We didn't have any
guidelines in our household. Our kids don't have many
rules, because we didn't like the way we were raised.
. . . We set very loose standards of our kids. Our only
rules are you don't hurt yourself and you don't hurt
someone else. . . . When they got into school, it's real

237

structured and my kids have a great deal of trouble
fitting into that.

Shirley and Lee Stanley never went to school to deal with Jason's
skipping or failure. Yet for his skipping, Jason was grounded and his stereo
was taken away and locked in his father's bedroom closet. Jason summed up

the conflict.

Everybody decided things weren't going well by
the time I was in the third grade. I never did good and
that was what I used to think was the big source of
family problems. That was the only thing 1 ever got
into any 5_ over. I never really did anything at home
that got me into trouble. But I was constantly in trouble
over school. . . . It wasn't like my parents saying,
"Damn that school." It was my parents saying, "Damn
that kid. He's doing it again." I got bitched at (for)
messing up in school. By the time I was getting griped
at for not going to school, I'd been griped at since third
grade. My mother stopped going to all my Open houses
and, you know, no one bakes cookies for cookie sales.
. . . School was a negative source of everything.

Unlike the Stanleys, the Clintons were strict disciplinarians who used
frequent physical punishments to contrOl their children. Their solution to
Tom, Jr.'s failure and negative school behavior was to deny personal
responsibility and blame the schools.

Diane Clinton gave repeated examples of teachers ignoring or verbally
abusing her son Tom. She also portrayed schools as unable to control other
students, while at the same time discriminating against Tom. Diane stated,
"Everything the parents try to teach their children, the teachers take away."

Tom, Sr., offered his views.

He (Tom, Jr.) had to attend school. His high
school diploma was what he had to acquire. That was
it. Period. . . . We became aware that Tom didn't fit in
the classroom. . . . We were a lot stricter, authority-
wise, than the teachers. . . . We just didn't put up with

any of the garbage that they had to put up with. So it
was natural to get into a school environment and get a

238

little wild, because nobody told him he couldn't do it in
a way he could understand, but it graduated into
something worse that that. He learned to hate school,
to not want to bring homework home. . . . He set
himself up in opposition.

Schools were unable to use behavioral control measures similar to the
spankings and other physical punishments employed by the Clintons. It is
important to recall that Tom, Jr., described himself as a physically abused
child, extremely fearful of his father.

Diane revealed the conflict over control in this statement, "It's like they
(teachers) always pointed the finger at me. 'You should do this to make your
child behave better)"

After Tom, Jr., dropped out of the regular high school, his father joined
a parent support group for a short time.

I started going to . . . counseling . . . where all the

parents of all the kids who had gotten in trouble at

school were meeting and interacting. . . . I discovered I

wasn't responsible for Tom, Jr., being like he was. . . .

All of a sudden, I realized that . . . all of these peOple

were having the same problem. It wasn't their problem

that they were having. It was the kids who were having

the problem.
Up until that point Tom, Sr., beat his son. Other punishments had included
making Tom, Jr., stand naked in his bedroom and smashing Tom Jr.'s stereo.
When Tom, Sr., stopped taking personal reSponsibility for his son's behavior at
school, the punishments ended.

The dropouts' negative behavior and school failure bring conflict into the
family. As a result, over time, the conflict between the family and the school
and between the family and the dropout intensifies. Common to both

situations is the perception of the school as a source of conflict and the stress

the conflict places on the family.

239

The drOpout and the family unite against the school. The parents cope
with their sense of failure, justification, or denial by portraying teachers as
unwilling to help their children, other students as uncontrolled and unfriendly,
and administrators as punitive and unfeeling. The family perspective is
reinforced by the stories dropouts carry home of teachers who refuse to call
on them, cruel peers who pick on and get the dropouts in trouble, and
administrators who single them out for punishment. Dropping out is an act of
loyalty to family and preserves family membership.

One possible resolution to the child-family conflict might be improved
school performance and behavior. The dilemma is that acceptance of school
norms and behaviors requires rejection of norms and behaviors learned at
home. Accepting the foreign culture of the school and adopting school norms
and behaviors may create additional conflicts for the dropout as a family
member. Trapped in the middle, the child accepts another option, dropping
out. It is a way of reducing conflict by eliminating its source. Thus family
membership and the family culture are preserved.

It should be noted that the dropouts' school failure, and the conflict this
creates in the family, does not wait until high school to develop. School
failures and conflict begin early in the elementary school years. Thus the
individual's decision to dropout may have been made years before the event
occurs.

Finally, the term "dropout" is incorrect. The decision to leave school
grows out of the conflict between the family and the school. The child feels
rejected by the formal school organization and/or the positive peer group. The
dropout is better characterized as one rejected by and disconnected from

school, who chooses to maintain his/her role as a member of the family.

240

The Individual's Decision
to Drop Out of High School

 

 

It has been argued that dropping out reduces conflict for the dropout
and/or the family. Further, it is argued that dropping out does not change
educational aspirations. From the instrumental point Of view, getting a
diploma is valued as a certificate required to gain work. As a result, other
environments in which the diploma may be earned have equal or greater
attraction than high school.

Each of the dropouts was asked to describe his/her dropping out. Tammy
Roundtree's school experiences grew increasingly negative after the fourth
grade. Her school days were filled with alcohol and substance abuse and
problems with peers. While Tammy avoided severe confrontations with school
personnel, her conflicts with other students were severe. She described
occasional fights and being harassed in the hall. Her mother described other
students as "cruel" to Tammy.

Tammy quit school during her sophomore year, once more at the end of
the first quarter of her junior year, and finally during the second semester of
her junior year. She gave this account of her peer problems following a
summer in which she quit drinking and got a job. "The people (at school) kept
bugging me to party. The more pressure they put on me, the more I skipped
school. One way to stay clean was to stay away from school. I dropped out
after the first quarter." Pressure from the negative peer group to return to
her patterns of drinking and substance abuse continued after re-enrolling
second semester. "It started all over again. People would grab me in the hall,

and I would scream, 'Don't touch me!"'

241

DrOpping out for Tammy ended being put down and called a slut by peers,
academic failure, skipping, getting in fights, having a bad family name, and
pressure of negative peers to continue her substance abuse.

Jason Stanley experienced school as a series of personal problems which
also caused family problems. He recalled being "griped at" for his school
problems beginning in third grade. By high school his skipping resulted in
academic failure.. He was also being "hassled" by peers. Jason described his
decision to quit school.

I was hanging out with . . . 2000 16 and 15 year
olds and little girls that are this tall (pointing) and it
just wasn't cool. . . . I noticed that that was probably
the best time I was going to have of it . . . I turned 19
. . . I‘d be damn near 21 years old when I graduated . . . I
wanted to get it over with, just be done messing with it.

Tommy Menges was expelled from one school system for drug dealing.
He re-enrolled the following year in an alternative program. His failure to
keep within the limits of tight attendance controls resulted in his leaving
school again. Tommy's school leaving was characterized as ending years of
discrimination and abuse at the hands of uncaring teachers and harsh
administrators.

