For SocArXIv

Running head: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT
Spatial analysis of high school dropout: The role of race, poverty, and
outliers in New York City
Jose Eos Trinidad1
Version: March 24, 2022
1
Departments of Sociology and Comparative Human Development, The University of Chicago
(Chicago, IL); and Institute for the Science and Art of Learning and Teaching, Ateneo de Manila
University (Quezon City, Philippines).
His research intersects organizational sociology, education policy, and quantitative methods. In
particular, he researches how schools organize data and how data organize schools.
For correspondence: 5551 S Kimbark Ave., Chicago IL 60637

+1 312 883 8193, jtrinidad@uchicago.edu
Funding: No outside funding was used for this research.

Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT 2
ABSTRACT
A major problem in urban areas, dropping out of high school is often related to a
host of student-level factors, like poverty, race, gender, and behavior. Studies
also find that social factors like school context and peer beliefs influence this
phenomenon. However, these studies on social factors are limited by the non-
inclusion of spatial data, which are important given how neighborhood dropout
rates may be associated with adjacent neighborhoods. To address this gap, the
present research suggests a method for analyzing spatial patterns of dropping out
and the role of race, poverty, and outliers. Using exploratory spatial data analysis
of New York City census tracts (n = 2216), the study finds significant spatial
clusters for high school dropouts, racial minority population, and low-income
areas. However, co-location patterns of dropping out and race/poverty suggest
smaller core clusters, and outlier-detection for areas with dropout rates different
from adjacent neighborhoods suggest that higher concentrations of minorities and
poverty do not automatically lead to higher levels of dropout. Implications
include resource allocation and contextualized support for high dropout clusters,
and investigation of outlier neighborhoods.
Keywords: high school dropout; spatial data analysis; New York City; urban
education
Introduction
In contemporary society driven by the knowledge economy, the importance of
education and educational credentials cannot be overstated. Studies show that those
with more advanced educational credentials have better long-term outcomes, based on
wages, earnings, health, and family outcomes (Barrow & Malamud, 2015; Ashenfelter
& Krueger, 1994). However, a constant challenge that has plagued the education system
is the substantial number of students who drop out of high school (Heckman &
LaFontaine, 2010; Orfield, 2004). For this reason, many countries, states, and districts
have instituted ways of helping reduce dropout rates through interventions that focus on
individuals or small groups (Freeman & Simonsen, 2015). In order to effectively
address this problem, however, part of the task is to be aware of risk factors that
increase the likelihood of students’ dropping out, and these may include factors in
students’ personal and social lives (Tavakolian & Howell, 2012).
Research on predictors of high school dropout often focus on individual-
personal and school-contextual factors that impact it (T. M. Brown et al., 2019; Wood et
al., 2017; Balkis et al., 2016). In terms of personal factors, certain populations have
been documented to be more likely to dropout, like Blacks and Hispanics (Chapman et
al., 2011), male students (Schulz & Rubel, 2011), those from low-income households
(Kearney & Levine, 2014), and those with mental health or behavioral problems
(Maynard et al., 2015). In terms of school-contextual factors, high dropout rates in
schools may be associated with high suspension rates (T. Lee et al., 2011; Trinidad,
2018b), high concentrations of low-income minority students (Rendón, 2014b), and a
school’s lack of resources (Wilson, 2012).

