See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236025515

Staying Back and Dropping Out: The Relationship Between Grade Retention and
School Dropout

Article · July 2007

DOI: 10.1177/003804070708000302

CITATIONS READS

53 327

4 authors, including:

Elizabeth Stearns Stephanie Moller

University of North Carolina at Charlotte University of North Carolina at Charlotte
49 PUBLICATIONS   609 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   1,618 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stephanie Potochnick
University of Missouri
17 PUBLICATIONS   363 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth Stearns on 16 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Staying Back and Dropping Out:
The Relationship Between
Grade Retention and School Dropout
Elizabeth Stearns
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Stephanie Moller
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Judith Blau
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Stephanie Potochnick
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Students who repeat a grade prior to high school have a higher risk of dropping out of high
school than do students who are continuously promoted. This study tested whether standard
theories of dropout—including the participation-identification model and the social capital
model—explain this link. Although the presence of variables, including academic achievement
and disciplinary problems, reduces the higher probability of retained students dropping out,
existing models of dropping out do not adequately explain the markedly higher probability of
dropping out for retained students. Regression decomposition reveals differences between
promoted and retained students in the importance of resources and illustrates that various
resources hold different levels of importance for white, black, and Latino students.

W
ith a greater number of school dis-
tricts mandating grade retention for
students who do not perform well
on standardized tests, an old problem in edu-
cation has gained increasing attention.
Students who repeat a grade are significantly
more likely than are continuously promoted
students to drop out. Numerous studies have
established this link (for a thorough review,
see Jimerson, Anderson, and Whipple 2002).
Yet, few researchers have explicitly examined
the reasons behind the relationship between
retention and dropping out (Gottfredson,
Fink, and Graham 1994; Roderick 1994) or
whether the probability of dropping out dif-
fers for Latino, black, and white retained stu-
dents throughout high school. Our study
filled these gaps by using data from the
National Education Longitudinal Study of
1988 (NELS:88) to explore why retained stu-
dents are more likely than are continuously
promoted students to drop out of school. We
investigated the efficacy of various theories of
dropout in explaining the link between reten-
tion and high school dropout, both early and
late, for white, black, and Latino students.
The link between retention and dropout is
well established (Alexander, Entwisle, and
Horsey 1997; Janosz et al. 1997; Roderick
1994; Rumberger 1995; Teachman, Paasch,
and Carver 1996).1 In fact, in a review of 17
studies, Jimerson et al. (2002) reported that
every study found a significant link between
prior grade retention and dropping out. By