Tom Clinton, Jr., left high school as a result of discipline problems and
being arrested. According to Tom, his school leaving brought an end to
rejection by peers, traumatic experiences with uncaring teachers, and physical
punishments at home.

Sonny Vitale was brought home by a teacher and administrator who
convinced Sonny's father Gus that leaving school was a better choice than

being expelled. Sonny's dropping out ended a string of suspensions totalling

perhaps as much as 100 days during his sophomore year. It also ended years of

242

academic failure and labeling as learning disabled, fights with peers, and
physical punishments at home.

Bobbi Sue Small was beaten with a belt by her natural father for skipping
during junior high school. She ran away and came to live with her mother. She
failed her entire freshman year. Rejected by positive peers, she joined the
"burnout" crowd which accepted her smoking, substance abuse, andskipping.
Dropping out ended years of school failure and retention, special education
labeling, and negative encounters with her stepfather.

Wendy Workman did not like school beginning in kindergarten. She was
tracked throughout her schooling and felt she was labeled as "one of the dumb
kids." By high school she was skipping and using drugs at school. She first left
school at age 16, returning to attempt further credits for three more years.
Finally, she left the regular program and enrolled in alternative education.
Unable to maintain regular attendance, she dropped out. Like Bobbi Sue,
Wendy's drOpping out ended years of academic failure and low self-esteem at
school.

Bob Mandrick, Jr., quit school in his sophomore year. Bob's account of
his school experiences disclosed years Of being "lifted" from grade to grade,
fights with peers, and classroom discipline problems. The Mandricks described
how school conflicts extended into their home.

N: We did everything. It did not matter.

B Everything we could think of.

N. From spanking to grounding . . . I mean truly, he
would have been his total life inside his room.
Spanking didn't work. Grounding didn't work.

Taking away things didn't work. Nothing ever
seemed to work for Bob, Jr.

243

B: You don't know which way to go. You do
everything you can and, according to the teacher,
you're still wrong. You're not doing enough.
Bob, Jr., left the regular high school program and went to treatment for his
alcoholism. When asked how leaving school and going to treatment affected
the family, his father gave this response, "In my way of thinking, we're back to
normal teenage problems."

Susan Rogers was retained in elementary school. Like Wendy Workman,
she described never liking school. When she brought home failure notices and
failing grades on report cards, she recalled her alcoholic father's telling her
she was dumb. Susan left high school in her junior year after an extended
period of absence due to illness. She reported teachers did little to help her
catch up. Shortly after returning to school, she discovered she was pregnant
and she dropped out. She characterized her high school years through accounts
of boredom in classes, uncaring teachers, and constant battles with peers.
Dropping out ended days Spent worrying who the next fight or argument would
be with.

Mickey Collins went from being a top dog in elementary school to
"having no crowd," "no friends" in high school. He began moving from
household to household within his network of relatives, always looking "for a
chance to be a hero again." He dropped out after a "run-in with the law." He
was already on probation; and, after getting drunk and stealing back his pickUp
truck from a police impounding lot, he was afraid to return to school.
Dropping out ended constant hassles with his stepfather and feelings of
rejection by peers.

Ricky Henry, Jr., described himself as cheating his way through school

and being passed along, because teachers didn't like him. As conflicts with

244

school increased his mother, Sandy Griggs, never felt She "got answers" or '
understanding from school personnel. Ricky first dropped out as a result of
attendance problems. However, after a conviction for drunk driving and a
later conviction for breaking and entering, he was sentenced to three to five
years in jail. Ricky and his mother agreed that quitting school was a matter of
not putting up with any more of "their bulls_." His attempt to return to
school was cut short by his incarceration.

Virginia Walasek walked out of school on her sixteenth birthday, saying,
"Screw this!" She had already lost all academic credit for her current term in
school due to skipping. On several occasions she was beaten at home for
skipping. On one occasion this was reported to protective services. DrOpping
out removed her from an environment in which she felt stupid and in which she
was not accepted. As Virginia's mother reported, "She always hated school."

Regardless of the terms used to characterize or explain their dropping
out, drOpping out always seemed to reduce conflict in the dropouts' lives.
Dissention in the family, rejection by the school, and rejection by peers were
long-term consequences of the dropouts' conflict(s) with schools. All the
dropouts experienced one or more of these consequences. Several experienced
all three.

Conflicts intensified whenever the schools confronted the dropouts'
minimal compliance, the resulting academic failure, and/or negative
behaviors. Likewise conflicts increased when parents became involved in the
dropouts' problems at school. The key finding attendant to all attempts to
deal with problems between the dropout and the school, whether initiated by
the school or the family, was increased conflict. One result was that the

conflict at school extended into the family and increased family dissention.

245

No respondent, whether parent or dropout, described dropping out as
academic failure, nor did dropping out appear to alter their interest in and

desire to obtain a diploma through some other avenue.

Analysis of Findings

 

In this section the findings regarding the interactions among the dropout,
the family, and the school have been presented. The data relevant to the
family perspective revealed a negative view of schools and their treatment of
the dropout youth. This negative view was a product of limited parental
involvement with school, the school's punitive response to the dropouts' failure
and negative behavior, and the version of school events carried home by the
dropout.

A key element of the negative view was the portrayal of schools as
discriminating against dropout youth and treating dropouts and their families
as lower class. Connected to this were parental feelings of being criticized or,
worse yet, threatened with punishment themselves. Other aspects included
the unwillingness or inability of schools to intercede on the dropout's behalf or
provide them with needed help. School communications were characterized as
largely negative.

The researcher cautioned that there was a set quality and element of
exaggeration to the stories used to portray the family perspective. The
importance of recognizing these qualities is twofold. First, it is the dropout
family's version of reality. Second, it is a perspective which grows from and
reveals the level of conflict and stress felt by the families. The caution is
that the stories are not always an accurate representation of reality as it

might be seen by others.

246

Conflict between the family and the school was identified as growing
from the failure of the school culture to mesh with the family culture. The
sociocultural characteristics of adult status and the instrumental view of
education were found to conflict with the sociocultural characteristics of
school identified by Stinchcombe (1964) as the doctrine of adolescent
inferiority, subject matter Specialization, and a future rewards orientation.
The possible outcomes of the conflict were rejection of authority, which
reinforces discipline problems; rejection of school routines and the intrinsic
value of education, which reinforces movement to lower tracks, formal and
informal labeling; and retention and rejection of the delayed rewards of
school, which reinforces all outcomes previously cited.

Short- and long-term consequences were found. ShOrt-term
consequences included detention, suspension, the threat of expulsion, and, in
one case, expulsion. Other consequences were failure, loss of credit, loss of
status, and lowered self-esteem. Lohg-term consequences were found to be
increased conflict in the family, rejection by the formal school organization,
and rejection by the positive peer group combined with acceptance by the
negative peer group. The end result is the act of dropping out. This process is
depicted in Figure l.

The individual's decision to drop out of high school is explained and given
a different meaning by each of the drOpouts. Common to each of their
explanations is drOpping out as a way of reducing conflict in one's life.
Further, the dropping out does not alter the educational aspirations of the
dropouts. They are aware of numerous other environments Offering the
opportunity to Obtain the diploma, which they view primarily as a requirement

for early entrance into the workforce.