However, a set of factors that are not as readily studied in the dropout literature
is that of neighborhood-spatial factors that may also affect dropout frequency. One
example is the lack or the presence of economic prospects in a district and how this
affects a student’s decision of finishing high school (Bickel & Papagiannis, 1988). In a
second example, neighborhood clusters of dropout prevalence may indicate shared
schemas of finishing or foregoing one’s education (Schafer & Hori, 2006). A third
example is in terms of the detrimental influence of students’ activities outside of school,
such as deviant and criminal behavior often happening in neighborhoods (Rumberger &
Rotermund, 2012). Given the importance of accounting for spatial patterns and reasons
for dropping out, the present research proposes spatial data analytic procedures to
understand these patterns, interpret the dropout results, and suggest practical
implications.
I argue that neighborhood spatial data analysis can supplement people’s
understanding of dropout patterns by (1) suggesting spatial clusters for dropping out, (2)
providing co-location patterns with explanatory variables, and (3) detecting outliers that
can provide insights into what neighborhoods can do to lessen dropout occurrence. To
do this, I first review the literature on dropout incidence, particularly factors that
contribute to students’ deciding to drop out, or being pushed to drop out. These are
divided into individual-personal, school-contextual, and neighborhood-spatial factors
that increase likelihood of high school dropout. The second part outlines the methods
for this research, with an emphasis on the analytic techniques used. The third part
provides the results while the fourth part discusses, in particular, the results of dropout
patterns in New York City, and in general, how to use spatial data analysis with
education data.
Literature Review
Individual-personal factors for dropping out

Dropping out of high school in the United States is associated with different individual
factors that span demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral reasons. Among the most
frequently studied predictors is that of minority race and ethnicity. High school dropout
rates for Blacks and Hispanics are substantially higher when compared to Whites and
Asians (Belfield & Levin, 2007; Heckman & LaFontaine, 2010; Katsinas, 1989). For
Blacks, one aspect that is often attributed is their higher likelihood of experiencing
exclusionary discipline practices like suspension and expulsion, which consequently
have implications on their academic performance (Suh et al., 2014; Kinsler, 2013;
Caton, 2012; Rumberger, 2011). For Hispanics, reasons for dropping out include
difficulties in school, personal problems at home, and the need to economically support
their families (Behnke et al., 2010; Halx & Ortiz, 2011). In particular, immigrant
Hispanic groups can be disproportionately represented in dropping out due to poverty
and language difficulties (Lutz, 2007). For both Blacks and Hispanics, the person’s
individual racial identification captures some of the group’s shared experiences,
particularly in inner-city areas (Li, 2010).
In addition to race, gender is also associated with high school dropout. The
graduation rate for females is significantly higher than males in all major racial/ethnic
groups, but particularly for Blacks whose differential is 12.2 percentage points among
20-24 year-olds in 2010 (Murnane, 2013). Although this may seem like an odd new
pattern, Goldin and Katz (2007) show that throughout most of the 20th century more
females than males actually graduated from high school.
Research also finds that the family’s socioeconomic position can influence high
school persistence or dropout. A report from the National Center for Education
Statistics accounts that students living in low-income families were approximately ten
times more likely to drop out of high school as compared to those living in high-income
families (Cataldi et al., 2007). Other studies confirm how family background and lower
socioeconomic status can increase one’s chance of dropping out (Archambault et al.,
2017; Parr & Bonitz, 2015). Often, lack of resources, low parental achievement, and
reduced or levelled expectations also plague these students from lower-income families
(Hao & Yeung, 2015; Trinidad, 2019; Davis-Kean, 2005; MacLeod, 1987; Vowell &
May, 2000).
Aside from these sociodemographic and economic measures, certain behavioral
factors are also associated with increased likelihood of dropping out. A student’s feeling
of disengagement in school is associated with higher likelihood of dropping out, in
addition to serious problematic behaviors later in life (Henry et al., 2012). Students’
personal motivation and capacity for self-regulation have important consequences for
predicting academic failure in high school (Casillas et al., 2012). In addition to feelings
and non-cognitive skills necessary for academic success, students’ self-perceptions are
also important, particularly in terms of how much they perceive their efforts will have
an impact on their outcomes (Fall & Roberts, 2012). These research examples highlight
that personal behavioral factors can contribute to increased likelihood of academic
failure, seen significantly in high school dropping out.
Although seemingly an individual independent act, the person’s dropping out
may not always be a completely autonomous act. Contrary to popular thinking that
students decide or are forced to drop out of school because of academic or discipline
failure, there are actually a myriad of reasons for dropping out. Some students are
pushed out of schools because of poor academic performance and behavioral problems
while others are pulled out from school because of pregnancy, the need for a job, or the
need to care for someone in the family (Doll et al., 2013; Bradley & Renzulli, 2011).
Thus, factors for dropping out are nuanced by the variety in the meaning of dropout.
School-contextual factors for dropping out