Sociology of Education 2007, Vol. 80 (July): 210–240 210

Staying Back and Dropping Out
some estimates, 15 percent of students aged
6–17 are retained in grade (Hauser 1999).
Furthermore, black students are almost twice
as likely as white students to be retained
(Moller et al. 2006). These are children who
have an elevated risk of dropping out.
Less well established, however, are the
explanations of why retention may substantial-
ly influence dropping out, if indeed a causal
relationship exists (Gottfredson et al. 1994;
Kaplan, Peck, and Kaplan 1997; Roderick 1994;
Shepard and Smith 1989). Some scholars have
posited that retention serves as an early warn-
ing of impending academic failure (Alexander,
Entwisle, and Dauber 2003). Others have spec-
ulated that the association reflects the difficulty
that overage retainees may face in integrating
themselves into peer and school cultures
(Kaplan et al. 1997; Roderick 1994).
Nevertheless, few have systematically tested
their speculations (Gottfredson et al. 1994).
What remains incontrovertible is that there is a
substantial gap in the probability of dropout
between retained and continuously promoted
students.
Meanwhile, several theories have been
advanced to explain why all students who
drop out of school do so, including discus-
sions of how school context interacts with
students’ experiences to produce dropout
behavior. These models include the frustra-
tion–self-esteem model, which posits that
school failure lowers students’ self-esteem
(Finn 1989); the participation-identification
model, which contends that students who are
more engaged with school are less likely to
drop out (Mahoney and Cairns 1997; McNeal
1995; Newman 1991; Randolph et al. 2004;
Tinto 1993); and a social capital model,
which examines the resources that students
draw from their relationships with teachers,
parents, and peers and argues that teenagers
with fewer academic-related relationship
resources are more likely to drop out of
school (Gottfredson et al. 1994).
Further research is necessary to clarify
whether these theories help explain the associ-
ation between retention and dropping out.
First, although some of these theories have
been applied in an ad hoc manner to explain
why retained students are more likely than are
continuously promoted students to drop out,
211
most have not been systematically tested to
explain why retained students drop out.
Instead, these theories explain, more generally,
why students leave school. Second, it is unclear
how useful these theories may be in explaining
differential associations between retention and
dropout among black, white, and Latino stu-
dents, especially considering research that has
shown how the dropout process differs by stu-
dent’s race and ethnicity (Crowder and South
2003; Rumberger and Rodriguez 2002; Stearns
and Glennie 2006). Third, researchers have not
assessed the possibility that the utility of these
theories may differ, depending on the timing of
high school dropout. This is an important over-
sight, given evidence that various predictors of
dropping out vary in strength and significance
at different stages of high school (Carbonaro
1998; Rumberger and Larson 1998; Rumberger
and Thomas 2000; Stearns and Glennie 2006;
Swanson and Schneider 1999).
In this article, we fill these gaps in the
research by examining retained students’
greater probability of dropping out of school.
Our research questions include the following:
How do the three aforementioned models,
along with retention as an early warning,
explain retained students’ higher probability of
dropping out? Do these models explain drop-
ping out among black and Latino retained stu-
dents as well as they explain dropping out
among white retained students? Do they
explain both early and late dropout? We further
explore the link between retention and drop-
ping out for both early and late dropouts
through regression decomposition, a statistical
technique that has been used extensively in
examinations of wage differentials between
black and white workers (Blinder 1976; Fairlie
2003; Oaxaca 1974). This method allows us to
determine which portion of the link between
retention and dropping out is accounted for by
deficiencies in resources, defined by the afore-
mentioned theories.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND
HYPOTHESES
Several theories offer the potential for
explaining the link between grade retention
212
and dropping out. In this section, we proceed
by explaining the process of retention and
discussing why it is necessary to clarify why
retained students are more likely to drop out
than are continuously promoted students.
Then, we review three psychological and soci-
ological theories that explain why all students
who drop out do so: the frustration–self-
esteem theory, the participation-identification
theory, and social capital theory. We discuss
how these theories are applied to retained
students. We argue that retained students are
particularly at risk of dropping out, since
these theories highlight risk factors that are
especially acute for them.
Retention as a Social Process
Retention in grade is designed to identify stu-
dents who lack the academic qualifications to
move to the next grade level (Alexander et al.
2003; Dauber, Alexander, and Entwisle 1993;
Rodney et al. 1999). In reality, many factors,
including race, socioeconomic status (SES),
and family structure, play a role in deciding
which students are retained (Dauber et al.
1993; Guo, Brooks-Gunn, and Harris 1996;
Hallinan 2000; Randolph et al. 2004; Rodney
et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the important dis-
tinction is that, on average, retained students
have lower achievement levels and/or more
disciplinary problems than do students who
are promoted continuously throughout
school (Alexander et al. 2003; Dennenbaum
and Kulberg 1994; Holmes and Matthews
1984; Jimerson 1999; McCoy and Reynolds
1999; Owings and Magliaro 1998; Phelps et
al. 1992; Walker and Madhere 1987). One
would then reasonably expect that students
who are retained are more likely to drop out
of school; research has borne out this expec-
tation (Jimerson 1999; Roderick 1994;
Rumberger 1995). If the main difference
between retained and continuously promot-
ed students lies in their various levels of
achievement or retained students’ early
inability to follow disciplinary norms, then
controlling for achievement or for disciplinary
problems should substantially reduce the sig-
nificant relationship between retention and
dropping out.
In addition to identifying those with pre-
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
existing academic or disciplinary problems,
however, the experience of grade retention in
the educational system has the potential to
introduce or exacerbate a number of prob-
lems for students. As Jimerson et al.
(2002:442) stated: “The experience of being
retained may influence numerous factors
determined to be associated with dropping
out of high school (e.g., student’s self-
esteem, socioemotional adjustment, peer
relations, and school engagement).” First,
retained students have been shown to have
lower self-esteem than their classmates even
before the retention decision (Alexander et al.
2003). Then, there is potential damage to the
children’s self-esteem resulting from the
retention decision, which Byrnes (1989) high-
lighted. In an interview with “George,” a
child who had been retained during elemen-
tary school, Byrnes asked how he felt about
the retention. George responded that he felt
“sad” about the retention “because every-
body laughs at [him].” (p. 123). He also
reported that the worst thing associated with
being retained was that “kids say ‘flunker’”
(p. 123). Although Alexander et al. (2003)
did not find damage to retained students’
self-esteem, this finding may have been due
to the fact that they primarily studied ele-
mentary school students in an urban school
system where retention is normative. In addi-
tion, academic self-concept may be particu-
larly harmed by retention. Differences in self-
esteem and academic self-concept, whether
they exist prior to the retention decision, after
it, or both, also mark retained students as dif-
ferent from continuously promoted students.
Second, retention may lead retained stu-
dents to view the school system as one in
which they have experienced failure. As a
result, retained students may pursue success
in other, non-school-related, avenues. This
difficulty with engagement may only worsen
as the students age (Roderick 1994). Because
retained students are older than their peers,
they may also be more susceptible to societal
pressures that pull them out of school
(Stearns and Glennie 2006). In other words,
they may take on adult responsibilities in the
labor market and family realms in earlier
grades because they are older than their class-
mates. Furthermore, these adult responsibili-
Staying Back and Dropping Out
ties may serve to pull them out of school as
the identity associated with that of “worker”
or “parent” or “caregiver” becomes more
attractive than the identity associated with
“retained student.” Their age and the possi-
ble effects that retention has on retained stu-
dents’ success in engaging with school also
mark retained students as different from con-
tinuously promoted students.
Third, retention may rupture social bonds
with peers and hurt students’ ability to bond
with teachers later in their educational careers.
Retention separates students from their same-
aged peers and may end friendships. Retained
students must develop new peer groups
among their new classmates and overcome
their label of “flunker” while doing so. In fact,
retained students may have fewer friends than
continuously promoted students (“Repeating a
Grade” 1986). Since retained students reach
puberty in earlier than modal grades, the dif-
ference between them and continuously pro-
moted students may become more obvious to
their classmates, as well as to their teachers.
Teachers may therefore be subconsciously influ-
enced by the retention status, in that they may
expect and demand less academic achieve-
ment from retained students and put less effort
into reaching them.
In sum, there is good reason to suspect that
the experience of retention, in and of itself, is a
risk factor for dropping out. There is a strong
evidentiary basis for considering retained stu-
dents as more than simply overage under-
achievers. Unfortunately, in the absence of pre-
retention measurements, we cannot be certain
that the differences between retained students
and continuously promoted students are the
result of retention. Hence, we do not make a
causal argument about the “effects” of reten-
tion. What we can say, however, is that there
are differences, whether they are present prior
to retention or whether the process of retention
introduces them, in these two populations. We
ask how the differences in these two popula-
tions account for the gap in their probability of
dropping out of high school.
Three Models of Dropout Behavior
Next, we discuss three models that attempt
to explain dropout behavior—the frustra-
213
tion–self-esteem model, the participation-
identification model, and the social capital
model. These models predict that students
with deficiencies in self-esteem, attachment
to and engagement with school, and social
capital, respectively, are more likely to drop
out. Earlier, we discussed evidence that
retained students have particular difficulties in
each of these three areas, so it is informative
to examine the extent to which these theories
can explain the link between retention and
dropping out.
Frustration–Self-esteem Model As Finn
(1989) described, the frustration–self-esteem
model explains why students who have expe-
rienced academic difficulties drop out of
school. In this model, unsuccessful school
outcomes, such as grade retention, lead to a
reduction in students’ self-esteem. In an effort
to boost their self-esteem, students turn away
from academic effort and toward other
behaviors and venues that will boost their
self-esteem. This attempt to find activities in
which they will be successful often results in
delinquency of various types and problem
behaviors, including dropping out of school.
Thus, as Finn stated, “the youngster’s self-
view is a central mediator of problem behav-
ior” (p. 120). Nevertheless, self-esteem has
not been shown to predict dropout status
consistently among all students. Since it is dis-
proportionately low among retained students
(Alexander et al. 2003), we hypothesized that
it may explain part of their higher probability
of dropping out.
Participation-Identification Model Whereas
the frustration–self-esteem model focuses
mostly on internal psychological processes, the
participation-identification model moves
beyond psychological processes to consider the
student in the context of his or her relationships
in the school. Under ideal circumstances, stu-
dents can engage with school through the aca-
demic and the social arenas (Newmann 1991;
Tinto 1993). Academic engagement includes
arriving at school on time and going to class
prepared with books, homework, and school
supplies (Smerdon 1999), while social engage-
ment includes participation in a range of
extracurricular activities. Following Tinto’s
214
(1993) argument, engagement with either the
academic or the social realm may be enough to
keep students in school. Retention is thus a par-
ticular risk factor with respect to the participa-
tion-identification model, since retained stu-
dents may feel more alienated from the school
and be less likely to participate in both the for-
mal curriculum and the extracurriculum. Thus,
we hypothesized that students, both retained
and continuously promoted, who regularly
attend class prepared are less likely to drop out
than are other students.
Furthermore, students who are engaged
with school through participation in extracur-
ricular activities are less likely to drop out of
school than are students who do not partici-
pate in extracurricular activities (Mahoney
and Cairns 1997; McNeal 1995; Randolph et
al. 2004). This relationship is particularly
strong for children whose teachers consider
them to be at risk of dropping out early
(Mahoney and Cairns 1997). Thus, we
hypothesized that students who are socially
engaged with schooling are less likely to drop
out of school than are those who are not.
Given that retention may be a risk factor for
engagement, this lack of engagement may
explain part of retained students’ higher
probability of dropping out.
Weakening Social Capital In contrast to
the first two models, which have been tan-
gentially applied to the case of retained stu-
dents, social capital theory has been explicit-
ly applied to retained students. Social capital
can be located in a variety of different rela-
tionships, including those between students
and teachers and those between students
and their parents. A social capital model
posits that retention may weaken students’
pro-social bonds, thus leading to a higher
probability of dropping out. Drawing on
Hirschi’s (1969) control theory, Gottfredson
et al. (1994) argued that although retention
may increase the bond between students and
academic subject matter, it may also inhibit
students’ abilities to form later bonds with
teachers and other students because of the
stigma that comes with retention.2 Although
their findings did not strongly support this
theory, their study concentrated on attach-
ment instead of engagement. In contrast, we
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
focused on a variety of behaviors that indicate
engagement with schooling, as well as mea-
sures of the bonds that students form with a
variety of people, including peers. Thus, we
hypothesized that students who are seen as
popular are less likely to drop out of school
than are others. Given the differences in
retained and promoted students’ peer net-
works (“Repeating a Grade” 1986), this lack
of popular esteem may particularly harm
retained students.3
Social capital can also be located in rela-
tionships with teachers. Positive bonds with
teachers reduce the probability of students
dropping out between the 10th and 12th
grades, particularly for students from socioe-
conomically disadvantaged backgrounds who
have struggled academically in the past
(Croninger and Lee 2001). At the same time,
however, there is some reason to expect that
retained students may be less likely to seek
help from their teachers. The experience of
retention may shape retained students’ per-
ceptions of their past schooling experiences
and alter the ways in which retained students
deal with schooling in the future (Jimerson et
al. 2002). Thus, retained students may view
the school and agents of the school as partic-
ularly intimidating and avoid seeking contact
with those agents later in their educational
careers. We hypothesized that a lack of these
pro-social bonds with teachers increases the
probability of dropping out. If retention does,
indeed, break the bonds between students
and schools, we would expect to find that a
lack of positive contact with teachers particu-
larly disadvantages retained students.
Aside from ties with peers and teachers,
social capital can also be located in familial
ties. Parents can increase their children’s lev-
els of social capital by interacting positively
with their children; by implementing closure
in their children’s networks; or by interacting
closely with schools, other institutions, and
other adults in their children’s lives
(Carbonaro 1998; Teachman et al. 1996). In
pursuing these strategies, parents add to the
social capital of their children and help to pre-
vent disengagement from schooling and tru-
ancy.
In fact, there have been mixed findings
about the importance of parental involvement
Staying Back and Dropping Out
in students’ educational careers. Parent-based
social capital influences educational and social
outcomes, but only for children who are tradi-
tionally advantaged (McNeal 1999). Teachman
et al. (1996) found that the nature of children’s
and parents’ interaction about academic mat-
ters predicts early dropout, but the amount of
contact between parents and schools does not,
net of other factors. In an analysis of 12th-grade
dropout status, Carbonaro (1998) discovered
that communication between parents and
schools is positively associated with the proba-
bility that students will stay in school, but that
parental participation with the school is not sig-
nificantly associated with the probability of stu-
dents dropping out. We hypothesized that the
experience of retention may harm already-frag-
ile bonds between parents and children or
between parents and schools and thus that
these factors may explain part of the increased
probability of dropout among retained stu-
dents.
Students who experience a great deal of
mobility and frequent changes of schools can
experience a dramatic loss in social capital as
well. As Ream (2003:239) pointed out, these
moves can “disrupt social root systems, chal-
lenging the development and maintenance
of social capital . . . by inhibiting students’
efforts to make new friends, adjust socially to
a new school situation, and develop recipro-
cal relations with school personnel.” These
transfers are thus associated with dropping
out of school at both early and late stages
(Lee and Burkam 1992; Rumberger and
Larson 1998; Swanson and Schneider 1999).
School transience may be particularly harmful
for students who have characteristics, such as
prior grade retention, that suggest their lower
probability of establishing strong ties with
school personnel. Thus, we hypothesized that
changes of schools and dropping out are
especially related among retained students.
Race, Retention, and Dropping
Out
In addition to considering the link between
retention and dropping out, we also consid-
ered the possibility that the mechanisms
behind the link differ across racial groups. A
215
growing body of research on the influence of
educational structures on children’s achieve-
ment, attainment, and aspirations has shown
that educational structures, such as retention,
affect black, Latino, and white children in dif-
ferent ways (Blau 2003; Moller et al. 2006).
Blau (2003) argued that aspects of the formal
educational system, such as retention and
tracking decisions, do not have as negative an
impact on the future aspirations and attain-
ment of black students as they do on white
students because black communities are able
to provide support for children who are not
identified as “high achievers” in school.
Furthermore, while retention is often synony-
mous with individual failure in white culture,
it may symbolize institutional discrimination
in other cultures (Blau 2003). Students may
react to this discrimination by persevering
through greater participation in school or by
acting out and engaging in behavior that
requires disciplinary action (Blau 2003; Moller
et al. 2006; Ogbu 1978). Thus, the experi-
ence of retention may differ by race.
Furthermore, racial differences in the rea-
sons why students drop out and the influ-
ences on students’ decisions suggest that the
process of dropping out differs by racial
groups (Crowder and South 2003; Stearns
and Glennie 2006; Velez 1989). These racial
differences in processes that are associated
with high school dropout may be attributable
to the frustration–self-esteem, participation-
identification, and social capital models of
dropping out because each of these theories
highlights large racial differences in resources.
Indeed, black children have been consistently
shown to have higher levels of self-esteem
than have white children (Bankston and Zhou
2002; Pallas et al. 1990). In contrast, whites
are generally more likely to participate in
extracurricular activities than are children of
other racial/ethnic groups and to benefit aca-
demically from participation in such activities
(Brown and Evans 2002; Davalos, Chavez,
and Guardiola 1999; Eitle 2005; Eitle and Eitle
2002). In addition, blacks and Latinos are less
likely than are students of other racial/ethnic
groups to attend class prepared with home-
work, books, and papers (Blau 2003).
Finally, researchers have identified persis-
tent differences with respect to social capital,
216
with various results for the dropout behavior,
academic achievement, and aspirations of
teenagers from different racial groups
(Crosnoe, Johnson, and Elder 2004; Faircloth
and Hamm 2005; McNeal 1999; Ream 2003;
Valadez 2002; Yan and Lin 2005). For
instance, Latino students may not benefit
from having teacher- and parent-based social
capital as much as students of other
racial/ethnic groups (Ream 2003; Valadez
2002). Therefore, we hypothesized that the
link between retention and dropping out,
including the factors that influence dropout
decisions, differ for members of different
racial groups, a possibility that we explore
with regression decomposition.
DATA AND METHODS
We used data from NELS:88, a nationally rep-
resentative sample of eighth graders in 1988
who were resurveyed in 1990, 1992, 1994,
and 2000. The National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) conducted the survey. We
included black, white, and Latino students
who participated in the 1988, 1990, and
1992 waves. We did not include Asian stu-
dents in our analyses because of their low
probabilities of being retained and of drop-
ping out. This constraint prevented a reliable
decomposition of dropout status by retention
for Asians.
The analyses focused on two dependent
variables: early dropout and late dropout.
Early dropout was calculated from the 1990
observations on the status, whether dropout
or currently enrolled, of students who were in
the 8th grade in 1988. Late dropout was cal-
culated from the 1992 student-status vari-
able. Late dropouts included students who
were in school in the 8th and 10th grades but
dropped out by the 12th grade. Students
who were dropouts in the 10th grade were
excluded from the analyses of late dropout.
We analyzed early dropouts and late
dropouts separately for two reasons. First, as
students move through high school and
through adolescence, expectations about
their proper roles may change. Thus, they
may drop out for different reasons at different
points during high school, with younger stu-
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
dents more likely to leave school for discipli-
nary reasons and older students more likely to
do so because they are struggling with acad-
emics (Stearns and Glennie 2006). Further-
more, other research has shown a divergence
in the size and significance of various predic-
tors at various stages of dropping out
(Carbonaro 1998; Rumberger and Larson
1998; Swanson and Schneider 1999). Taken
together, these studies have suggested that
there are qualitative differences between the
processes of dropping out early and dropping
out late that would be obscured by our con-
sidering all dropouts together.
For the analyses of early dropout, all inde-
pendent variables were measured in the 8th
grade. For the analyses of late dropout, most
independent variables were measured in the
10th grade. When 10th-grade data were
unavailable, we used the 8th-grade measure.
The key variables of interest were race and
retention. Black was coded 1 if the student
self-identified as black, as opposed to white,
Latino, or Asian; Latino was coded 1 if the stu-
dent self-identified as Latino; and white was
coded 1 if the student self-identified as white.
Retention was coded 1 if the student was
retained at least once prior to the 8th grade.
In the NELS, students and parents were asked
whether the students had been retained dur-
ing elementary school. We used students’
self-reports of retention and filled in missing
cases with the reports from their parents.4
Since we were interested in determining why
retention is associated with dropout for black,
Latino, and white students, we combined
these two variables into black retained, Latino
retained, white retained, black promoted, and
Latino promoted. White promoted was the
excluded category.
We also controlled for two sociodemo-
graphic variables that are correlated with
selection into retention: SES and family struc-
ture. We measured SES with the NCES-pro-
vided variable that captures father’s and
mother’s education and occupation and fam-
ily income. The final demographic variable
was two-parent household, which is a dichoto-
mous variable indicating whether the student
lived in a household with two parents, at least
one of whom had to be a biological parent.
The analyses controlled for characteristics
Staying Back and Dropping Out
of the student’s school. Public indicates
whether the child was attending a public (1)
or private (0) school in the 8th and 10th
grades, and urban shows whether the child
was living in an urban area in the 8th and
10th grades. We also used control variables
that indicate in which area of the country the
child was living in the 8th and 10th grades,
since regional differences in dropout have
been shown to be persistent (McMillen and
Kaufman 1996).
Additional educational background vari-
ables that are correlated with retention were
also included in the analyses—scores on
achievement tests, educational aspirations,
and students’ misbehavior in school.
Achievement test scores are a composite of
math and reading scores from the 8th and
10th grades that were used to predict early
and late dropout, respectively. Educational
pessimism is a dichotomous variable measur-
ing whether the student thought that he or
she would graduate from high school (coded
0) or drop out of high school (coded 1), mea-
sured in the 8th and 10th grades. The ques-
tion was slightly different in the two waves.5
Because conduct is an important aspect
of students’ educational experience and has
been shown to predict significantly the prob-
ability of students dropping out of school, we
also measured how well behaved in school
students were in the 8th and 10th grades.
Factor loadings and variables6 that were used
in creating the factors are presented in
Appendix C.7
Other independent variables included
those that were generated from the frustra-
tion–self-esteem model, the participation-
identification model, and the social capital
model of dropping out. Self-concept is an
NCES-created composite of variables, includ-
ing “I feel good about myself” and “I’m a per-
son of worth, equal to others.”8 We also cre-
ated factor scores of students’ engagement
with academics and extracurricular activities
at their schools. We created the student-par-
ticipation and student-preparedness factors
from a principal-components analysis of the
index scores for (1) school attendance, (2)
class preparedness, (3) participation in gener-
al extracurricular activities, and (4) participa-
tion in academically oriented extracurricular
217
activities. The variables that make up these
indices are described in detail in Appendix B.
The principal- components analyses of the
8th-grade variables produced two factors that
explain 66 percent of the variation in these
variables. The first factor, students’ participa-
tion, represents students’ participation in
extracurricular activities. The second factor,
school preparedness, reflects students’ atten-
dance and preparedness for class. The princi-
ple-components analyses of the 10th-grade
variables produced two similar factors. These
two factors account for 58 percent of the vari-
ation in the 10th-grade variables
For social capital, we used measures of
bonds with parents, teachers, and peers. We
replicated Teachman et al.’s (1996) measures
of parent-school and parent-child connectivi-
ty. Briefly, Teachman et al. constructed five
index scores of parent-school and parent-
child involvement using the questions and
response categories shown in Appendix A.
The index scores were as follows: (1) the
child’s reports of parent-child interactions, (2)
the parent’s reports of parent-child interac-
tions, (3) the child’s reports of parent-school
interactions, (4) the parent’s reports of par-
ent-school interactions that involved contact-
ing the school, and (5) the parent’s reports of
parent-school interactions that involved
doing things at the school.
Teachman et al. (1996) then conducted a
principal-components factor analysis on these
five scale scores and found that the first two
index scores formed a factor of parent-child
interaction and the last three index scores
formed a factor of parent-school interaction.
We replicated their steps with the parent-
child and parent-school connectivity mea-
sures. We used the same measures of this vari-
able for the early-dropout and late-dropout
analyses because data on parents were not
collected in the 10th grade, and these data
account for a substantial part of the variable.
Students can also derive social capital
through relationships with teachers. Thus, fol-
lowing Croninger and Lee (2001), we created
a factor score of the following variables: “the
teaching is good,” “teachers praise my
efforts,” “teachers are interested in students,”
“teachers put down students” (reverse
coded), and “most of my teachers listen to
218
me.” High scores on this factor indicate that
the students were not well bonded with the
teachers.
The final variables measure aspects of peer
relations. Peer popularity is a dichotomous
variable coded 1 if the student reported that
peers saw him or her as “very” or “some-
what” popular and 0 if he or she was “not at
all” popular. School change was measured as
the number of times the student changed
schools prior to the eighth grade. Means and
standard deviations of all variables for the
early- and late-dropout analyses are present-
ed in Table 1.
Analytic Strategy
We used logistic regression to analyze the
dependent variables. Throughout the analy-
ses, we used nested models to examine the
moderating effects of our control variables on
the relationship between grade retention and
dropping out. We also used a Huber-White
estimation of variance that corrects standard
errors for correlation within clusters (STATA
Corporation 2003). In the early-dropout
logistic regression analyses, clusters are
defined as the student’s 8th-grade school,
and in the late-dropout analyses, clusters are
defined as the student’s 10th-grade school.
This correction produced robust standard
errors that account for the clustering of stu-
dents within schools.9
We also used regression decomposition to
examine the relationship between retention
and dropping out. Regression decomposition
allowed us to clarify sources of the gap in
uninterrupted high school education betwe-
en retained and continuously promoted stu-
dents. Here, an analogy can be drawn
between the issues of high school dropout or
success in school and earnings or success in
the labor market.10 In the labor market, peo-
ple convert their resources into valued goods,
much as students convert their resources into
valued goods in school. For example, people
who have higher levels of education typically
earn higher wages in the labor market, while
people with higher achievement scores in
school typically are more likely to earn high
school diplomas. Economists have developed
decomposition techniques to examine the
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
extent to which gaps in outcomes, such as
income, are due to gaps in resources between
two populations. Oaxaca (1974) and Blinder
(1976) developed this technique to examine
the extent to which the gender gap in earn-
ings, among others, was due to the different
resources that men and women bring to the
labor market.
Fairlie (1999, 2003) revised the Oaxaca-
Blinder technique to predict nonlinear out-
comes. To make these models more consis-
tent with the earnings analogy, we coded the
dependent variable so dropouts received a
value of 0 and students who had an uninter-
rupted high school education (without drop-
ping out) received a value of 1. In notational
format, the gap in the average value of the
dependent variable between promoted and
retained students can be written as