247

.50 .5550. o. it. :30... 04. .0 63.3.1: c< ._ 0-8:

 

 

    

A11
8:8...»- .

  

Al I I I I
51 32:5

Ji'lztl 1.---uuliin. --.¢o,a:c!.oA. .......
.3... 53.8.1.3 .331. A _ 22.: .22, .

a o. ‘08
I! .0 .2 ‘5 t '30....-

 

-
.. a
I. 1. .. .
5.3. .9 :3 4: 111111111 gigolo. 3"] .
.8: 3.... o. l... as... I. 2:31 all: .
- £31.53! . . 01.333383332531 .. .
.5818 3......- - - no VOKQUO< \ .

T - I I I
1.3.0. I .1: £15... 3 33813.6 3 0:.

‘
raft-2o «I - -113... ..:-'12:}... n 25.! .86. 1.36:...
”I c l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
~ 1 £2.37. 1
o I . . .
. , 4.3:... .. L ..E.
o a... .815 . II.— a'o.vo.2 .381... u n i l I
I ‘31 A. I l I .- l a t W" o: I . l
I 3.3.... Coo. ginger. net‘s: -
5:13.05 1 0281.3. . in... - . I
513-3 V0.08! c2330! t‘. - I 2:15:09 .. o. :8.
..:-5.! 3 «2.83..
or. 802.333
0.815190»
P
.3313; flueagu going 111 I.
1.0. .08.. I 1.le .0033 3.11.09 .0 .(

 

248

Chapter Summary

The researcher has presented and analyzed the data regarding the family
perspective on the individual's decision to drop out of high school. The data
have been broken down in six sections. The first section described the setting.
The second section introduced the dropouts and their families and provided
demographic data. Section three presented and analyzed the data regarding
the parents' and grandparents' school experiences. Section four dealt with the
dropouts' family experiences. Section five presented and analyzed the data
regarding the dropouts' school experiences. Finally, section six dealt with the
interactions of the dropout, the family, and the school.

It was found that family and school cultures conflict at key points.
Dropping out is a means of reducing this conflict. Therefore, dropping out is
best explained, as suggested by Clark, through an analysis of the culture of the

family, not through the quantitative study of a limited set of variables.

CHAPTER V
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is not the standard of living that makes us
happy, it is the way we feel, the way we look at life.
Both of these are within our power, and hence man is
always happy if he wants to be, and no one can stop
him.

“Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn

Introduction

 

The researcher's purpose in this dissertation has been to describe and
explain the family perspective on the individual's decision to drop out of high
school. More specifically, the purpose was to investigate the interactions
between and among the dropout, the family, and the school. The investigation
was divided according to the family's experience with school, the dropout's
experience with family, and the dropout's experience with school. Finally, the
drOpout, the family, and the school were brought together and the results of
their interactions disclosed.

The previous chapters presented a description of the problem, a review
of the related literature and research, an explanation of the methodology, and
a presentation and analysis of the data generated in the study.

The present chapter revisits the tentative conclusions and Offers revised
answers to the research questions. Next, the general findings are summarized.
The general findings are followed by the conclusion. Further, the work of

Clark (1983) is revisited and reflections upon his findings and those of the

249

250

present study are discussed. Finally, the findings and limitations of the study

are used to generate suggestions for further research.

Responding to the Research Questions
Subsequent to the first round of family interviews, a series of tentative
conclusions (pp. 68-70) were written. Those tentative conclusions are now

reviewed and revised answers given.

X How do dropouts define their family?

 

The data consistently supported the conclusion that the dropout defines
family in terms of his/her roles as family member and family representative.
Further, it was found that standards or external perceptions Of what family
should be or should do are communicated primarily through interactions with
schools. The Walker/Roundtree family did not feel poor until so labeled by a
school social worker. Ricky Henry had respect in the community, but not at
school. Jason Stanley remained loyal to his father, despite a substance abuse
counselor's labeling of Lee as an alcoholic. The conclusion is that the dropout
families defend their definition of family and the family collective by holding
on to family membership.

The dropout represents the family at school. The school's rejection of
this representation results in feelings of rejection and conflict in the family.
DrOpping out ends the conflict between family and school and reduces conflict
between the child and the family. It unites the family and reinforces the
passing on of the family culture. Dropping out is portrayed as a defense

against a punitive and discriminatory social institution.

251

2_. How do family members react toL and interact with, thejeople and
groups who make up school?

 

The analysis of data supported the tentative conclusion that the family
reacts to school based on past experience and the sense of how school views
the family. It is concluded that the parents' own school experiences contribute
to their level of involvement with schools on behalf of their children. Further,
it is concluded that the involvement is limited. The limited involvement
combines with negative school messages regarding their child's minimal
compliance and/or negative behavior. The resulting negative interactions are
exacerbated by the version of school events brought home by the children.
The result is a family perspective which portrays schools as adversarial,

punitive, and discriminatory toward the dropout and his/her family.

X How did other family members experience school?

The tentative conclusion regarding a generational pattern of school
difficulty was supported. The labeling of families and the conclusion that the
dropout was expected to follow in the same path were only supported in four
families. The more powerful conclusion is that the family culture passes on an
instrumental view and a conferring or claiming of adult status by youth. The
sociocultural characteristics just named conflict with the sociocultural
characteristics of school. The conclusion is that the family culture is central

to an accurate understanding of school conflict and dropping out.

.4_. Where, if at all, do family and school perceptions conflict?

 

A limitation in drawing conclusions to this question is that only the
family perspective has been heard. With each family, however, the researcher

asked how the school might relate its version of the conflict. Consistently,

252

parents responded that the school personnel would indicate they have done
everything they were supposed to do and that the family was at fault.

Another limitation is that several families had not reflected on school
problems. This was evidenced by families asking the researcher such questions
as, "Where do you think we went wrong?"

Specific examples support the assumption that schools, while intending
to act in the child's best interest, are perceived as punitive and discriminatory.
Strong feelings are expressed by dropouts and their families regarding
placement in special programs. Even when the program was gifted/talented,
as with Jason Stanley, it was referred to in negative terms. Programs
designed to provide special services are perceived in terms of being forced
upon the families and being harmful to their children. Donna Menges'
portrayal of the special education services provided her daughter is the
strongest example of conflicting perceptions.

Given the existing limitations, the tentative conclusion, that the family
perceives only the cold punitive underside of the school bureaucracy, is
supported.

_5_. ‘What, if any, is the relationship between family experiences and the
decision to drop out?

While the tentative conclusions regarding conditions of poverty and
external locus of control remain tenable, the data did not strongly support the
role they play in the decision to drop out. The conclusion is that the presence
of multiple risk factors in the dropout's family tends to erode the quality of
family life. There is an interaction effect among these risk factors. The
result is conditions Of family life which pass on an instrumental view of

education in terms of low aspirations and achievement. Further, conferred or

253

claimed adult status grows from the culture of the family. The family culture
which reinforces and is reinforced by patterns of experiences conflicts with
the culture of the school. The conclusion is that this cultural conflict is key to

the relationship between family experiences and the decision to drop out.

i What meaning does the act of dropping out have for the individual?