Aside from the individual realities and circumstances students may find themselves in,
certain school factors have also been shown to exacerbate the impact of the individual
risk factors for dropping out. Lee and Burkam (2003) find that certain school
organizational factors are associated with reduced dropout rates. These include schools
offering mainly academic rather than nonacademic courses, enrolling fewer than 1,500
students, and having students and teachers with positive relationships (V. E. Lee &
Burkam, 2003). In a meta-analysis of the dropout literature, De Witte and colleagues
(2013) show that in addition to these school organizational factors, teaching quality and
social capital (i.e., strength of relationships between teachers and students) also have an
influence on dropout risk.
A school’s social climate is particularly important as research suggests that
certain school factors like feelings of attachment are associated with decreased dropout,
“above and beyond individual characteristics” (Kotok et al., 2016, p. 569). Students’
positive social integration with other students plays a crucial role in preventing them
from feeling alienated and withdrawing academically (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2010).
Additionally, when students in a school collectively share high expectations, it is
associated with better educational outcomes (Trinidad, 2018a). On the other end,
negative forms of student interactions, like the perception of teasing or bullying, can
predict increased dropout rates in schools (Cornell et al., 2013). Such hostile school
environments can lead to self-doubt and emotional scars, which are associated with
students’ decision to drop out of high school (B. A. Brown, 2010).

Inasmuch as student-to-student interaction can affect students’ decision to
pursue or drop out of school, supportive relationships with significant adult models, like
teachers and counselors, can also have protective consequences for students (Lessard et
al., 2010; White & Kelly, 2010). On average, schools experience lower dropout rates
when they have an authoritative school climate, or a climate that provides students with
both high demands and high adult supports (Jia et al., 2016). However, schools that
have high authoritarian climates, manifested in the prevalent use of out-of-school
suspensions, are linked with negative academic consequences, inclusive of students’
dropping out (Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Pyne, 2019). It is important to understand that
these individual- and school-level factors interact, but do not automatically determine, a
person’s non-completion of high school.
Neighborhood-spatial factors for dropping out

Inasmuch as personal and school factors contribute to our understanding of the dropout
phenomenon, a set of factors that are not as readily studied are neighborhood factors,
like a community’s socioeconomic advantage and the perception of neighborhood
safety. More than just the family’s economic situation, the socioeconomic advantage in
a neighborhood also influences the likelihood of graduating from college (Crowder &
South, 2011). Studies find that continued exposure to neighborhood disadvantage has
even more salient effects than just disadvantage experienced at a singular point in time
(Wodtke et al., 2011; Crowder & South, 2011). However, some researchers suggest that
rather than think of neighborhood disadvantage as directly influencing high school
dropout, this disadvantage actually affects dropouts because “[n]eighborhood contacts
in low-resource settings may not support educational attainment and may be poor role
models to guide and encourage residents to complete school” (Fischer & Kmec, 2004,
p. 520).
Another set of reasons point to how neighborhood violence and safety also
influence dropout trends. Despite controlling individual, family, and school factors,
neighborhood violence is suggested to mediate how neighborhood disadvantage affects
high school dropout (Harding, 2009). In a qualitative research among male Latinos in
Los Angeles, Rendón (2014a) finds that urban violence is one of the most salient
features of urban neighborhoods, consequential for completion of high school. It is not
so much that violence happens to them but that one’s involvement in peer groups can
lead to expectations of behaviors counterproductive to school completion, like truancy
and expulsion (Rendón, 2014a). More than the impact of violence on students’
behaviors, the perception of safety or incivility in a neighborhood can also impact
students’ engagement, even for those who are not directly affected by such problems
(Daly et al., 2009).
Despite these studies that highlight the importance of neighborhood factors in
influencing high school dropout, few published research look at the spatial dynamics
that affect such dropout trends. Among these few, a study of rural Louisiana schools
find mechanisms beyond school-level factors that suggest how wider clusters or
communities can influence dropout figures (Schafer & Hori, 2006). Aside from the fact
that factors beyond the school may affect dropout, using spatial analytical tools may
also capture important, nuanced, and clustered contextual variations that are not
apparent in global analyses of all locations (Tate & Hogrebe, 2015; Edmunds et al.,
2015). In urban areas in particular, it is important to see how clustered neighborhoods
may have different outcomes, resources, and historical dropout or poverty “legacies”
(Martinez & Sparks, 2018).
This research looks at the spatial patterns of dropouts in New York City, the
largest school district in the United States (Winters & Cowen, 2012). Although the city
is not representative of urban areas in the country or the world, it does provide an
interesting locus for seeing the impact of spatial factors on dropping out. Given the
city’s large student population and diverse neighborhoods and neighborhood clusters
(Chau & Yager, 2017), demographic and locational patterns can be more carefully
discerned in terms of its association with high school dropouts.
Data and methods