Np Nr

–p
Σ Σ
r ^ ^
Y –Y = F(XPi β R)– F(Xri β R) +
p R

Np
i=1 N i=1 N
N
p 
Σ Σ
^ ^
F(XPi β P) – F(XPi β R) ,
i=1 i=1
NR NR
where NP is the sample size for promoted stu-
dents; NR is the sample size for retained stu-
dents; and µR are the coefficient estimates for
retained students, associated with the inde-
pendent variables Xi. The first term in the
solution represents the part of the gap
between retained and promoted students
that results from group differences in the dis-
tributions of X. The second term reflects dif-
ferences in processes determining levels of Y
(i.e., the unexplained portion of the model).
We focus on the first term to explain how dif-
ferences in resources account for the gap in
uninterrupted high school education
between previously retained and continuous-
ly promoted students. The first term repre-
sents how much of the gap in the uninter-
rupted high school education between
retained and promoted students is due to dif-
ferences in resources when retained students
have the same distribution of resources (X) as
continuously promoted students. We
obtained the logistic regression decomposi-
tion results from STATA, using the FAIRLIE
command. These results are sensitive to the
ordering of independent variables (Fairlie
Staying Back and Dropping Out 219

Table 1. Weighted Means and Standard Deviations of the Independent Variables, by

Period: NELS: 88–92
Variables Early Dropout Analyses Late Dropout Analyses

Dropouts .05 .09

(.21) (.28)
Black retained .04 .03
(.19) (.18)
White retained .13 .12
(.34) (.32)
Latino retained .03 .02
(.16) (.14)
Black continuously promoted .08 .08
(.27) (.27)
Latino continuously promoted .07 .07
(.26) (.25)
Male .49 .50
(.50) (.50)
SES -.07 -.03
(.76) (.74)
Two-parent family .80 .81
(.40) (.39)
Public .88 .90
(.33) (.30)
Urban .24 .25
(.43) (.44)
Northeast .19 .19
(.39) (.39)
North Central .28 .29
(.45) (.45)
West .17 .16
(.38) (.37)
Educational pessimism .01 .06
(.10) (.24)
Achievement scores 51.17 51.29
(9.91) (9.79)
Misbehavior factor -.01 .01
(.99) (1.00)
Self-concept .01 .00
(.72) (.76)
Student participation factor -.01 .02
(.91) (.99)
Student preparedness factor .01 -.03
(.97) (.94)
Parent-school connectivity -.04 -.03
(.96) (.96)
Parent-student connectivity .00 .04
(.99) (.94)
Lack of bonds with teachers factor .07 .02
(.97) (1.00)
Popularity with peers .83 .84
(.38) (.37)
School changes 1.20 1.10
(1.51) (1.43)
N 13,356 12,343
220
2003). Thus, we examine alternative order-
ing. Most results are robust, and we discuss
the inconsistencies in the notes.
RESULTS
First, we examine differences in the resources
that retained and continuously promoted stu-
dents of various racial groups have. Table 2
shows that retained students are more likely
than are continuously promoted students to
drop out both early and late and that white
and Latino retained students are more likely
than are black retained students to drop out
early. Retained students also come from poor-
er households than do continuously promot-
ed students, with fewer hailing from house-
holds with two parents. It is not surprising
that retained students tend to have lower
achievement scores, to be more pessimistic
about their educational futures, and to have
more disciplinary problems. In addition,
white and Latino retained students have a
lower self-concept than do their same-race
continuously promoted counterparts, but
there is no difference in self-concept between
black retained and continuously promoted
students. Although black retained students
are less likely to participate in extracurricular
activities than are black continuously promot-
ed students, they are more likely to partici-
pate than are white and Latino continuously
promoted students. Finally, Table 2 shows dif-
ferences in the social capital resources that
are available to retained and continuously
promoted students, since continuously pro-
moted students of all racial groups have more
parent- and teacher-based social capital than
do their same-race counterparts and have
experienced fewer changes in schools.
Tables 3 and 4 present the results from
weighted multivariate logistic models predict-
ing dropping out of school early (see Table 3)
and late (see Table 4), with correction for
clustering within schools. Table 5 converts the
coefficients to odds ratios for selected inde-
pendent variables. In Table 3, Model 1 gives a
baseline for the relationship between the
probability of early dropout and retention sta-
tus. This model shows that all our comparison
groups are more likely than are white contin-
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
uously promoted students to drop out of
school early. Indeed, white retained students
are 25 times more likely, black retained stu-
dents are 15 times more likely, and Latino
retained students are 24 times more likely to
drop out early than are white continuously
promoted students (see Table 5).
Model 2 of Table 3 adds demographic and
contextual variables, including SES, sex, and
region, to the baseline model. Once these
demographic and contextual variables are
controlled for, black continuously promoted
students are not significantly different from
white continuously promoted students in
their probability of dropping out. At the same
time, however, black, Latino, and white
retained students are significantly more likely
to drop out of school early than are white
continuously promoted students, net of all
other variables.
Model 3 of Table 3 adds educational back-
ground variables to the previous model. This
set of variables taps into the notion that
retention is an early warning for students
whose academic achievement or behavior
does not meet school standards. Model 3
reveals differences in the expected direction
for students’ educational aspirations, achieve-
ment scores, and conduct. Yet differences in
educational background do not fully explain
the relationship between retention and drop-
ping out, since black, white, and Latino
retained students are all significantly more
likely than are white continuously promoted
students to drop out, although the magni-
tude of the coefficients is reduced.
Another model, the frustration–self-esteem
model, predicts that deficiencies in self-
esteem explain why students drop out. Thus,
Model 4 of Table 3 adds self-esteem to the
baseline and demographic-contextual mod-
els. Model 4 does not show the expected rela-
tionship between self-esteem and early-
dropout behavior. It also shows that black,
Latino, and white retained students are still
significantly more likely than are white con-
tinuously promoted students to drop out of
school early net of these demographic-con-
textual and self-esteem variables. In other
words, the frustration–self-esteem model
does not explain why retained students are
more likely to drop out.
Staying Back and Dropping Out 221

