TPC Journal V7, Issue 2 - FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 2 179 Table 1.2 Univariate Effects for Time 1 and Time 2 Dependent Variables Mean Square F (1,50) p Assessment 232.154 .311 .580 Grades .514 13.178 .001* Discipline 114.434 6.206 .016* Attendance Error 11698.959 747.339 2.840 .098 *Significant ( p < .05) Table 1.3 Between-Subjects Effects for Treatment and Control Dependent Variables Mean Square F (1,50) p Assessment 5268.134 5.159 .027* Grades .007 .090 .765 Discipline 11.385 .474 .494 Attendance 1210.554 .235 .630 *Significant ( p < .05) Discussion Implications for Practice The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a school-based youth intervention program on the attitudes and behavioral patterns of at-risk youth. The intervention did not have an effect on the youth’s school attendance. There was no significant difference between the treatment and control groups. Overall there was an increase in the number of periods missed for both the treatment and control groups. One of the most important predictors of academic success is remaining engaged in academic instruction (Berger, 2011; Kelchner, 2015); thus, if students are missing classes, they also are missing instructional time. After transitioning back to the traditional school setting, the participants’ attendance decreased, resulting in less time in the classroom to receive academic instruction and ultimately lower grades. Results from other research support these findings. Students who are regularly absent from school have less than a 10% chance of graduating and are disengaged, creating academic and behavioral issues (Allensworth & Easton, 2007). Students who are suspended or expelled are at greater risk of not going to classes and dropping out of school (Brownstein, 2010; T. Lee et al., 2011; Smith & Harper, 2015). Even though the intervention was not found to have an effect on attendance, the percentage of students remaining in school who attended the alternative school was higher than the percentage of students remaining in school the year prior to implementing the intervention. In the school year prior to the intervention, 59% of students returning from the alternative school setting to the home school were no longer in school at the end of the year. At the end of the school year after the intervention took place, the number of students returning from the alternative school setting that were no longer in school was reduced to 14%.