I analyzed cross-sectional data from the United States census of New York City in the
year 2000, prepared by the University of Chicago’s Center for Spatial Data Science.
This dataset had the percentage of the population in a given census tract (alternatively
referred to as neighborhood) meeting a certain criterion. For example, the data had the
percentage of people in a neighborhood who identify themselves as White (or any other
racial/ethnic group). The dataset had 2216 observations, measured as census tracts.
Measures
The dependent variable was the percentage of people over the age of 25 in a particular
census tract that have dropped out of high school. Although it is possible to compute for
the percentage of students ages 16 to 19 who have dropped out of high school, this
variable had a lot of zero values either because no one has yet dropped out in that
neighborhood or because there were not that many young people in the census tract.
Thus, the variable used is the percentage of dropout over age 25.
Two sets of independent variables were crucial for this research. For the
racial/ethnic composition of each census tract, I used two variables: a continuous
variable for the percentage of racial minorities living in a census tract and a categorical
variable for the majority race in a census tract. The first is the percentage of minority
population in a given tract (i.e., the percentage of the population who were not White).
The second is a categorical variable where the census tract is designated with the
racial/ethnic category of the majority of its residents. Five groups were created with:
majority White, majority Black, majority Hispanic, majority Black and Hispanic, and
majority mixed. A majority was defined as greater than 50% of the residents identifying
in the particular racial category. However, for those areas where the majority of the
residents were either Black or Hispanic but neither made up the majority, they were
designated as majority Black and Hispanic. Additionally, given the few number of
tracts that have majority Asian and few that have heterogeneously mixed populations,
these have been jointly designed as majority mixed for analytic purposes.
Aside from racial/ethnic composition in the census tract, the neighborhood’s
socioeconomic status had also been estimated with the mean of the adult residents’
annual income. Data were kept as US dollar values rather than log values so as to
provide a more intuitive interpretation.
Data analysis
I used Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) to measure and detect high school
dropout, racial, and economic patterns in New York City. ESDA is a first step into
understanding spatial associations between and among variables related by space. To
see if there were spatial components and predictors on the likelihood of people’s
dropping out, several geovisualization approaches were used, like the Local Indicator of
Spatial Association (LISA) clusters, quartile LISA maps, and disaggregated descriptive
statistics. Visualization analyses were done in GeoDa, an open source software for
spatial data analysis (Anselin et al., 2006). To provide a snapshot of the distribution of
the variables, I first mapped the census tracts into color-coded quartiles with darker
shades of orange denoting higher rates of a particular variable. Appendix Figure 1
shows the location of the five boroughs of New York City (Manhattan, Staten Island,
Queens, Brooklyn, and Bronx) since I will refer to these boroughs when discussing
which sections of New York have higher or lower concentrations of particular
populations.
To examine spatial clusters of dropping out, I used LISA maps that mapped out
the adjacent areas that have similar rates for a variable. In this study, the analysis
identified dropout hot spots and cold spots in New York City by testing for statistically
significant associations of dropouts between each census tract and its neighboring tracts.
A technical note is that I used the spatial weights matrix (queen contiguity) to identify a
tract and its contiguous tracts since it may be possible that certain dropout patterns in
one neighborhood can influence another neighborhood.
Clusters of tracts with higher and lower dropout rates were identified at a
statistical significance level of  = 0.05. These correspond to “high-high” (in red) and
“low-low” (in blue) LISA statistics. “High-high” areas have dropout rates above the
mean and a weighted average of the neighboring areas that are also above the mean.
Similarly, “low-low” areas have dropout rates below the mean with contiguous areas
with also low dropout rates. “High-low” and “low-high” LISA outliers were colored
light red and light blue, respectively. These outliers mean that an area had dropout rates
above the mean while surrounded by neighborhoods with low dropout rates (high-low),
and vice versa. Sections not colored do not form part of the core of the clusters that
have similar rates in dropout.
Aside from doing LISA maps for dropout rates among contiguous census tracts,
similar maps were created for racial minority rates and mean income. Clusters of “high-
high” and “low-low” census tracts provide a picture of which contiguous sections of the
city share similar racial minority status or mean income.