Table 2. Weighted Means and Standard Deviations of the Independent Variables, by Race and
Retention Status: NELS: 88–92

White Black Latino White Black Latino

Variables Retained Retained Retained Promoted Promoted Promoted

Early dropouts .19 .12 .19 .01 .05 .05

(.39) (.33) (.39) (.10) (.22) (.21)
Late dropoutsa .23 .22 .22 .06 .06 .10
(.42) (.41) (.42) (.23) (.23) (.29)
Male .63 .59 .49 .47 .39 .45
(.48) (.49) (.50) (.50) (.49) (.50)
SES -.28 -.59 -.84 .12 -.35 -.48
(.76) (.68) (.78) (.69) (.74) (.76)
Two-parent family .76 .47 .73 .86 .55 .80
(.42) (.50) (.44) (.35) (.50) (.40)
Public .94 .95 .92 .85 .90 .90
(.42) (.22) (.28) (.35) (.29) (.30)
Urban .17 .48 .39 .18 .48 .43
(.38) (.50) (.49) (.39) (.50) (.50)
Northeast .15 .16 .10 .21 .13 .13
(.36) (.36) (.30) (.41) (.34) (.33)
North Central .29 .20 .14 .33 .15 .12
(.45) (.40) (.35) (.47) (.36) (.32)
West .14 .02 .26 .16 .06 .46
(.35) (.15) (.44) (.37) (.25) (.50)
Educational pessimism .04 .01 .03 .00 .01 .02
(.19) (.10) (.16) (.06) (.10) (.12)
Achievement scores 45.21 41.21 43.28 54.20 46.89 47.73
(7.70) (5.75) (7.31) (9.50) (8.37) (8.34)
Misbehavior factor .48 .52 .27 -.16 .04 .01
(1.27) (1.22) (1.12) (.86) (.87) (1.01)
Self-concept -.08 .27 -.12 -.01 .26 .03
(.74) (.62) (.73) (.72) (.70) (.71)
Student participation factor -.21 .17 -.05 .00 .23 -.05
(.94) (1.09) (1.23) (.82) (1.07) (1.07)
Student preparedness factor -.30 -.27 -.35 .12 .06 -.15
(1.07) (1.04) (1.14) (.91) (.94) (1.05)
Parent-school connectivity -.19 -.10 -.21 .01 -.03 -.15
(.86) (.95) (.92) (.97) (1.03) (.97)
Parent-student connectivity -.25 -.35 -.47 .12 -.05 -.24
(1.12) (1.03) (1.38) (.88) (1.01) (1.23)
Lack of bonds with teachers factor .15 -.06 .00 .08 -.01 -.07
(1.03) (.95) (.96) (.96) (1.01) (.89)
Popularity with peers .82 .91 .73 .83 .85 .77
(.38) (.28) (.45) (.37) (.35) (.42)
School changes 1.93 1.63 1.57 .99 1.32 1.27
(1.79) (1.65) (1.52) (1.38) (1.46) (1.53)
N = 13,356 1,780 502 339 8,679 1,093 963

aThe late-dropout measure comes from the third NELS wave, reducing the N to 12,343. The N for
each respecitve category is as follows: 1,445, 425, 237, 8,371, 1,004, and 862.
222 Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick

Table 3. Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting Early School Dropout: NELS: 88–92 (n = 13,356)

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Black retained 2.69*** 1.77*** 1.26** 1.74*** 1.74*** 1.68*** 1.12**

(.30) (.39) (.43) (.36) (.38) (.36) (.36)
White retained 3.22*** 2.88*** 2.46*** 2.89*** 2.76*** 2.65*** 2.20***
(.22) (.25) (.32) (.25) (.25) (.23) (.28)
Latino retained 3.19*** 2.08*** 1.78*** 2.09*** 1.98*** 2.09*** 1.73***
(.24) (.35) (.37) (.35) (.36) (.34) (.36)
Black continously promoted 1.73*** .93 .70 .91 .99 .97 .67
(.48) (.59) (.59) (.57) (.59) (.54) (.48)
Latino continously promoted 1.61*** .77* .60 .76* .71 .86** .55
(.27) (.36) (.36) (.35) (.36) (.33) (.34)
Demographic and Contextual Variables
Male -.32 -.63** -.34 -.43 -.31 -.61*
(.21) (.23) (.23) (.22) (.20) (.25)
SES -1.00*** -.88** -1.01*** -.97*** -.87*** -.76**
(.25) (.28) (.24) (.26) (.23) (.22)
Two-parent family -.34 -.26 -.34 -.30 -.26 -.18
(.20) (.21) (.20) (.20) (.19) (.19)
Public 1.25*** 1.03** 1.25*** 1.15** 1.01** .70
(.35) (.38) (.35) (.37) (.38) (.40)
Urban .30 .23 .30 .24 .19 .12
(.24) (.26) (.23) (.24) (.24) (.24)
Northeast -.33 -.33 -.33 -.33 -.15 -.16
(.36) (.36) (.36) (.35) (.36) (.36)
North Central -.21 -.21 -.21 -.19 -.17 -.12
(.28) (.30) (.28) (.28) (.27) (.28)
West .07 .02 .08 .04 -.21 -.21
(.35) (.39) (.35) (.36) (.27) (.32)
Educational Background
Educational pessimism .60* .72*
(.30) (.31)
Achievement scores -.04* -.05**
(.02) (.02)
Misbehavior factor .44*** .39***
(.06) (.07)
Self-esteem
Self-concept .08 .04
(.18) (.16)
Participation-Identification Model
Student participation -.11 -.09
(.10) (.09)
Student preparedness -.42*** -.21**
(.06) (.08)
Social Capital Model
Parent-school connectivity -.16 -.28*
(.11) (.11)
Parent-student connectivity -.24** -.16*
(.07) (.07)
Lack of bonds with teachers -.08 -.28**
(.12) (.11)
Popularity with peers .59** .45*
(.19) (.19)
School changes .29*** .28***
(.06) (.06)
Constant -4.66*** -5.48*** -3.24* -5.47*** -5.42*** -6.27*** -3.53**
(.14) (.49) (1.34) (.48) (.50) (.55) (1.18)
-2 log likelihood -2078.59 -1900.40 -1786.31 -1899.60 -1846.21 -1800.22 -1674.42

*p < .05, **p < .01,***p < .001.

Staying Back and Dropping Out
Hypotheses from the participation-identifi-
cation model predict that students who are
more engaged with the social and/or acade-
mic aspects of schooling are less likely to drop
out of school and that the lack of engage-
ment accounts for retained students’ higher
probability of early dropout. The results for
this model are mixed (see Model 5 of Table
3). The findings show that students who are
academically engaged are significantly less
likely to drop out of school early, but the coef-
ficient for participation in extracurricular
activities is not significant. Once these vari-
ables are included, the relationship between
retention and dropping out remains for
white, black, and Latino retained students.
Therefore, the participation-identification
model does not fully explain the higher prob-
ability of dropout for retained students.
Thus, we must turn to other independent
variables to explain the link between reten-
tion and early dropout. Model 6 of Table 3
includes variables that measure social capital.
As we hypothesized, children whose parents
speak with them more often about school are
also less likely to drop out of school. In addi-
tion, we found that students who have
changed schools more frequently are more
likely to drop out, as are students with more
friends. This finding may be due to adoles-
cent popularity hierarchies that reward fac-
tors other than academic excellence
(Coleman 1961; Cusick 1973), but it should
be investigated further. Somewhat more puz-
zling, however, is the result that shows that
parent-school connectivity has no significant
impact on students’ probability of dropping
out early. Nonetheless, with the introduction
of these social capital variables, Latino, black,
and white retained students are still signifi-
cantly more likely to drop out of school than
are white continuously promoted students.
Thus, differences in social capital do not
explain away the link between retention and
dropping out.
Finally, Model 7 of Table 3 includes all the
potential explanatory variables together in
one model. Most notable for our purposes are
the results for retained students, all of whom
are still significantly more likely to drop out of
school early than are white continuously pro-
moted students, even net of all the other vari-
223
ables.11 The magnitude of the coefficient for
white retained students has decreased by 31
percent over its magnitude in the baseline
model, the magnitude for black retained stu-
dents has decreased by 58 percent, and the
magnitude for Latino retained students has
decreased by 46 percent, but the models that
are considered here do not entirely explain
the higher probability of early dropout for
retained students.
It is possible, however, that the process of
dropping out of school prior to completion of
the 10th grade is different from the process of
dropping out of school later. Thus, we con-
sider the relationship between late dropout,
or dropping out between the 10th and 12th
grades, and explanatory variables from the
10th grade in Table 4. We also expect to find
differences in the probabilities of dropping
out between the early- and late-dropout peri-
ods, given that retained students may be eli-
gible to drop out of school in earlier grades
than may continuously promoted students.
Our samples of retained students are tainted
a bit by selection in that retained students
have been exposed to the risk of dropping
out legally longer than have continuously
promoted students, since they reached the
states’ minimum dropout age at an earlier
grade.
Model 1 in Table 4 shows that, as with
early dropouts, there is a significant relation-
ship between retention and dropping out late
for Latino, white, and black students. Given
that they are still enrolled in school in the
10th grade, white retained and black retained
students are, respectively, 5.10 and 4.85
times more likely to drop out of school late
than are white continuously promoted stu-
dents, while Latino retained students are 4.95
times more likely to drop out of school (see
Table 5).
Model 2 of Table 4 adds demographic and
contextual variables to the baseline model.
Again, black, Latino, and white retained stu-
dents are significantly more likely to drop out
of school late than are white continuously
promoted students, results that hold up with
black continuously promoted and Latino con-
tinuously promoted used as the reference cat-
egories. As with the analyses that considered
early dropouts, adding the academic back-
224 Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick

Table 4. Logistic Regression Coefficients Predicting Late School Dropout: NELS: 88–92 (n = 12,343

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Black retained 1.58*** .99* .48 1.07* 1.06* 1.00* .59

