Looking at high school dropout problems from students' perspectives : finding a solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should we be concerned about the more than 30 percent national dropout rate? Can anything be done to intervene successfully? Many students who drop out of school have the intellectual ability to complete college (Howard and Anderson, 1978). If this is so, then our educational institutions are failing them and doing them a tremendous disservice (Committee of Canadian Council for Exceptional Children, 1992). This research investigates the high school dropout phenomenon in Quebec through the "eyes" of potential dropouts. The project examines the high school dropout phenomenon from the perspective of students who are at risk of leaving school prematurely. The objectives of the research are to investigate how potential high school dropouts perceive success, and to find out what program reforms these students believe are necessary to keep them in school. In the data analysis the students' schooling experiences are critically examined, and factors such as students' perception of public high schools, social affairs schools, teachers and their view of success are considered. These considerations are made within the conceptual framework of a variety of sociological theories in education. Social Affairs schools are special schools reserved for youths who are wards of the court, and those who are in the care of Youth Protection because they cannot live at home. This study provides richly descriptive narrative accounts of the students' experiences, thoughts and feelings. The study gives voice to high school students who are at risk of dropping out, and of their views of what their needs are to be successful in school. Data collected from this study can be used to develop suitable programs for students. The study concludes by signaling a call to parents, teachers, governments, policy-makers, and caregivers to listen to children and to involve them in matters that are important to them---such as their views of how they can achieve school success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".