 

The tentative conclusion was supported by the data. However, the terms
"oppositional culture" and "family dysfunction" are too pejorative. Rather, it
is concluded that the culture of the family and the culture of the school do not
mesh. It is further concluded that the conflict which results is the central
cause of dropping out. However, as will be discussed in the recommendations
for further research, schools seem to do little to reduce this conflict. To the
contrary, it was found that schools are largely negative in their
communication with the dropout families. Further, it is concluded that efforts
to deal with problems dropouts experience in school exacerbate rather than
alleviate the conflict.

It is concluded that the meaning of the act of dropping out is reduction
of conflict for the dropout and, in most cases, for the dropout and his/her
family. Further, it is concluded that dropping out does not alter educational
aspirations. The dropouts, like their parents, frequently find other, less
punishing and less negative environments in which they may complete the

diploma requirements.

General Findings

 

The first two sections of the presentation of data provided background

data and disclosed low economic aspirations and achievement in the

254

generational family. Early maturity and entrance into adult roles, such as
early entrance into the workforce, and early marriage were evidenced.

Section three discovered a high dropout rate among the grandparents,
reflecting low educational achievement and aspirations. Parents were found
to hold an instrumental view of education. Earning a diploma was equated
with a "ticket to a job." Further, it was found that parents, as students, gave
schools minimal compliance, discussed teachers as uncaring people, classes as
boring, and school rewards as limited or unimportant. Parents formed few
positive attachments with school, their school difficulties tended to accelerate
over time, and greater opposition was associated with increased high school
demands.

Section three discovered a high dropout rate within families. The
instrumental view was found in all families. The instrumental view was
characterized by low aspirations and minimal compliance. School rewards and
conformity to school demands were found to be unrelated to the academic
programs. In addition, peer problems and lack of (affiliation with school were
central to stories of unpleasant school experiences.

Further analysis revealed that the culture of the family provides little
preparation for school and at the worst Opposes it. The instrumental view and
early adult status were found to be central cultural characteristics of the
parents' generation. The instrumental view was supported by the parents'
presentism. Stories of uncaring teachers, as well as punitive and unfair
policies, evidenced the conflict between parents and schools.

Section four presented findings regarding the dropout's family
experience. It was found that the culture which opposes or fails to support

success in school continues into the dropout's generation. High rates of

255

parental alcoholism and physical abuse were found. Other aspects of the
family experience which were found included unemployment and marginal
employment, conditions Of poverty, frequent moves, poor male role models,
low socialization, heavy smoking, and other health issues. These factors were
found to contribute to conferred or claimed adult status by youth as well as
low social capital.

Section four discovered multiple risk factors present in the dropout's
family experience. Further, an interaction effect which tends to erode the
quality of family life was discovered. Finally, it was discovered that, despite
the presence of the risk factors, the dropout's perception of him/herself as a
member of the family collective persists. This is true even in cases where
families separate, divorce, or experience other forms of change. At the least,
family is referred to as "mom," but in no instance was the dropout rejected by
the family, nor did the dropouts reject the family.

Section five presented findings regarding the dropout's school
experience. It was found that the dropout carries the family culture to school.
‘ This family culture conflicts with the school culture at key points. The
conflicts tend to begin in the early elementary years and accelerate over time
in school. The negative interactions with school are found in both the formal
and informal school organization. Stories regarding uncaring teachers,
traumatic school experiences, and cruelty or rejection by peers supported the
finding. The researcher also found "set" and exaggerated qualities in these
stories. Additionally, the dropouts expressed the same instrumental view as
their parents. This suggests the instrumental view is passed along through the
family culture. Finally, it was found that adult status behaviors are brought to

school by the dropouts.

256

The analysis of the findings in section five revealed that there were
specific outcomes from the conflict with school. Some or all of these were
experienced by each of the dropouts. These outcomes included rejection of
authority, which reinforced discipline problems; rejections of school routine
and the intrinsic value of education, which reinforced movement to lower
tracks, formal and informal labeling, and retention; and rejection of the
delayed rewards of school, which reinforced minimal compliance and refusal to
do homework. The minimal compliance and refusal to do work were also found
to reinforce continued negative outcomes in the first two areas. All Of the
outcomes were traced to conflicts between family and school culture. The
instrumental view of education and conferred adult status were central to the
conflict.

Section six presented the findings regarding the family perspective on
the individual's decision to drOp out of high school by examining the
interactions of the drOpout, the family, and the school. It was found that the
dropouts' parents have limited involvement with their children's education.
The limited involvement combined with the school's negative communications
and the dropout child's version of school events continue to form the family
perspective.

The instrumental view of education and the dropout's adult status were
found to be the aspects of the family culture central to conflict with school.
Further, it was found that as the conflict between the dropout and the school
intensifies, the family may be drawn further into conflict with the schoOl.
School becomes a source of conflict, disrupting the balance of the family

collective.

257

Additionally, it was found that the act of dropping out does not alter
educational aspirations. It is better conceived of as a means of reducing
conflict in the dropout's life and frequently for the family as well.

The analysis of the findings discovered that the family perspective grows
from a negative view of schools and the schools' treatment of the dropout
youth. Schools are portrayed as discriminating against the dropout youth and
treating the drOpout and his/her family as lower or second class citizens at
school. The school does not intercede on behalf Of the dropout when problems
occur, but rather responds to the dropouts' negative behavior and minimal
compliance in punitive ways. Parents feel criticized and punished for their
child's behavior.

The stories told in describing the family perspective were found to have
"set" and exaggerated qualities. Consistent with the theory of symbolic
interaction, these stories revealed the families' versions of reality and their
self-indications. Therefore, the stories are key to understanding the level of
conflict felt by the families. The caution is that the stories are not always an
accurate representation of facts as they are known.

The conflict that dropouts experienced at school was discovered to be a
product of the conflicting sociocultural characteristics of the family and the
school. Outcomes Of this conflict, previously discussed, were also found to
lead to short- and long-term consequences. The short-term consequences are
discipline problems and/or failure. The long-term consequences are increased
conflict in the family, rejection by the formal school organization, and
rejection by peers. All the dropouts were found to experience one or more of

these consequences.

258

i
H

The Conclusion /

 

The family, the family's perspective on school, and the act of dropping
out have been analyzed in terms of a conflict in culture between the family
and the school. The family takes an instrumental view of education, confers
or enables the claiming of adult status early, and accepts the child
unconditionally. The school rewards an intrinsic or normative view of
education, withholds adult status, and accepts the child conditionally based
upon effort. The conflict between these cultures antecedes drOpping out by
several years.

Dropping out ends both the negative messages sent home by schools and
the schools' rejection of the dropout and his/her family culture. It is a rational
and logical resolution to a conflict which has become increasingly negative
over time. For the dropouts, it is an act which makes sense. It is not an act

which alters educational aspirations.