(.38) (.50) (.51) (.50) (.49) (.46) (.44)
White retained 1.63*** 1.41*** 1.00*** 1.40*** 1.25*** 1.26*** .89***
(.14) (.14) (.15) (.14) (.14) (.14) (.15)
Latino retained 1.60*** .87*** .47 .85*** .78*** .87*** .50*
(.20) (.22) (.25) (.22) (.22) (.22) (.23)
Black continously promoted .06 -.50* -.71* -.42 -.45 -.39 -.56*
(.20) (.24) (.24) (.24) (.24) (.23) (.24)
Latino continously promoted .59*** -.02 -.19 -.02 -.10 .07 -.13
(.15) (.19) (.22) (.19) (.20) (.19) (.21)
Demographic and Contextual Variables
Male -.07 -.46*** -.02 -.22 -.11 -.45***
(.11) (.13) (.12) (.12) (.12) (.13)
SES -.75*** -.52*** -.74*** -.71*** -.69*** -.50***
(.09) (.09) (.09) (.09) (.09) (.10)
Two-parent family -.15 -.12 -.15 -.09 -.06 -.03
(.14) (.14) (.14) (.14) (.14) (.14)
Public .18 -.01 .18 .02 -.12 -.32
(.47) (.48) (.47) (.48) (.48) (.49)
Urban .12 .06 .14 .01 .06 -.07
(.20) (.20) (.20) (.19) (.19) (.19)
Northeast -.49* -.45* -.49* -.55* -.44* -.42
(.21) (.22) (.21) (.22) (.21) (.22)
North Central -.19 -.26 -.22 -.18 -.19 -.23
(.20) (.20) (.21) (.20) (.19) (.18)
West .11 .05 .10 -.03 .03 -.04
(.16) (.18) (.16) (.17) (.17) (.18)
Educational Background
Educational pessimism .71*** .64***
(.16) (.15)
Achievement scores -.04*** -.04***
(.01) (.01)
Misbehavior factor .56*** .44***
(.05) (.05)
Self-esteem
Self-concept -.25*** -.01
(.07) (.07)
Participation-Identification Model
Student participation -.52*** -.24***
(.05) (.06)
Student preparedness -.37*** -.27**
(.10) (.09)
Social Capital Model
Parent-school connectivity -.11 -.13
(.08) (.08)
Parent-student connectivity -.14* -.03
(.06) (.06)
Lack of bonds with teachers .36*** .10
(.06) (.06)
Popularity with peers .23 .19
(.14) (.15)
School changes .20*** .18***
(.04) (.04)
Constant -2.84*** -2.75*** -.44 -2.80*** -2.68*** -3.04*** -.94
(.09) (.51) (.58) (.50) (.50) (.51) (.55)
-2 log likelihood -3412.92 -3269.04 -2926.94 -3252.96 -3084.00 -3146.83 -2832.92

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Staying Back and Dropping Out
ground variables in Model 3 produces results
that are consistent with theory. White
retained students, however, continue to
demonstrate their higher probability of drop-
ping out late, but there are no longer signifi-
cant differences in the probability of late
dropout between black and Latino retained
students and white continuously promoted
students.
Model 4 of Table 4 adds self-esteem to the
baseline and demographic and contextual
models. Again, self-esteem marginally affects
the relationship between retention and drop-
ping out late, in that retained students of all
racial groups are still more likely than are con-
tinuously promoted white students to drop
out late. At the same time, the results of the
independent variables are consistent with the
predictions from the hypotheses, whereas
they were not consistent in the early-dropout
model. Including variables that are designed
to measure the participation-identification
model in Model 5 of Table 4 does not sub-
stantively change the relationship between
retention and dropping out for Latino, black,
and white students: With these other vari-
ables included, retained students are signifi-
cantly more likely than are white continuous-
ly promoted students to drop out. The fact
that black and Latino retained students show
significant differences in these models,
whereas they did not in the models that
included educational background and demo-
graphic and contextual differences, indicates
that these students may be disproportionate-
ly advantaged in terms of their self-esteem,
extracurricular participation, and class pre-
paredness.
The results in Model 6 of Table 4 from the
introduction of variables from the social capi-
tal model are also largely consistent with
those from the analyses of early dropouts,
with the exception that the lack of bonds
with teachers significantly predicts the proba-
bility of dropout for late dropouts, but peer
popularity does not. Model 7 includes all the
explanatory variables in the same model, pre-
dicting late dropout. In contrast to the early-
dropout model, once all variables are con-
trolled, black retained students are not signif-
icantly more likely to drop out than are white
continuously promoted students, but a signif-
225
icant difference between Latino and white
retained students and white continuously
promoted students remains, with white
retained students more than twice as likely to
drop out as white promoted students (see
Table 5).12
Decomposing Difference
In Tables 6 and 7, we further clarify the utility
of standard theories of dropout in explaining
the association between retention and high
school dropout among white, black, and
Latino students. These tables present esti-
mates from logistic regression decomposi-
tions that predict uninterrupted high school
education (the inverse of high school
dropout). They indicate, for different races,
the extent to which the gap in uninterrupted
high school education would be reduced if
retained students had the same distribution
of resources (as identified by the independent
variables) as continuously promoted stu-
dents. These tables clearly illustrate that
resources offer different benefits to students,
depending on the students’ race and timing
of dropout. The regression decompositions
are based on Model 7 in Tables 3 and 4; how-
ever, logistic regressions are conducted sepa-
rately for each race. The coefficients present-
ed in Tables 6 and 7 reflect the contributions
that groups of variables make to gaps in unin-
terrupted high school education between
retained and continuously promoted stu-
dents.
Table 613 shows that 99 percent of contin-
uously promoted white students attain an
uninterrupted high school education, or do
not drop out, by the 10th grade, compared
to 86 percent of previously retained white
students—a gap of 13 percentage points.
Similarly, 98 percent of continuously promot-
ed black students attain an uninterrupted
high school education by the 10th grade,
compared to 87 percent of retained stu-
dents—a gap of 11 percentage points. Finally,
97 percent of continuously promoted Latino
students attain an uninterrupted high school
education by the 10th grade compared to 82
percent of retained Latino students—a gap of
14.4 percentage points. All the included vari-
ables in the model explain 72 percent of the
Table 5. Odds Ratios for Predicting Early and Late School Dropout, NELS: 88–92
226

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Early School Dropout

Black retained 14.73 5.87 3.53 5.70 5.70 5.37 3.06
White retained 25.03 17.81 11.70 17.99 15.80 14.15 9.03
Latino retained 24.29 8.00 5.93 8.08 7.24 8.08 5.64
Black continously promoted 5.64 NS NS NS NS NS NS
Latino continously promoted 5.00 2.16 NS 2.14 NS 2.36 NS
N = 13,356

Late School Dropout

Black retained 4.85 2.69 NS 2.92 2.89 2.72 NS
White retained 5.10 4.10 2.72 4.06 3.49 3.53 2.44
Latino retained 4.95 2.39 NS 2.34 2.18 2.39 1.65
Black continously promoted NS 0.61 0.49 NS NS NS 0.57
Latino continously promoted 1.80 NS NS NS NS NS NS
N = 12,343

Note: Model 1, baseline; Model 2, demographic and control variables; Model 3, educational background; Model 4, self-esteem; Model 5, participa-
tion-identification; Model 6, social capital; Model 7, all included variables.
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
Staying Back and Dropping Out 227

gap in uninterrupted high school education
among white students (.09/.13), 51 percent
of the gap among black students (.06/.11),
and 50 percent of the gap among Latino stu-
dents (.07/.14). Thus, together, these theo-
ries are most effective at explaining early
dropout among white students.
The demographic and contextual control
variables account for 20 percent of the gap in
uninterrupted high school education
between white continuously promoted and
retained students (.03/.13), 15 percent of the
gap between black continuously promoted
and retained students, and 30 percent of the
gap between Latino continuously promoted
and retained students. In addition, group dif-
ferences in educational background account
for 37 percent of the gap in uninterrupted
high school education by the 10th grade
among white students, 30 percent of the gap
among black students, and 28 percent of the
gap among Latino students. Thus, if white
retained students had the same educational
background as white continuously promoted
students, the gap in uninterrupted high
school education would be reduced by 37
percent. An interesting finding is that
resources that are associated with the frustra-
tion–self-esteem and the participation-identi-
fication models do not significantly reduce
the gap in continuous high school promotion
regardless of race. In addition, the social cap-
ital model has a significant impact on the gap
in uninterrupted high school education for
white and Latino students, but the effects
diverge. When white retained students have

Table 6. Logistic Regression Decompositions of the Difference Between Retained and

Continuously Promoted Students in Uninterrupted High School Education Between the 8th
and 10th Grades, by Race

Variable White Black Latino

Uninterrupted education rate for promoted students .991 .981 .966

Uninterrupted education rate for retained students .861 .872 .822
Promoted/retained gap .130 .109 .144

Contributions from Differences in

Demographic and contextual variables .026*** .016* .044**
(.004) (.008) (.013)
20.2% 15.1% 30.2%

Educational background .048*** .033* .040**

(.007) (.013) (.013)
37.2% 30.4% 27.8%

Self-esteem .000 .001 -.001

(.001) (.001) (.005)
0.0% 0.6% -0.7%

Participation-identification model .005 .005 .011

(.003) (.007) (.008)
3.9% 4.6% 7.4%

Social capital model .014** .000 -.021*

(.004) (.005) (.009)
10.9% -0.4% -14.7%

All included variables .094 .056 .072

72.1% 51.2% 50.0%

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

228
the same levels of social capital as do white
continuously promoted students, 11 percent
of the gap in uninterrupted high school edu-
cation is explained. In contrast, when Latino
retained students have the same levels of
social capital as Latino continuously promot-
ed students, the gap in uninterrupted high
school education is larger (since the coeffi-
cient is negative, suggesting that differences
between the groups increase the gap). This
finding supports prior research that found
that Latinos do not benefit from social capital
in the same way as whites do (Ream 2003;
Valadez 2002).14
Table 7 presents similar results with unin-
terrupted high school education through the
12th grade as the dependent variable. It
shows that 96 percent of white continuously
promoted students who did not drop out by
the 10th grade continue through high school
uninterrupted, compared to 83 percent of
white retained students. Furthermore, 93 per-
cent of black continuously promoted students
continue through high school uninterrupted,
compared to 82 percent of black retained stu-
dents. Finally, 93 percent of Latino continu-
ously promoted students continue through
high school uninterrupted, compared to 78
percent of Latino retained students. Thus, the
gaps between retained and continuously pro-
moted students in uninterrupted high school
education are 13 percentage points for white
students, 11 percentage points for black stu-
dents, and 16 percentage points for Latino
students.
All the variables in the models account for
69 percent of the gap among white students
and 58 percent of the gap among black stu-
dents, but only 42 percent of the gap among
Latino students. Demographic and contextu-
al background variables significantly explain
the gap for white and Latino students, but
not for black students. In addition, educa-
tional background is a significant predictor of
the gap in uninterrupted education for white
and, most notably, for black students. Indeed,
group differences in educational background
explain 61 percent of the gap in uninterrupt-
ed high school education between continu-
ously promoted and retained black students.
Differences in educational background
explain 35 percent of the gap among white
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
students. Variables that are associated with
the participation-identification model are sig-
nificant only for white students, indicating
that if white retained students had the same
levels of participation in school and prepared-
ness for school as do white continuously pro-
moted students, the gap in uninterrupted
high school education would be 10 percent
smaller. This finding supports Eitle’s (2005)
contention that white students disproportion-
ately benefit from participation in school, par-
ticularly in extracurricular activities. Self-
esteem and social capital are not significant in
any of these models.15
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
High school students face the cumulative
impact of their prior experiences in elemen-
tary and middle school. In this article, we
attempted to answer several overlooked
questions centering on the larger question of
why retained students are more likely than
are continuously promoted students to drop
out of high school. We asked how well-estab-
lished models of dropping out explain
retained students’ heightened probability of
dropping out; whether these models explain
dropping out equally well for Latino, white,
and black retained students; and whether
these models explain both early and late
dropout among retained students. What is
clear from our results is the following:
Retention predicts both early and late
dropout for white, black, and Latino students,
even net of differences in resources and con-
trols for sociodemographic and educational
background. But these differences in
resources affect the gap in the probability of
dropping out between retained and continu-
ously promoted students differently for stu-
dents of different racial groups. On the
whole, the models explain both early and late
dropout equally well. Next, we briefly sum-
marize our results and propose other variables
that may cause the relationships we observe.
We conclude with policy recommendations
that follow from our work.
To explain why retained students are more
likely to drop out of school than are continu-
ously promoted students, we turned to sever-
Staying Back and Dropping Out 229

