Jonathan Kantrowitz

America is currently in the throes of a persistent high school dropout crisis that has been a long time in the making, with substantial disparities in dropout rates across race, ethnic, and income groups and geographic areas. The absence of new funding at the federal and state level since the 1980s has led to decades of disinvestment in re-enrollment programs across the country. In the current global economy, having at least a high school diploma is a critical step for avoiding poverty, and a college degree is a prerequisite for a well-paying job. The costs of dropping out of high school today are substantial and have risen over time, especially for young men, who find it almost impossible to earn an adequate income to take care of themselves and their families.

The Obama Administration’s national education agenda expresses clear support for addressing the dropout crisis through preventive measures implemented during the middle-school years and reforming the No Child Left Behind law. The selection of former Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan as National Education Secretary sets the stage for an exploration of strategies to re-engage students who have already dropped out of high school. Because of the widespread, pressing nature of the crisis and the large numbers of young people who have already dropped out, a national re-enrollment strategy should be a fundamental part of America’s national education agenda.

In order to lay the groundwork for an informed discussion of solutions, the Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS) in cooperation with the Chicago Alternative Schools Network analyzed a variety of data from 2007.

A BLEAK NATIONAL PICTURE: NEARLY 6.2 MILLION DROPOUTS

The dropout crisis impacts all of America, but affects men, Blacks, and Hispanics particularly hard. In 2007, an astounding 16.0% of persons between 16 and 24 years of age (nearly 6.2 million people) were high school dropouts. Among these dropouts, 60.1% were men, 18.8% were Black, and 30.1% were Hispanic. In addition:

• Nearly one in five U.S. men between the ages of 16-24 (18.9%) were dropouts in 2007.

• Nearly three out of 10 Hispanics were dropouts (27.5%).

• More than one of five Blacks had dropped out of school (21%)–versus a dropout rate for Whites of 12.2%.

LIFELONG ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM DROPPING OUT

Americans without a high school diploma have considerably lower earning power and job opportunities in today’s workforce. Over a working lifetime from ages 18-64, high school dropouts are estimated to earn $400,000 less than those that graduated from high school. For males, the lifetime earnings loss is nearly $485,000 and exceeds $500,000 in many large states. Due to their lower lifetime earnings and other sources of market incomes, dropouts will contribute far less in federal, state, and local taxes than they will receive in cash benefits, in-kind transfers, and correctional costs. Over their lifetimes, this will impose a net fiscal burden on the rest of society.

By contrast, adults with high school diplomas contribute major fiscal benefits to the country over their lifetime. The combined lifetime fiscal benefits––including the payment of payroll, federal, and state income taxes––could amount to more than $250,000 per graduated student. Such a public fiscal benefit more than outweighs the estimated cost of enrolling a student who has dropped out.

WHAT’S NEEDED: A FEDERAL AND STATE RE-ENROLLMENT PROGRAM

It is our responsibility as a society to explore every potential means to do so. If we do nothing, the cost of inaction will be steep–not just for the nearly 6.2 million high school dropouts, many of whom will remain jobless and with low incomes, but for the economic and social wellbeing of our nation as a whole, for years to come.

A range of effective re-enrollment programs have emerged in recent years both nationally and in number of cities including Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and Portland (Oregon). These programs have found that young people who have left high school before earning a diploma are not dead-end dropouts, but often are in fact students waiting and looking for opportunities to reenroll and finish high school. The most successful programs are small (80-150 students), offering comprehensive after-school and summer activities, led by experienced principals and teachers, focused on learning in the real world, well funded with local school site program and fiscal control, and track specific, measurable outcomes for student achievement including skill gains, enrollment, attendance, credit gains, promotions, and graduations. These programs should be used as models for additional local and national efforts.

Update:

Breaking News – BPA Banned in Minnesota

Yesterday morning, Minnesota’s governor, Tim Pawlenty (R) signed landmark legislation, the first statewide prohibition on the use of the toxic plastics chemical Bisphenol-A, or BPA, in baby bottles and sippy cups. The prohibition will go into effect January 1, 2010.

BPA, a toxic hormone disruptor found in bottles and sippy cups, as well as infant formula, canned foods and food packaging, is linked to a growing list of serious health problems, including cancer. Recent studies find BPA exposure during early life may permanently alter the developing brain and reproductive systems, and the National Toxicology Program within the U.S. National Institute of Health has raised concerns about the safety of children’s exposures to the chemical.

California and Connecticut are poised to consider similar measures in the next week.