Reflections

 

Having discussed the general findings and Offered a conclusion, the
researcher now returns to the work of Clark (1983) which to some degree
inspired the current investigation. In comparing Clark's findings with those of
the present study, there are two matters worthy of note. First, there are
distinct similarities in the findings. Pointing out these similarities provides
additional support for the veracity of the explanations offered by each study.
Second, since Clark's method was observation while this study used multiple
interview questioning strategies, new insights may be brought to bear on the
key differences Clark found between the families of successful and

unsuccessful students.

259

Comparison of Findings.

 

Clark's observations of low achieving families revealed patterns of
"stressful life events." Clark's finding is consistent with the researcher's
finding of the presence of multiple risk factors in the dropout families.
Further, the sense of powerlessness and uselessness among the parents of
Clark's low achievers was confirmed in the white dropout families as was the
failure of males to function successfully in their role as provider. Thus, the
researcher's alternative explanation of the dropout fathers as peripatetic
males who desert, rather than face their own failures, appears to be more
powerful than the drOpout mothers' explanation that their husbands are simply
and inherently weak in character.

Clark's work disclosed that school problems begin early in the child's
schooling experiences. The present study also found a pattern of negative
school interactions beginning as early as kindergarten. Wendy Workman
received no sympathy for her torn tongue, but rather was made to feel stupid.
Tommy Menges' teacher yanked him out of his chair by the hair in the second
grade. Torn Clinton, Jr., was scorned and rejected when he returned to school
with flowers for his teacher. Coupled with early tracking experiences,
academic failures such as Sonny Vitale's in reading, and the high rate of
retention, one has confirmation that school problems begin early.

Yet another commonality of findings centers around the concept of
socialization. Clark found that parents of low achieving children were "unable
to sustain their performance of routine child-management functions" (p.191).
The parents' own problems got in the way of their parental functioning,
resulting in poor supervision, little or no emphasis on academics or literacy

skills, and generally low expectations. Calling on the work of Coleman and

260

Hoffer (1987), the researcher documented similar patterns of interaction
among the dropout families under the heading "low social capital." The
pattern of increased family conflict resulting from the dropouts' school
failures is also consistent with Clark's finding that the parents Of low
achievers tend to blame their children for their failure in school.

Clark discusses the personality Of the parents of low achievers as shaped
by high rates of traumatic experiences which he claims lead to an inability to
make personal sacrifices or sustain commitments. The beatings borne by Gus
Vitale, the ridicule experienced by Donna Menges for her obesity, and the
neglect experienced by Lee Stanley are but a few examples of similar traumas
experienced by the dropout parents. However, the researcher's investigation
confirms the lack of resilience, which Clark generalizes to all parents, as only
true of the dropout fathers. Dropout mothers were capable Of sacrifice and
stood by their children.

In discussing the personalities of the low achievers, Clark found that,
separate from literacy and school achievement, the low achievers had
surprisingly good self—concepts. The researcher did not segment the self-
concepts of dropouts out into school and non-school categories. However, the
study disclosed that dropouts do not feel good about them selves at school and
do reduce conflict in their lives by leaving school. Preserving their positive
self-concept lends yet another powerful rationale for why the act of dropping
out may be perceived as one that is logical and makes sense.

Striking similarities are found among Clark's low achiever families and
the dropout families in the areas of family responsibility and family
expectation regarding their child's education. Clark found that the low

achievers have little communication with their children about school matters

261

such as grades or skill development. Further, they do not communicate with
the school. Similar findings among the dropouts are documented in Table 6.
Additionally, Clark found that these parents do not perceive their children as
"good" at the endeavor of schooling, but rather see them as needing to marry
or take jobs early in life. Additionally, there is no emphasis on post-secondary
educational experiences. Parallel findings among the dropouts are discussed
under the labels of the instrumental view of education and conferred adult
status.

A similar finding, yet one which is given different explanations by Clark
and the researcher has to do with family norms and boundaries. Clark found
that these families are neither able to establish norms for "good" behavior or
deal with "bad" behavior on the part of the low achievers. He explains the
communication breakdown between the parents and their children as feeding
"on its own inertia as parents limit their concern (for children) to the daily
struggle for survival" (p. 194). The research found the same negative
interactions, but explained them in terms of the presentism of the dropout
families and the conferring of adult status. This conferring of adult status was
found to go back at least three generations. While both explanations are
plausible, the latter does not have the limitation of having to label which
behaviors are bad or enter into the discussion of bad by whose standards? For
this reason the researcher finds the latter explanation more workable and
affording a more powerful explanation.

Finally, Clark found that low achiever families have "no consistent,
regularly-performed learning rituals" (p. 195). At the same time, he found
large amounts of time being spent watching television. The researcher also

discovered that dropouts do not do homework and that dropout parents resent

262

teachers expecting the parents to do their job for them. None of the dropout
families studied evidenced established study times or parents monitoring of
school work. Yet, a color television was always turned on during the

researcher's visits.

Insights Regarding Family Patterns

 

Clark identified 17 differences between the "success-producing patterns"
(p. 200) of high and low achieving families. These are presented descriptively,
answering only "what" the differences are. In the current study the researcher
asked dropout parents questions and obtained responses which may offer some
insight as to "why" some of these patterns exist in the low achiever families.

The failure of the dropout parents to initiate school contacts is explained
as a defense mechanism. It was found that dropout parents have had negative
school experiences themselves and, further, that they feel no better about
themselves as parents at school than does their child as a student at school.
Details of this finding are presented under the heading of "The Family
Perspective" which begins on page 219.

Clark goes on to point out a series of patterns in low achiever families
which may be categorized as "low expectations." Looking back to the
grandparents' generation, the researcher found that what Clark refers to as
lower expectations are actually logical and consistent outgrowths of the
family culture and history. The researcher explained these elements of the
dropout family culture as conferred or claimed adult status. Coming from
agricultural and blue collar backgrounds, growing up early was natural in the
dropout families studied. However, having moved off the land and into small

towns and cities in the parents' generation, the roles formerly performed by

263

the children no longer existed. Thus, one possible explanation for the dropout
parents' pattern of ignoring children and holding few expectations for them
would be that these parents have no model for socializing the children.

A pattern of blurred role boundaries and status structures was also noted
by Clark among the low achiever families. The presence of multiple risk
factors found in all the drOpout families may lend some explanatory power as
to why these differences exist. Patterns of alcoholism and substance abuse,
physical, mental, and sexual abuse, desertion, and unemployment may all be
contributing factors to these differences. These same risk factors may also
contribute to the lack of control, inconsistency, and neglect of these children.

The preceding paragraphs have provided reflections comparing the work
of Clark to the current study. Insights which grow from this comparison have
been presented. The final step, therefore, is to offer suggestions and

recom mendations.

Suggestions and Recommendations

The researcher discovered limitations in previous dropout studies.
Existing knowledge was primarily informed by quantitative research. Data
were generally collected from responses to questionnaires and tests. Limited
interviewing of dropout subjects was found; however, there was no evidence of
the personal study of family specific to the issue of dropping out.

Quantitative studies attempt to identify causal relationships between
specific factors and the act of drOpping out. The factors most commonly
studied are SES, race, family membership and size, place of residence, parents'

level of education, attendance, grade point average, retention, and so on.