Table 7. Logistic Regression Decompositions of the Difference Between Retained and

Continuously Promoted Students in Uninterrupted High School Education Between the 10th
and 12th Grades, by Race

Variable White Black Latino

Uninterrupted education rate for promoted students .959 .930 .932

Uninterrupted education rate for retained students .828 .816 .773
Promoted/retained gap .131 .114 .159

Contributions from Differences in

Demographic and contextual variables .023*** .014 .035*
(.005) (.010) (.013)
17.3% 12.1% 21.6%

Educational background .046*** .070** .037

(.008) (.021) (.022)
35.3% 61.3% 23.5%

Self-esteem .000 -.003 -.005

(.000) (.006) (.005)
0.2% -2.8% -2.9%

Participation-identification model .013*** .002 .001

(.003) (.005) (.005)
9.9% 2.1% 0.4%

Social capital model .009 -.016 -.002

(.005) (.010) (.010)
6.8% -14.3% -1.3%

All included variables .090 .067 .067

69.0% 58.4% 42.2%

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

al established models of dropping out. Then,
we explained why these models may be par-
ticularly appropriate to the case of retained
students. These explanations include differ-
ences in resources in academic achievement
and disciplinary problems, self-esteem,
engagement with schooling, and social capi-
tal. We found that these differences account
for a large portion of the probability of high-
er dropout among all retained students.
Specifically, the magnitude of the difference
in the probability of dropout between
retained and continuously promoted students
declined with the introduction of variables
measuring students’ academic background,
engagement with school, and social capital.
Differences in resources do not, however,
fully explain racially specific links between
retention and dropping out. We turned there-
fore to regression decomposition techniques
to determine how much of the greater prob-
ability of dropout among retained students is
due to these students’ relatively lower levels
of resources. The dropout models that we
tested performed markedly better in explain-
ing white retained students’ dropout behav-
ior than that of black and Latino students. In
the analyses of early dropout, demographic
and contextual variables, as well as educa-
tional background, stand out as important for
whites, blacks, and Latinos. There are several
divergences in the importance of social capi-
tal, however. For white students, it appears
that retained students are harmed by their
relative lack of social capital, but the results
suggest no such effect for black students. For
230
Latino students, the relationship appears to
work in the opposite direction, with social
capital disproportionately advantaging Latino
retained students over their continuously pro-
moted counterparts.
In the analyses of late dropout, demo-
graphic and contextual variables partially
explain the gap between retained and con-
tinuously promoted students for whites and
Latinos. For white students and black stu-
dents, achievement scores, educational pes-
simism, and disciplinary behavior significantly
contribute to the gap between retained and
continuously promoted students. In addition,
the lack of engagement for white students
appears to contribute to the gap in the prob-
ability of dropout. For black students, only
academic background significantly explains
the gap between retained and continuously
promoted students. For Latino students, only
demographic and contextual variables do so.
Why might we find these racial differ-
ences? The discussion of the racialization of
school processes by Blau and her colleagues
(see Blau 2003; Blau, Moller, and Jones 2004;
Moller et al. 2006) points to a possible expla-
nation. Blau (2003) argued that white stu-
dents’ experiences with schooling and with
schools’ organizational decisions differ from
those of blacks. She attributed this racial dif-
ference to subtle psychological and commu-
nity responses to these decisions: The black
community places less emphasis on these
decisions because they are perceived to
reflect a legacy of discrimination. More devot-
ed to inclusive norms, the black community
emphasizes talent in a diverse array of dimen-
sions, rather than in a single dimension of
academic ability, often measured by retention
decisions. Thus, as Tables 6 and 7 showed,
differences in self-esteem, school engage-
ment, and social capital do not significantly
explain the gap in the probability of dropout
for black retained and continuously promoted
students. One interpretation of this finding is
that the retention decision marks black stu-
dents as less different than it does retained
students of other racial/ethnic groups, partic-
ularly whites. Other findings in Table 7 sup-
port this interpretation. Although black
retained students dropped out at higher
rates, the majority of this dropout behavior
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
was due to the fact that they had education-
al backgrounds that would have contributed
to their dropout behavior, regardless of reten-
tion. The larger point is that the meaning of
retention is different and thus that its poten-
tial impact is somewhat lessened for black
students.
In contrast, Blau (2003) argued that the
white community believes that the signals
that retention decisions are sending are accu-
rate, and the children act accordingly. Thus,
for white students, the labels of success and
failure are viewed in stark terms that are
reflective of individual ability, motivation, and
effort, and the labels are considered valid, sta-
ble indicators of individual worth. In the case
of retention, the label also disadvantages stu-
dents who have preexisting differences in
resources and may impede their ability to
form positive relationships with their families,
friends, and teachers. Thus, we found that
white continuously promoted students are
more engaged with school, have more posi-
tive bonds with teachers during postelemen-
tary education, and are more popular with
their peers in the postelementary years, and
their parents more frequently interact with
them and with their schools about academic
matters. All these differences significantly
explain why white retained students are more
likely to drop out than are white continuous-
ly promoted students, in both the early and
late periods.
Although Blau’s (2003) theory does not
address how the culture of Latino students
may serve as a protective force in the way
that black culture may do for black students,
our results suggest this possibility. In addition,
the fact that the standard theories of dropout
explain the gap between retained and con-
tinuously promoted students better for whites
than for blacks and Latinos indicates the need
to refine these theories and to develop others
that are more racially and ethnically specific.
Further research, perhaps of a qualitative
nature, is needed to explore the exact
processes through which grade retention
affects whites, blacks, and Latinos in the
increasingly diverse school-aged population
and to determine the extent to which reten-
tion changes trajectories.
One other potential explanation for the
Staying Back and Dropping Out
racial differences that we uncovered is not
mutually exclusive with the first. Whites,
Latinos, and blacks attend high schools of
widely varying quality, on average (Duncan
and Brooks-Gunn 1997; Mickelson 2003;
Orfield and Lee 2005). It is possible that
school-level variables, such as the percentage
of the student body in poverty or the per-
centage of the student body that has been
retained, are moderating the effects of reten-
tion on dropping out. In fact, there is ample
evidence that school-level variables have a
significant impact on students’ dropout
behavior (see, e.g., Lee and Burkam 2003),
attachment to school (Ma 2003), and
engagement with school (Johnson, Crosnoe,
and Elder 2001). Additional research is neces-
sary, however, to examine the relationship
between school climate and engagement,
particularly for children who are retained.
Future investigations should expand Lee and
Smith’s (1995) work on school engagement
and discuss whether the reform strategies
that Lee and Smith found increased students’
engagement are equally effective for retained
and promoted students.
There is also the possibility, however, that
there are other individual-level differences
between retained and continuously promot-
ed students that we did not measure, such as
friendship with peers who are oriented to
school success. It is also possible that there
are aspects of engagement with schooling
that our measures did not adequately cap-
ture. Furthermore, the possibility of gender
differences in the link between retention and
dropping out remains to be investigated.
Our third research question focused on the
potential differences in dropout behavior
between the early and late periods. We sug-
gested that examining both dropout periods
was necessary because considering all
dropouts together would obscure qualitative
differences in the early- and late-dropout
processes. Our results, however, do not
diverge widely between the two periods, sug-
gesting that the predictors of dropping out
late are more similar to the predictors of
dropping out early than they are dissimilar. It
is also possible, however, that a greater tem-
poral matching of our independent and
dependent variables would reveal additional
231
differences between early and late dropout.
For example, because of data limitations, the
predictors of early dropout originated in the
eighth-grade survey, which was when the stu-
dents were enrolled in middle or junior high
schools. Indeed, many of the early dropouts
drop out from high school, a school context
in which the students’ bonds with middle
school teachers and their parents’ interaction
with middle school is less important than
their bonds with high school teachers and
their parents’ interaction with the high
school.
In sum, our results suggest that differences
in SES, school sector, academic achievement,
aspirations, behavior, self-esteem, engage-
ment with schooling, and social capital partly
explain why retained students are more likely
to drop out of school than are continuously
promoted students. Therefore, our results
point to the particular attention that schools
that are interested in minimizing their
dropout rates should give to retained stu-
dents. Besides their lower achievement rates
and more disciplinary problems, retained stu-
dents have lower self-esteem, are more pes-
simistic about their future, are less engaged
with school, and have fewer bonds with
teachers than do continuously promoted stu-
dents. Alternatives to retention, including
summer schools and academies that keep
children with their same-age peers while
ensuring that they gain mastery of the acad-
emic content and skills that had previously
caused them difficulty, can be attractive. In
addition, schools should also consider attack-
ing the mediating factors that partially
explain why retained students drop out. Both
research and policy efforts should focus on
how schools facilitate students’ engagement
with academics and with the social arena. It is
only with this knowledge that schools will be
able to reach out to some of the most at-risk
students.
NOTES
1. It is important to note that a debate
continues over the extent to which retention
is disadvantageous for students’ later achieve-
ment (see, e.g., Alexander et al. 2003;
232
Jimerson 1999; Shepard, Smith, and Marion
1996, 1998).
2. It is also possible that the causality works
in the opposite direction and that those who
have a low level of social capital are more like-
ly to be retained than are others.
3. Peers may serve as a form of social cap-
ital, but these ties may not always be orient-
ed to the student’s future achievement.
Unfortunately, these different types of peer-
based social capital are not those that we can
parse out with the NELS data, since we do not
have information on the grade point averages
of the peers.
4. Researchers have also found that the
timing of retention is an important compo-
nent of dropping out (Alexander et al. 2003).
Because of small subsamples when consider-
ing the timing of retention in conjunction
with race, we were unable to examine the
timing of retention. For example, in the early
dropout sample, about 60 black students
were retained early, and about 10 of these
students dropped out. These subsamples
were even smaller in the late dropout sample,
making it difficult for us to understand how
each of our resources affects the probability
of students dropping out.
5. The question for the 8th-grade wave
was, “How far in school do you think you will
get?” The options were won’t finish high
school, will finish high school, vocational/
trade/business school, will attend college, will
finish college, and higher school after college.
For the 10th-grade wave, the question was
“Think about how you see your future. What
are the chances you will graduate from high
school?” The options were very low, low,
about 50–50, high, and very high.
6. All factor variables in the analyses were
created through principal-components analy-
ses. We allowed factors to be correlated
through promax rotation. To ensure that we
adequately fit the data, we permitted the
principal-component analyses to create all
factors with eigenvalues higher than 1. In
each model, the number of factors that were
created corresponded with our expectations.
We included all cases with data that were
available for at least two variables included in
each factor. For cases with some missing data,
we used STATA’s impute command to impute
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
the factor scores for missing cases. We tested
our results against variables with listwise dele-
tion of missing cases and found similar
results.
7. The original subsample of black, Latino,
and white cases included 22,509 students.
Many of these cases did not participate in the
second wave, which was needed for the
analysis of early dropout, or in the third wave,
which was needed for the analysis of late
dropout. We deleted cases that did not par-
ticipate in the first two waves for the early-
dropout data set, leaving 16,043 cases. For
the late-dropout data set, we deleted cases
that did not participate in all three waves,
leaving 15,201 cases. After selecting cases
with data available for at least two variables in
each factor, we lost 856 cases for the early-
dropout data set and 650 for the late-
dropout data set. Finally, we performed a list-
wise deletion of variables, for final samples of
13,356 for early dropout and 12,343 for late
dropout. To check for potential sample bias,
we compared our final weighted samples to
the weighted samples of the full data set.
Owing to missing cases on the weight vari-
able, the full data set included individuals
who participated in the first two waves for
early dropout and all three waves for late
dropout. The final samples had a similar
dropout rate, in comparison to the original
subsample of black, white, and Latino stu-
dents. We found some significant differences
between the means of our independent vari-
ables in the unweighted original data set
compared to our unweighted subsample.
Our sample had a lower retention rate for
Latinos (at 3 compared to 4), a lower promo-
tion rate of blacks (at 8 compared to 9), and
a lower promotion rate for Latinos (at 7 com-
pared to 10). Our sample was also biased
toward two-parent families (80 versus 78),
public schools (88 versus 79), nonurban
regions (24 versus 30), and North Central
states (28 versus 25). Students in our sample
had less educational pessimism (1.0 versus
1.4) and higher standardized test scores (51.2
versus 50.6). For our factor variables, our stu-
dents scored lower on school trouble and par-
ent-school connectivity but higher on stu-
dents’ preparation. Our students also had
fewer bonds with their teachers than did
Staying Back and Dropping Out
those in the full sample. Last, our students
changed schools fewer times than did those
in the overall sample (1.2 versus 1.3).
8. Other questions included, “I’m able to
do things as well as others”; “on the whole,
I’m satisfied with myself”; “I certainly feel use-
less at times” (reverse coded); “at times I
think I am no good at all” (reverse coded);
and “I feel I do not have much to be proud
of” (reverse coded).
9. In the early-dropout sample, students
were clustered in 957 schools. There were 14
students, on average, per school. This cluster-
ing necessitated the calculation of robust
standard errors.
10. Many thanks to Karl Alexander for
pointing this analogy out to us.
11. These results were largely consistent
regardless of the racial identification of the
“continuously promoted group” used as the
reference category, with one notable excep-
tion. When black continuously promoted stu-
dents were used as the reference category,
white and Latino retained students were sig-
nificantly more likely to drop out early, as they
were when Latino continuously promoted
students were used as the reference category.
But black retained students were significantly
different only from white continuously pro-
233
moted students, not from Latino continuous-
ly promoted or black continuously promoted
students.
12. These results largely hold up with black
continuously promoted and Latino continu-
ously promoted used as the reference cate-
gories. The exception is that black retained
students are significantly more likely to drop
out than are black continuously promoted
students, net of all other variables. For this
reason, we proceeded with the regression
decomposition for blacks, as well as for
Latinos and whites.
13. The mean differences between the
retained and promoted students in Table 2
compared to those reported in Tables 6 and 7
are due to weighting effects.
14. This result is not robust to the ordering
of variables. All the remaining results present-
ed in Table 6 are robust to the ordering of
variables, except that the demographic and
contextual control variables for black students
become nonsignificant when the variables are
reordered.
15. All the significant results presented in
Table 7 are robust to the ordering of vari-
ables. When the variables are reordered,
social capital becomes significant for white
students.
234 Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick

APPENDIX A

Variables Used in Parent-School and Parent-Child Connectivity

Measures: National Education Longitudinal Study 1988–92

Parent-Child Interaction
Child’s Reports
Since the beginning of the school year, how often have you discussed the following with
either or both of your parents and/or guardian?
1. Selecting courses or programs at school
2. School activities or events of particular interest to the student
3. Things the child studied in class
4. and 5. School program (separate for father and mother)
Response options: 0 = not at all, 1 = once or twice or three or more times

Parent’s Reports
1. How often do you or your spouse/partner talk with your eighth grader about his or
her experiences with school?
2. How often do you or your spouse/partner talk with your eighth grader about his or
her plans for high school?
3. How often do you or your spouse/partner talk with your eighth grader about his or
her plans for after high school?
Response options: 0 = not at all or rarely, 1 = occasionally or regularly

Parent-School Interaction
Parent's Reports of Contacting School
Since your eighth grader's school opened last fall, how many times have you or your
spouse/partner contacted the school about each of the following?
1. The child's academic performance
2. The child's academic program for the year
3. The child's behavior in school
4. The parent participating in school fund-raising activities
5. The parent providing information for school records
6. The parent volunteering at school
Response options: 0 = none; 1 = once or twice, 3–4 times, or > 4 times
Parent’s Reports of School Activities
Do you or your spouse do any of the following at your eighth grader's school?
1. Belong to a parent/teacher organization
2. Attend meetings of a parent/teacher organization
3. Take part in activities of a parent/teacher organization
4. Act as a volunteer at the school
Response options: 0 = No, 1 = Yes
Child's Reports of Parent-School Interaction
Since the beginning of the school year, has either of your parents or guardians
1. Attended a school meeting
2. Phoned to speak to a teacher or counselor
3. Visited classes
4. Attended a school event
Response options: 0 = No, 1 = Yes
Staying Back and Dropping Out 235

APPENDIX B

Variables Used in the Student Academic and Extracurricular

Engagement Measures: National Education Longitudinal Study
1988–92

Student’s Academic Engagement

School Attendance
How many days of school did you miss over the past four weeks?
How often do you cut or skip classes?
How many times were you late for school over the past four weeks?
Response options: 0 = at least sometimes; 1 = none, never, or rarely
Class Preparedness
How often do you come to class and find yourself WITHOUT these things?
1. Pencil and paper
2. Books
3. Homework
Response options: 0 = usually, often, or seldom; 1 = never

Student’s Extracurricular Engagement

Extracurricular Activity
Have you or will you participate in any of the following activities during the current
school year, either as a member or as an officer?
1. School varsity sports 7. Debate or speech club
2. Intramural sports 8. Drama club
3. Cheerleading 9. Student newspaper
4. Band or orchestra 10. Student yearbook
5. Chorus or choir 11. Student council
6. Dance club
Response options: 0 = No, 1 = Yes
Academically Oriented Extracurricular Activities
Have you or will you participate in any of the following activities during the current
school year, either as a member or as an officer?
1. Science fair
2. History club
3. Science club
4. Math club
5. Foreign language club
6. Other subject matter club
7. Academic Honors Society
8. Computer club
Response options: 0 = No, 1 = Yes
236 Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick

APPENDIX C

Factor Loading Summary

Factor Early Dropout Late Dropout

Misbehavior .55 .47

Sent to office for misbehaving .84 —
Parents warned about attendance .55 .57
Parents warned about behavior .83 .62
Fought with another student .71 .77
Number of times in trouble — .76

Parent-School Connectivity .33 .33

Student's report of parent-child interaction -.12 -.12
Parent's rreport of parent-child interaction .10 .10
Student's report of parent-school interaction .44 .44
Parent's report of contacting the school .82 .82
Parent's involvement in school organizations/activities .77 .77

Parent-Child Connectivity .20 .20

Student's report of parent-child interaction .86 .86
Parent's report of parent-child interaction .66 .66
Student's report of parent-school interaction .12 .12
Parent's report of contacting the school -.11 -.11
Parent's involvement in school organizations/activities .01 .01

Student’s Participation .37 .33

School attendance .01 .04
Class preparedness -.01 -.04
General extracurricular participation .85 .80
Academically oriented extracurricular participation .85 .76

Student’s Preparedness .30 .26

School attendance .78 .75
Class preparedness .78 .78
General extracurricular participation .01 -.06
Academically oriented extracurricular participation -.01 .06

Lack of Bond with Teacher .53 .52

Teachers put down students (reverse coded) .54 .61
Teaching is good .76 .72
Teachers are interested in students .81 .80
Teachers praise My efforts .73 .69
Most of my teachers listen to me .77 .75

