Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to identify successful intervention components in four comprehensive high schools with dissimilar dropout prevention programs. The successful intervention components that were identified in common in all four programs were used to develop guidelines for a dropout prevention program for comprehensive high schools. Practices deemed unsuccessful were also identified. Methodology. The case study was the method used for the study. The sample consisted of successful dropout prevention programs from four comprehensive high schools in Southern California. The instrumentation included a semistructured interview guide for program practitioners and a questionnaire for at-risk students enrolled in their respective programs. The data were presented in a cross-sectional matrix and a series of tables. Findings. Identification of common intervention components revealed many similarities among the four programs. The degree of commonality varied but specific elements of each component revealed significant relationships. A high agreement in the use of intervention components included: (1) on-campus setting; (2) high school diploma as a primary educational objective; (3) individualized instructional program; (4) high degree of staff commitment and autonomy; and (5) the use of alternative educational programs. Components identified as unsuccessful included: (1) unsuccessful strategies for nonattenders; (2) negative perceptions of the comprehensive staff; (3) large class size; and (4) program staffing not carefully done. Conclusions and recommendations. Successful dropout prevention programs are not structured from a particular model or set of guidelines but are developed from available resources and designated to meet the specific needs of at-risk students. However, dissimilar programs contain common intervention components. A high degree of agreement existed between the opinions of staff and at-risk students regarding conditions in the program. Among the recommendations are using a collaborative planning model to develop programs; employing well-qualified and flexible teachers for high-risk youth; and providing staff development for program practitioners. Educators should conduct additional research on components for dropout prevention programs using a different sample and geographical area.