264

Statements such as "being retained in a grade increases the probability of
drOpping out by 50%" abound in the literature.

Such statements invite challenge. Questions such as "50% greater than
what?" make the issue clear. Does this mean 50% of all those retained drop
out? What percentage of those not retained drop out? Which 50% drop out,
and how may we distinguish those who do from those who don't? Does this
imply that predicting who will drop out based on retention is no better than
tossing a coin? At the most critical level, isn't claiming retention as a cause
of dropping out equivalent to claiming an F grade as a cause of failure?

It is true that more students from low SES families drop out than those
from high SES families. Yet, the knowledge of the fact leaves the question
"WHY?"--which appears to this researcher to be the important interrogative--
left unanswered. Why did Tanya, who comes from a lower income level
family, lives in a trailer park, and has divorced parents, graduate? Yet Steve,
who lives in the same trailer park, is also from a low income family, and also
has divorced parents, dropped out.

The researcher's study Of 12 dropout families has discovered aspects of
family life and culture which interact with school life and culture. The
interactions resulted in conflict, negative experiences, and dropping out.
There are two implications Of the findings. First, placing emphasis on
quantitative data fails to treat the dropouts as the living, active beings they
are. Consequently, dropping out, which is a complex process growing out of
years of interactions between conflicting cultures, has been largely
misunderstood. Second, qualitative studies of dropouts and their family can
uncover aspects of the family culture which are key to a better understanding

of dropout behavior.

265

A better understanding of family life and cultures is achieved when one
studies the family face-to-face. The misunderstanding, which occurs when
conclusions are drawn from questionnaires and large data sets, is avoided. The
arbitrary labeling of specific factors as causal, which depends on inference and
assumption, is also avoided. For example, Coleman and Hoffer (1987) label all
families in which a parent is absent as "deficient." The researcher argues that
single parent homes are neither necessarily nor universally "deficient."

Specific suggestions for further research on the topic of dropping out
stem not only from the study's findings, but also acknowledge the current
study's limits. The study of the family perspective on dropping out was limited
to a small sample of white families living primarily in rural and suburban areas
near small towns. Additional research is needed to answer the following
questions: (a) Do family life and culture within and among different racial and
ethnic groups result in similar conflicts with the sociocultural characteristics
of schools? and (b) What, if any, is the relationship among family culture,
school culture, and dropping out in urban areas?

Further, the current study was limited to the family perspective. The
family perspective is only half of the story. Additional research is needed to
answer the following questions: (a) What is the perspective of school personnel
on the individual's decision to drop out of high school? and (b) Are the people
who run schools aware of the areas of family-school conflict which exist? A
related question would be (c) Would a better understanding of family-school
conflict suggest meaningful school reform designed to minimize the areas of
conflict?

Additionally, the current study was limited to dropouts and their

families. This suggests the following research question: (a) What is the family

266

perspective, and (b) what are the conditions of family life and culture among
those who are successful in school?

Finally, the study Of individuals who have already dropped out of school
limits the research methodology. Further research using participant
observation is needed. Enough is known to accurately identify at-risk
students. If their interactions at home and at school could be observed, a
better understanding of the family-school conflict might be possible.

The rigor of research requires restraint. It is only at the end that the
researcher may step forward and express his opinion, a liberty this researcher
now takes. In undertaking the study, he had no interest in blaming families or
blaming schools. The study is not about blaming; rather it is about
discovering. It is about the conditions, the lived experiences, the conflicts,
which result in dropping out.

These are difficult times for many families and schools. The families
the researcher met are trying to COpe with the demands of a developed
economy, a highly technological, information-oriented society. Schools are
trying to prepare youth for the world of tomorrow. The conditions with which
both are dealing are new, and they demand a new relationship between
families and schools. There is much within the power of schools to provide the
foundation for this new relationship.

Policies and practices which allow school personnel to track, sort, and
label students require that someone be at the bottom. I have met those at the
bottom. It is not a pleasant place to be. Policies and practices which
encourage and impose individual competition and self-interest require losers as
well as winners for the system to work. I have met the losers. They are not

happy at school. Enough is currently known about group work, norm-building

267

instruction, and cooperative learning to allow educators to move past the
pitfalls of tracking, sorting, labeling, and competitive self-interest.

Educators have long relied upon one-way communication. They have
held fast to the belief that the content and goals of the curriculum and school
are their sole domain. Yet, we live in a world whose very survival depends on
cooperation, negotiation, and compromise. The time has come for educators
to create new forms of communication which invite their constituents into the
educational process.

Understanding the way dropouts and their families feel and look at life

should be at the center of our efforts to provide them a meaningful education.

APPENDICES

268

APPENDIX A

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROJECT
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

269

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROJECT INVOLVING
HUMAN SUBJECTS

Submit your proposal fOr UCRIHS review to:

Dr. John K. Hudzik, Chair
- UCRIHS
Michigan State University
206 Berkey Hail
East Lansing, MI 48824-1111

 

 

If you have questions, or wish to check the status of your proposal, call: (5I7) 353-9738

 

DIRECTIONS: COMPLETE QUESTIONS 1 - 11: Attach additional material as requested.

 

 

 

1. RESPONSIBLE PROJECT INVESTIGATOR: NAME OF INVESTIGATOR:
(faculty or staff supervisor) (if different)
Ted N. Okev ' Same
2. CAMPUS ADDRESS: CAMPUS ADDRESS: (or address where

approval letter Is to be sent)
Wflall 912 Darlincton, East Lansinc, MI.48823

PHONE #: N/A PHONE #: (5.17) 351-8090

3. TITLE OF PROPOSAL:
The Perspective of Familv on the Individual's Decision to Drop

Out of Rich School
4. A. PROPOSED FUNDING AGENCY (If any) None
8. IS THIS AN FDA PROPOSAL [ ] YES in} NO
C. MSU ORD# IF APPUCABLE N/A
0. DATE ON WHICH YOU PLAN TO BEGIN DATA COLLECTION Immediate 12 upon approval

5. EXEMPT/EXPEDITED. II applylng Ior Exempt or Expedited status. Indlcate the
category. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 1 (le. I-A. 2-D. etc).

Category: __3.-t¢:$

 

 

 

 

 

For Subcommittee: Comments to PI:
Office Agenda: Comments to REV:
Use Comments:

 

 

270

271

6. ABSTRACT. Summarize the research (Its purpose end general design) to be conducted. This
can be Identical or similar to the summary required when submitting to the NIH (200 words or

less). Briefly outline. In particular. what will 9g ggng t9 rgseargh gggiggtg.

The purpose of this study is to describe and explain the meaning
of the act of dropping out of high school as it is constructed within
the larger framework of the individual's collective family experiences.

The methodology of the study is an interview-only design. Volun-
teers for the study will be interviewed in one hour segments up to a
maximum of three interviews. Permission will also be sought to inter-
view other family members including parents, siblings, stepparents,
relatives residing in the home or significant others residing in the
home.

The principal investigator is not associated with any of the
research subjects.