N 15,187 14,551
Staying Back and Dropping Out
REFERENCES
Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Susan L.
Dauber. 2003. On the Success of Failure: A
Reassessment of the Effects of Retention in the
Primary Grades (2nd ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Carrie
Horsey. 1997. “From First Grade Forward:
Early Foundations of High School Dropout.”
Sociology of Education 20:87–107.
Bankston, Carl L., and Min Zhou. 2002. “Being
Well vs. Doing Well: Self-esteem and School
Performance Among Immigrant and
Nonimmigrant Racial and Ethnic Groups.”
International Migration Review 36:389–415.
Blau, Judith R. 2003. Race in the Schools:
Perpetuating White Dominance? Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Press.
Blau, Judith R., Stephanie Moller, and Lyle V. Jones.
2004. “Talent Loss and Enrollment Loss: Why
Test?” Social Science Research 33:409–34.
Blinder, Alan S. 1976. “On Dogmatism in Human
Capital Theory.” Journal of Human Resources
11:8–22.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and
Racism. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
Brown, Randall, and William P. Evans. 2002.
“Extracurricular Activity and Ethnicity:
Creating Greater School Connection Among
Diverse Student Populations.” Urban
Education 37:41–58.
Byrnes, Deborah A. 1989. “Attitudes of Students,
Parents, and Educators Toward Repeating a
Grade.” Pp. 108–31 in Flunking Grades:
Research and Policies on Retention, edited by
Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith.
London: Falmer Press.
Carbonaro, William J. 1998. “A Little Help from My
Friend’s Parents: Intergenerational Closure
and Educational Outcomes.” American
Sociological Review 71:295–313.
Coleman, James. 1961. The Adolescent Society: The
Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact on
Education. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Croninger, Robert G., and Valerie E. Lee. 2001.
“Social Capital and Dropping Out of High
School: Benefits to At-Risk Students of
Teachers’ Support and Guidance.” Teachers
College Record 103:548–81.
Crosnoe, Robert, Monica K. Johnson, and Glen H.
Elder. 2004. “Intergenerational Bonding in
School: The Behavioral and Contextual
Correlates of Student-Teacher Relationships.”
Sociology of Education 77:60–81.
Crowder, Kyle, and Scott J. South. 2003.
“Neighborhood Distress and School Dropout:
237
The Variable Significance of Community
Context.” Social Science Research 32:659–98.
Cusick, Philip. 1973. Inside High School: The
Student’s World. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Dauber, Susan L., Karl L. Alexander, and Doris R.
Entwisle. 1993. “Characteristics of Retainees
and Early Precursors of Retention in Grade:
Who Is Held Back?” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly
39:326–43.
Davalos, Deana B., Ernest L. Chavez, and Robert J.
Guardiola. 1999. “The Effects of Extracurricular
Activity, Ethnic Identification, and Perception of
School on Student Dropout Rates.” Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences 21:61–77.
Dennebaum, Joanne M., and Janet M. Kulberg.
1994. “Kindergarten Retention and Transition
Classrooms: Their Relationship to Achieve-
ment.” Psychology in Schools 31:5–12.
Duncan, Greg J., and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1997.
The Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Eitle, Tamela M. 2005. “Do Gender and Race
Matter? Explaining the Relationship Between
Sports Participation and Achievement.”
Sociological Spectrum 25:177–95.
Eitle, Tamela M., and David J. Eitle. 2002. “Race,
Cultural Capital, and the Educational Effects of
Participation in Sports.” Sociology of Education
75:123–46.
Faircloth, Beverly S., and Jill V. Hamm. 2005.
“Sense of Belonging Among High School
Students Representing 4 Ethnic Groups.”
Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34:293–309.
Fairlie, Robert W. 1999. “The Absence of the
African-American Owned Business: An
Analysis of the Dynamics of Self-employ-
ment.” Journal of Labor Economics 17:80-108.
—. 2003. “An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca
Decomposition Technique to Logit and Probit
Models” (Discussion Paper No. 873). New
Haven, CT: Economic Growth Center, Yale
University. Available online at http://ssrn.com/
abstract=497302
Finn, Jeremy D. 1989. “Withdrawing from School.”
Review of Educational Research 59:117–42.
Gottfredson, Denise C., Carolyn M. Fink, and
Nanette Graham. 1994. “Grade Retention and
Problem Behavior.” American Educational
Research Journal 31:761–84.
Guo, Guang, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Kathleen
M. Harris. 1996. “Parents’ Labor Force
Attachment and Grade Retention among
Urban Black Children.” Sociology of Education
69:217–36.
Hallinan, Maureen T. 2000. “On the Linkages
Between Sociology of Race and Ethnicity and
238
Sociology of Education.” Pp. 65–84 in
Handbook of the Sociology of Education, edited
by Maureen Hallinan. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Hauser, Robert M. 1999. “Should We End Social
Promotion? Truth and Consequences”
(Working Paper No. 99-06). Madison: Center
for Demography and Ecology, University of
Wisconsin. Available online at http://www.ssc.
wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-06.pdf
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holmes, C. Thomas, and Kenneth M. Matthews.
1984. “The Effects of Non-promotion on
Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A
Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research
54:225–36.
Janosz, Michel, Marc LeBlanc, Bernard Boulerice,
and Richard E. Tremblay. 1997. “Disentan-
gling the Weight of School Dropout
Predictors: A Test on Two Longitudinal
Samples.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence
26:733–62.
Jimerson, Shane. 1999. “On the Failure of Failure:
Examining the Relationship Between Early
Grade Retention and Education and
Employment Outcomes During Late
Adolescence.” Journal of School Psychology
37:243–72.
Jimerson, Shane, Gabrielle E. Anderson, and Angela
D. Whipple. 2002. “Winning the Battle and
Losing the War: Examining the Relation
Between Grade Retention and Dropping Out
of High School.” Psychology in the Schools
39:441–57.
Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick, Robert Crosnoe, and
Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2001. “Students’ Attachment
and Academic Engagement: The Role of Race
and Ethnicity.” Sociology of Education
74:318–40.
Kaplan, Diane S., B. Mitchell Peck, and Howard B.
Kaplan. 1997. “Decomposing the Academic
Failure-Dropout Relationship: A Longitudinal
Analysis.” Journal of Educational Research
90:331–43.
Lee, Valerie E., and David T. Burkam. 1992.
“Transferring High Schools: An Alternative to
Dropping Out?” American Journal of Education
100:420–53.
—. 2003. “Dropping Out of High School: The Role
of School Organization and Structure.”
American Educational Research Journal
40:353–93.
Lee, Valerie E., and Julia B. Smith. 1995. “Effects of
High School Restructuring and Size on Early
Gains in Achievement and Engagement.”
Sociology of Education 68:241–70.
Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick
Ma, Xin. 2003. “Sense of Belonging to School: Can
Schools Make a Difference?” Journal of
Educational Research 96:340–49.
Mahoney, Joseph L., and Robert B. Cairns. 1997.
“Do Extracurricular Activities Protect Against
Early School Dropout?” Developmental
Psychology 33:241–53.
McCoy, Ann R., and Arthur J. Reynolds. 1999.
“Grade Retention and School Performance:
An Extended Investigation.” Journal of School
Psychology 37:273–98.
McMillen, Marilyn M., and Phillip Kaufman. 1996.
Dropout Rates in the United States: 1994 (NCES
96-863). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
McNeal, Ralph B., Jr. 1995. “Extracurricular
Activities and High School Dropouts.”
Sociology of Education 68:62–77.
—. 1999. “Parental Involvement as Social Capital:
Differential Effectiveness on Science
Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out.”
Social Forces 78:117–44.
Mickelson, Roslyn. 2003. “When Are Racial
Disparities in Education the Result of Racial
Discrimination? A Social Science Perspective.”
Teachers’ College Record 105:1080–14.
Moller, Stephanie, Elizabeth Stearns, Judith R. Blau,
and Kenneth C. Land. 2006. “Smooth and
Rough Roads to Academic Achievement:
Retention and Race/Class Disparities in High
School.” Social Science Research 35:157–80.
Newmann, Fred M. 1991. “Student Engagement
in Academic Work: Expanding the Perspective
on Secondary School Effectiveness.” Pp.
58–75 in Rethinking Effective Schools: Research
and Practice, edited by James R. Bliss, William
A. Firestone, and Craig E. Richards.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oaxaca, Ronald. 1974. “Sex Discrimination in
Wages.” Pp. 125–51 in Discrimination in Labor
Markets, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and
Albert Rees. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Ogbu, John U. 1978. Minority Education and Caste:
The American System in Cross-Cultural
Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Orfield, Gary, and Chungmei Lee. 2005. “Why
Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational
Inequality.” Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights
Project, Harvard University. Available online at
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/res
earch/deseg/Why_Segreg_Matters.pdf
Owings, William A., and Susan Magliaro. 1998.
“Grade Retention: A History of Failure.”
Educational Leadership 56:86–88.
Pallas, Aaron M., Doris R. Entwisle, Karl L.
Alexander, and Peter Weinstein. 1990. “Social
Staying Back and Dropping Out
Structure and the Development of Self-esteem
in Young Children.” Social Psychology
Quarterly 53:302–15.
Phelps, LeAdelle, Nancy Dowdell, Frank G. Rizzo,
Peni Ehrlich, and Felicia Wilezenski. 1992.
“Five to Ten Years After Placement: The Long-
Term Efficacy of Retention and Pre-grade
Transition.” Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment 10:116–23.
Randolph, Karen, Roderick Rose, Mark Fraser, and
Dennis Orthner. 2004. “Promoting School
Success Among At-Risk Youth.” Journal of
Poverty 8:1–22.
Ream, Robert K. 2003. “Counterfeit Social Capital
and Mexican-American Underachievement.”
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
25:237–62.
“Repeating a Grade: Does It Help?” 1986. Harvard
Education Letter 2:1–4.
Roderick, Melissa. 1994. “Grade Retention and
School Dropout: Investigating the Association.”
American Educational Research Journal
31:729–59.
Rodney, Laxley W., Betty Crafter, H. Elaine Rodney,
and Robert Mupier. 1999. “Variables
Contributing to Grade Retention among
African American Adolescent Males.” Journal
of Educational Research 92:185–90.
Rumberger, Russell. 1995. “Dropping Out of
Middle School: A Multilevel Analysis of
Students and Schools.” American Educational
Research Journal 32:583–625.
Rumberger, Russell W., and Katherine A. Larson.
1998. “Student Mobility and the Increased
Risk of High School Dropout.” American
Journal of Education 107:1–35.
Rumberger, Russell W., and Gloria M. Rodriguez.
2002. “Chicano Dropouts: An Update of
Research and Policy Issues.” Pp 114–46 in
Chicano School Failure and Success: Research and
Policy Agendas for the New Millennium, edited by
Richard R. Valencia. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Rumberger, Russell W., and Scott L. Thomas. 2000.
“The Distribution of Dropout and Turnover
Rates Among Urban and Suburban High
Schools.” Sociology of Education 73:39–67.
Shepard, Lorrie A., and Mary Lee Smith. 1989.
239
Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on
Retention. New York: Falmer Press.
Shepard, Lorrie A., Mary Lee Smith, and Scott F.
Marion. 1996. “Failed Evidence on Grade
Retention.” Psychology in the Schools
33:251–61.
—. 1998. ??On the Success of Failure’: A Rejoinder
to Alexander.” Psychology in the Schools
35:404?06.
Smerdon, Becky. 1999. “Engagement and
Achievement: Differences Between African-
American and White High School Students.”
Research in Sociology of Education and
Socialization 12:103–34.
STATA Corporation. 2003. STATA User’s Guide
Release 8. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Stearns, Elizabeth, and Elizabeth J. Glennie. 2006.
“When and Why Dropouts Leave School.”
Youth and Society 38:29–57.
Swanson, Christopher B., and Barbara Schneider.
1999. “Students on the Move: Residential and
Educational Mobility in America’s Schools.”
Sociology of Education 72:54–67.
Teachman, Jay D., Kathleen Paasch, and Karen
Carver. 1996. “Social Capital and Dropping
Out of School Early.” Journal of Marriage and
the Family 58:773–83.
Tinto, Vincent. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking
the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valadez, James R. 2002. “The Influence of Social
Capital on Mathematics Course Selection by
Latino High School Students.” Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences 24:319–39.
Velez, William. 1989. “High School Attrition
Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White
Youths.” Sociology of Education 62:119–33.
Walker, Elaine M., and Serge Madhere 1987.
“Multiple Retentions: Some Consequences for
the Cognitive and Affective Maturation of
Minority Elementary Students.” Urban
Education 22:85–102.
Yan, Wenfan, and Qiuyun Lin. 2005. “Parent
Involvement and Mathematics Achievement:
Contrast Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.”
Journal of Educational Research 99:116–27.
240 Stearns, Moller, Blau, and Potochnick

Elizabeth Stearns, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of North

Carolina at Charlotte. Her main fields of interest are racial and gender differences in educational
outcomes, interracial friendships, and the longitudinal effects of high school experiences. Her cur-
rent work focuses on the long-term effects of high school experiences, particularly how track place-
ment and high school structural variables influence individuals’ success in postsecondary education
and the labor market. She is also investigating how the availability of extracurricular activities influ-
ences students’ decisions about whether to participate in activities.

Stephanie Moller, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of North

Carolina at Charlotte. Her main fields of interest are education and stratification. She is currently
studying curriculum structure, students’ achievement, and postsecondary educational attainment.

Judith Blau, Ph.D., is Professor, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, and President, Sociologists Without Borders. Her main field of interest is human rights. She is
currently undertaking theoretical work on human rights and collective goods.

Stephanie Potochnick, MA, is a doctoral student, Department of Public Policy, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte. Her main fields of interest are education and immigration. She is currently
examining the race, class, and gender predictors of college prestige and how predictors of students’
achievement differ across generations of Mexican Americans.

Many thanks to Linda Renzulli for her helpful comments; Benn Jann, Joseph Whitmeyer, and Charles
Brody for their statistical guidance; and Sara Kraft for her help in constructing the table. Address all
correspondence to Elizabeth Stearns, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223; e-mail: mestearn@ uncc.edu.
View publication stats