As the scientific evidence continues to mount in favor of restricting the chemical’s use, many retailers and manufacturers have responded. Within the last year, mega retailers like Wal-Mart and Toys R’ Us have announced they would stop selling baby bottles made with BPA. The water bottle manufacturer Nalgene and several of the nation’s largest baby bottle makers are phasing BPA out of their products. Even the petro-chemical giant Sunoco has promised that it would no longer allow any of the BPA it makes to be used in items designed for children 3 and under.

Last week, the Connecticut House of Representatives approved HB 6572 a landmark bill to phase out the hormone disruptor Bisphenol-A (BPA) from children’s food and beverage containers. BPA has been linked to many chronic diseases and disorders, including obesity, diabetes, breast and prostate cancers, and behavior problems. With the Food and Drug Administration still asleep at the wheel, and new evidence about BPA’s toxicity coming out every week, people from around the state are working to make Connecticut a model for more protective chemical policies.

A vote in the Connecticut Senate on HB 6572 to phase out BPA from food and beverage containers is imminent. With the recent 128 to 14 vote in favor of the bill in the House, lobbyist for the plastics and chemical industries are descending on the state capitol in droves in an effort to weaken or stall the legislation in the Senate.

Please send an e-mail to your State Senator and urge him or her to co-sponsor and support HB 6572 to phase out BPA.

I had the privilege of participating in a news conference this afternoon in support of the paid sick days legislation pending before the Connecticut legislature. Support for paid sick days has blossomed in recent days.

Sunday, the Courant ran an Op Ed by West Hartford doctor Laurel Baldwin Ragaven, “Staying Home Isn’t Always an Option” making the case that paid sick days would bring our laws up to speed with common-sense public health practices.

Yesterday in the New Haven Register, HR consultant Scott MacDonald explained how paid sick days is a time saver.

And WFSB was one of three stations covering a press conference highlighting the danger to the healthy and safety of our kids when school bus drivers lack paid sick days.

As I pointed out at the press, recent research has confirmed that repeatedly working when ill boosts risk of long term sick leave:

Sick at work — a risk factor for long term sickness absence at a later date?

Repeatedly going to work when ill significantly boosts the chances of having to take long term sick leave later on, reveals research published ahead of print in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Going to work when ill is an increasingly recognized phenomenon known as “sickness presence,” but relatively little is known about the long term impact of this behaviour.

The researchers randomly selected almost 12,000 Danes of working age, who had been in continuous employment for at least a year, to answer questions on their attitudes to work, preparedness to take time off when ill, and general health.

They were asked how many times in the preceding year they had gone to work ill when it would have been reasonable to have stayed at home.

Workers who had done this at least half a dozen times were 53% more likely to end up going off sick for two weeks, and 74% more likely to take more than two months of sick leave, compared with those who did not come to work when ill.

These findings held true even after taking account of known risk factors for long term sick leave, previous bouts of lengthy sickness absence, and prevailing health.

Short periods off sick may allow workers to cope better with the stresses of a demanding job, and, overall, the evidence is that employment is good for health, say the authors. But long term sick leave is associated with difficulties finding work, they warn.

Here, in essence, is what I had to say at the press conference:

My name is Jonathan Kantrowitz. I am the founder and CEO of Queue. Inc. Queue has been in business since 1980. We are a small educational publisher located in Shelton, CT. We have 18 “full-time” employees who work 30 hours or more a week. These employees receive full medical benefits and 5 sick days every six months. We also have 8 part-time employees. Those who work 20 hours or more a week receive pro-rated sick days.

We provide paid sick days not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for our business.

First, providing sick days helps us attract and keep the best employees, and engenders in them a sense of loyalty and respect for the company, since they feel the company cares about them.

Second, providing paid sick days obviously discourages employees from coming to work sick. This has many benefits for our business. It reduces the likelihood that a sick employee will infect other employees, and it helps a sick employee recover more quickly so they can return to work. I also believe that sick employees are more likely to have accidents and some of our equipment has the potential to cause serious injury. Finally, sick employees are more likely to make mistakes, and in our business mistakes are extremely costly. Editorial, printing, and production mistakes hurt the reputation of our business and have caused us to reprint hundreds, and sometimes thousands of books. Even simple shipping and billing mistakes cause problems for our reputation and other internal issues.

For our business providing sick days is a reasonable cost that is outweighed by the benefit of retaining good and happy employees and reducing workplace errors that have potentially far greater costs.