7. SUBJECT POPULATION. Will any of the IoIIowing be subjects:

Yes No Yes No
Minors [xi [ 1 Students {03 [ ]
Pregnant Women 11d [ ] Lowlncome Persons be] ( ]
Women OIChild-beanng age [xi [ ] Minorities ix] [ ]
Institutionalized Persons [ ] [xk Incompetent Persons [ ] fix]
(or diminished capacny)
7a. Number OI subjects (Including controls)? W25 individuals and their

family members
7b. Are you associated with the subjects (e.g., your students. employees. or patients.)

I ] yes tel no It yes. explain nature OI the association.

7c. How will subjects be contacted and selected? Research subjects will be recent
dropouts from the Brighton, Howell, and Pinckney school districts who
are currently enrolled in the Phoenix alternative education program.
All selections will be made with the approval of the program director.

7d. Will research subjects be compensated? [ ]Yes [xmo

If yes. all information concerning payment. inclucing the amount and schedule of payment must
be set mm in the informed consent.

7e. Will you be advertising lor research participants? [ ]Yes (”We
If yes. attach a copy oi the advertisement you ml use. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 2

272

ANONYMITY/CONFIDENTIALITY. Describe procedures and safeguards tor Insuring confiden-
tiality or anonymity. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 3

Limited confidentiality will be provided to all subjects. Only
the principal investigator will have access to the written notes of
the interviews, which will be stored in the private home of the prin-
cipal investigator. Names of those interviewed will be changed in
the written report of the findings. The risk of possible identifica-
tion by those familiar with the setting is remote, yet exists. This
is a risk common to this type of study.

The list of those selected for interview will be known only to
the principal investigator. A neutral site will be selected for the
actual conducting of the interviews. This may include the private
residences of these respondents.

Given these safeguards, the risk of identification must be viewed
as minimal. The chance that the interviewee may reveal details of
the study is beyond the control of the principal investigator. All
possible risks to volunteers in the study will be specified in the
prepared letter of consent.

RISK/BENEFIT RATIO. Analyze the risk/benefit ratio. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 4. Com-

pletely answer items A. B, and C listed in the instructions. ALSO SEE item 6 in the instructions

it your research involves minors or those with diminished capacity.

There is, as mentioned above, some potential risk for respondents
who may be identified by those knowledgeable of the local scene,
even though the names have been changed. This risk should be viewed
as minimal given the safeguards planned. '

Qualitative research is ideally suited to the study of this kind of
problem. Survey or other indirect methods would develop general
correlations, but qualitative methods provide a more complete under-
standing of the context in which different variables interact to
produce certain outcomes.

(see attachment for parts 8 and C)

9.

B.

273

Risk/Benefit Ratio (continued)
Procedures

The principal investigator will provide an oral and written
description of the risks and benefits to the respondent before
consent is requested. Other procedures for safeguarding notes
and written products are described under 8 above.

Benefits

The respondents will have the chance to describe their experiences
in school to someone who is not in a position to punish them. For
some of these individuals, this may be the first such occasion in
their lives. This could have a positive therapeutic effect akin to
a Hawthorne effect. Further, it might contribute to the respondents
gaining a broader understanding of their experience in dropping out.
Such benefits cannot, of course, be guaranteed.

The results of this study will focus on the perspective of family
on the individual's decision to drop out of high school. Those
results could be informative for policy-makers interested in in-
proving school experiences for "at-risk" students.

274

10. CONSENT PROCEDURES. Describe consent procedures to be followed, including how and
where informed consent will be obtained. SEE INSTRUCTIONS - ITEM 5 on what needs to be
Included In your consent form. Include a copy of your consent form with your proposal. ALSO
SEE item 6 In the instructions if your research involves minors or those with diminished
capachy.

After the purpose of the study has been explained to the respondent,
the elements of the consent form will be described and the respondent
will be asked to read and sign the form. If a dropout is under 18
years of age his or her parent will be asked to sign a consent form
and the minor will be asked to give verbal consent.

(see attached letter of consent)

11. CHECKLIST. Check Oh that you have included each of these items with your proposal. If not
applicable. state n/a.

8): Provide six (6) COpies of all information unless applying for exempt or expedited revxew. Prowde
two (2) copies if applying for exempt or expedited. Include all questionnaires. surveys. forms.
tests. etc. to be used.

3}: Proposed graduate and undergraduate student research prOjects submitted to UCRIHS for
revrew Should be accompanied by a Signed statement from the studenrs major professor Stating
that he/she has revuewed anc approves the proposed project.

33 Provide one complete copy of the full research proposal. Graduate students should furnish one
copy of the ”Methods‘ chapter of their these/dissertation (if available) in lieu of a research
proposal.

k}; Questions I - to have been filled out completely.

*3, Provide the consent form (or instruction sheet. exclantcry letter. or the scr:pt for oral presentation
it signed consent is not to be obtained-See item 5 :n the InstructionSI.

[1 Advertisement included if applicable N/A

YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE ASSIGNED A UCRIHS PROPOSAL NUMBER. REFER TO THIS NUMBER
AND THE TITLE OF YOUR PROPOSAL ON ANY CORRESPONDENCE OR INQUIRIES.

APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

275

CONSENT FORM

 

To whom it may concern,

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of why
students drop out of the regular high school program. I will be asking
you some questions about your family background, your family experiences,
and how other members of your family experienced school: In-addition,

T

- will be asking you about your family's involvement with your school-

ing. Finally, I will be seeking permission to talk with other members

of your family.

This interview will take approximately one hour. If we do not complete
all of the questions, I'd like to talk to you again. The total time

involved in our interviews will not exceed three hours.

All the results will be treated with strict confidentiality and your

iname will not be used in any research report.

Participation is voluntary; you may choose not to participate.at all,
refuse to answer some questions, or discontinue the interview at any tire.

There is absolutely no penalty for taking any of these actions.

If you wish to have a copy of the general findings of this report one
will be furnished upon request.

By signing this form, you indicate that you understand the purposes
of the study. CUARDIANIIF UNDER 18)

RESPONDENTS NAME

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia prOposal: An educational manifesto. New
York: Collier.

 

Aransberg, C. M. (1937). The Irish countryman. New York: Macmillan.

 

Bachman, J., Green, 5., 6c Wirtaren, I. (1972, April). Dropping out is a
symptom. The Education Digest, XXXVII(8), 1-5.

 

Barnhart, C. 3., 6r Barnhart, R. K. (Ed.). (1983). The World Book Dictionary,
Vol. One (A-K). Chicago: Scott, Foresman.

 

Barro, S. M., 8c Kolstad, A. (1987, May). Who drops out of high school?
Findings from high school and beyond. Center for educational Statistics,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Office of
Education. Washington, DC: U. 5. Government Printing Office.

 

Beck, L. 6: Muia, J. A. (1980, November). A portrait of a tragedy: Research
findings on the dropout. The High School Journal, fl(2), 65-72.

 

Becker, H. S. (1953, November). Becoming a marijuana user. The American
Journal of Sociology, 29, 235-242.

