Behavior indicators show inconsistent predictive strength for high school graduation: several studies find them strongly predictive, but behavior was not predictive in Chicago above and beyond grades and attendance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Differences in how behavior data is collected, in behavioral expectations and discipline policies across places, or in study methodologies may explain why behavior predicts dropout more strongly in some places than others. → Allensworth 2018

Evidence¶

Allensworth 2018¶

Allensworth, E.M., Nagaoka, J., & Johnson, D.W. (2018). High school graduation and college readiness indicator systems: What we know, what we need to know. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. https://ncs.uchicago.edu/freshman-on-track-toolkit

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review offers candidate explanations for the inconsistency, stating "differences in how behavioral data is collected in different places" or differing discipline policies may cause behavior data to be stronger predictors in some places. These are the authors' interpretations, not tested results.

"It could be that differences in how behavioral data is collected in different places, or differences in behavioral expectations, discipline policies, or interventions for disciplinary infractions across different places, cause behavior data to be stronger predictors of dropout in some places than in others."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Attendance, behavior, and course performance (the ABC indicators) reliably predict which secondary students are at risk of dropping out — a broader claim this one bears on
• Freshman attendance below 85 percent predicts non-graduation even among students with similar grades — related
• The CRIS framework extends existing early warning systems beyond graduation and academic measures — related