Effective Dropout Prevention: An Investigation of the 1984-85 Program in New York City |
Common terms and phrases
actual program AI/DP program attendance monitoring average daily register Based on Implementation Board of Education Capita Spending Carnegie Corporation comparison Date District District School Rank Effect on Target equal weight regardless Five Highest Performing Five Lowest Performing G JHS 45 given equal weight H IS 49 Highest Performing Middle Highest Performing Schools Implementation Dates least successful schools Lowest Performing Middle mean pupil attendance MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAMS never implemented Non-AIDP nuisance variables number of months Number of Students Office of Student Performing Middle Schools Performing Schools Five planned per capita post-program data prior attendance program design program variable programs were never pupil attendance rate Rank District School sample sizes school is given School Rank Date Schools Five Lowest Schools with Greatest Spending for Attendance Spending Per Capita student population Student Progress Successful Middle Schools successful programs Table XIV Target Group Attendance target students unsuccessful Value of Services weighted average York Community Trust