 

 

Becker, H. S., Geer, B., 6: Hughes, E. (1968). Making the grade. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.

 

Berkowitz, L., Chwast, J., at Shattuck, G. (Eds.). (1971). Staying in school: _A_r1
evaluation of a program to prevent school dropouts. New York: The
Educational Alliance.

 

Black, C. (1981). It will never happen to me! Children of alcoholics as
mungsters—adolescents—adults. New York: Ballantine.

Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In A. M. Rose (Ed.),
Human behavior and social processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network: Roles, norms, and external
relationships in ordinary urban families. London: Tawistock.

Bowman, P. H., 6: Matthews, C. V. (1960). Motivation of youth leaving school:

Quincy youth development project. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Mimeograph.

278

279

Bruyn , S. T. (1966). The humanperspective in sociology: The methodology of
participant observation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

 

Burgess, E. W. (1968). The family as a unity of interactive personalities. In E.
W. Burgess (Ed.), Family roles and interaction: An anthology. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

 

Cervantes, L. F. (1965). The dropout: Causes and cures. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

 

Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement: why poor black
children succeed or fail. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

 

 

Coleman, J. S. (1966, Summer). Equal school or equal Students? The Public
Interest, (4), 73-74.

Coleman, J. 5., 6c Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The
impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Combs, J., 6t Cooley, W. W. (1968, May). Dropouts: In high school and after
school. American Educational Research Journal, 2(3):343-363.

 

Cooley, C. H. (190 2). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles
Scribner and sons.

 

Comer, J. P. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project.
New York: The Free Press.

 

Counts, G. S. (1922). The selective character of American secondary
education. Supplementary educational monographs, No. 19. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

 

Crawford, D. G. (1970, October). Family interaction, achievement, value, and
motivation as related to school dropouts. Research in Education, ERIC
document.

Cuban, L. (1989, June). The "at risk" label and the problem of urban school
reform. Phi Delta Kappan, EGO): 780-784, 799-801.

Cusick, P. A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the American high school:
Studies of three schools. New York: Longman.

Cusick, P. A. (1973). Inside high school: The students' world. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

 

Dear, E. (1933). Distribution and persistence according to paternal
occupations represented in secondary schools in Michigan. Journal of
Educational Research, XXVI, 585-92.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1988). The value of conformity: Learning to stay in
school. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, l_9, 354-379.

280

Ekstrom, R. B., Gartz, M. S., Pollach, J. M., 6: Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops
out of high school and why? In G. Natriello (Ed.), School dropouts. New
York: Teachers College Press.

 

Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high
school. In G. Natriello (Ed.), School dropouts. New York: Teachers
College Press.

 

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the methodology of grounded theorfi
Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

 

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative
analysis. Social Problems, Q, 436-445.

 

Glaser, B. G., 6t Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of gounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine.

 

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). Aplace called school: Prospects for the future. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

 

G'orden, R. L. (1969). Interviewing: Strategy, technigues, and tactics.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

 

Gorden, R. L. (1980). Interviewing: Strategy, techniquemnd tactics, 3rd ed.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Gorden, R. L. (1987). Interviewing: Strategy, technicpes, and tactics, 4th ed.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Greene, B. (1986). Preventinggschool dropouts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Hahn, A., Danzberger, J., dc Leftowitz, B. (1987). Dropouts in America:
Enough is known for action. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership.

 

Handel, G. (Ed.). (1985). Psychosocial interior of the family. New York:
Aldine. ‘

Heiss, J. (Ed.). (1968). Family roles and interactions: An anthology. Chicago:
Rand McNally College.

Heiss, J. (1981). The social psychology of interaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

 

Henneghan, K. (1971). School dropout programs in selectedgMichijan school
districts: Implications for curricular innovations. Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Hess, R., & Handel, G. (1959). Family worlds: Apsychological approach to
family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

281

Hollingshead, A. B. (1949). Elmtown's youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

 

Ives, E. D. (1974). The tape-recorded interview: A manual field workers in
folklore and oral histog. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.

 

 

Johnson, N. B. (1985). West Haven: Classroom culture and society in a rural
elementary school. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

 

Kahn,K. (1973). Hillbilly women. New York: Doubleday.

Liebow, E. (1967). Tally's corner: A study of Negro Streetcorner men.
Boston: Little, Brown.

Manis, J. G., 6: Meltzer, B. N. (1978). Symbolic interaction: A reader in
social psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mare, R. D. (1980, June). Social background and school continuation decisions.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, _7_5_(370), 295-305.

Masters, 5. H. (1969, Spring). The effects of family income on children's
education: Some findings on inequality of Opportunity. Journal of
Human Resources, 3(2), 158-175.

 

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Pres.

 

Miles, M. B., 6: Huberman, M. A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

 

Millard, T. J. (1965, January). Dropouts and the school. Educational
Leadership, 2_2_(4), 247-250.

 

Mosteller, F., 6: Moynihan, D. P. (Eds.). (1972). On equality of educational
opportunity: Papers deriving from the Harvard University faculty
seminar on the Coleman report. New York: Random House.

 

Mowrer, E. R. (1927). Family disorganization. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

 

McCall, G. J., 8: Simmons, J. L. (Eds.). (1969). Issues in participant
Observation: A text and reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

McMillan, S. H., Jr., at Behrman, C. A. (1987). Dropping out: Quiet killer of
the American dream. Our troubled teens: Serious problems are crippling
the lives of millions of America's young people. What can we do?
Pittsburgh: The Public Television Outreach Alliance.

Nam, C. B., Rhodes, A. L., 6: Herriott, R. E. (1968, Spring). School retention
by race, religion, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Human
Resources, _3_, 171-190.

282

Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., 6: Pallas, A. M. (1985, September). School reform
and potential dropouts. Educational Leadership, 4_3(l), ll-l4.

 

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure ineguality. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Parsons, T., 6: Bales, R. E. (1955). Family, socializationyand interaction
processes. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

 

Peshkin, A. (1984). God's choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Ranbom, S. (1986). School dropouts: Everybody's problem. Washington, DC:
Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.

 

Rappoport, R. N. (1977, October). Family influence and the school learner: A
propositional inventory. Oxford Review of Education, 3(3), 247-256.

 

Rose, A. M. (Ed.) (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. Human behavior
and social process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

 

Rosenthal, A., et a1. (1983). The failure of student-parent crossvalidation in
the high school and beyond survey. Washington, DC: Decision Resources
Corporation.

Rumberger, R. W. (1983, Summer). Dropping out of high school: The
influence of race, sex, and family background. American Educational
Research Journal, _2_O_(2), 199-220.

Schatzman, L., 6: Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a
natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

 

Schorr, L. B., with Schorr, D. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of
disadvantage. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

 

 

Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. C., 6: Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling
students short: Classroom bargains and academic reform in the
American high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shibutani, T. (1967). Reference groups in perspectives. In J. G. Mavis 6: B. N.
Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic interaction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sizer, T. R. (1985). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high
school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1968). The cancer ward. New York: Dell.

 

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1964). Rebellion in a high school. Chicago: Quadrangle.

 

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interaction: A social structural version.' Menlo
Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.