Major dropout theories acknowledge precipitating events only as side notes rather than central model components¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across Tinto's, Wehlage's, Finn's, Moffit's, and Rumberger's models, contemporary precipitating circumstances are mentioned but not centrally integrated or widely modeled empirically. → Dupéré 2014

Evidence¶

Dupéré 2014¶

Dupéré, V., Leventhal, T., Dion, E., Crosnoe, R., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2014). Stressors and Turning Points in High School and Dropout: A Stress Process, Life Course Framework. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Stressors+and+Turning+Points+in+High+School+and+Dropout

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review's analysis of five major dropout theories finds precipitating events acknowledged but not elaborated: Finn "does not explicitly integrate such precipitating factors in his model," and Rumberger's model "makes no reference to developmental period or chronological age."

"these theorists usually discuss some of the contemporary circumstances that could precipitate dropout. However, these circumstances are often mentioned more as a side note than as a central component of dropout models."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Dropouts' own accounts point to recent precipitating events, with pivotal events present in almost 50% of cases in interview studies — related
• Proximal events emerging during high school are associated with dropout over and above pre-existing vulnerabilities — related