To see if the dependent variable of dropout is related to both space and
independent variables, I created quartile LISA maps (Anselin, 2019). Using this
method, I assigned the value 1 for tracts in the highest or lowest quartiles of a given
variable. Following this, I identified co-location clusters of high quartile observations
for both dependent and independent variables. For example, I looked for clustered
locations where the highest quartiles of dropout rates and racial minority populations
were present.
Descriptive statistics of cluster cores (dropout hot spots and cold spots) were
calculated to identify characteristics that are shared among clustered census tracts that
have high and low dropout rates. Disaggregating the clusters with high-high and low-
low LISA statistics, I calculated the percentage of census tracts, according to their
majority racial/ethnic composition, mean income, and total number of residents. I also
performed the same demographic analysis for outliers that have high-low and low-high
LISA statistics.
Results
Dropout clusters
Figure 1A presents a map of New York City that have color-coded quartiles, signifying
the areas which have higher or lower dropout percentages in the given census blocks.
Higher dropout percentages (darker shade of orange) were concentrated in the Bronx
and Brooklyn, and lower ones in Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island.
<INSERT FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE>
A more formal analysis of local spatial autocorrelation confirms this pattern as
seen in the Local Moran cluster map in Figure 1B (using queen contiguity, 999
permutations, p < 0.05). In all, 381 tracts were identified as the cores of high-high
clusters (high dropout neighborhood surrounded by other high dropout neighborhoods)
and 454 tracts as cores of low-low clusters. These hot spots in red and cold spots in blue
confirm the clusters in Figure 1A with high and low dropout rates.
However, there were also neighborhoods near these dropout hot spots and cold
spots that did not follow the trend in their contiguous clusters. For example, although
Manhattan had predominantly low dropout rates, some neighborhoods actually had high
dropout rates as depicted in the light red color. This was thus coded an outlier for
having high dropout rates in a location with predominantly low dropout rates. Similarly,
there were neighborhoods in the Bronx, colored light blue, that had low dropout
percentages while being surrounded by high dropout neighborhoods in red.
Racial minority population and mean income clusters

Figure 2A shows the concentration of racial minorities in census blocks. Areas in
Brooklyn, the southern side of Queens, and the Bronx had high concentrations of racial
minorities denoted by its stronger shade of orange. For the mean income, Figure 2B
shows an inversion of the previous trends with Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens
having higher concentrations of neighborhoods with high mean income.
Although there is a significant proportion of minorities in the southern side of
Queens, it has a significantly higher income average when compared to Brooklyn and
the Bronx.
Formal analyses of spatial autocorrelation again show that there are significant
spatial clusters for racial minority populations and income distributions. Figure 3A
shows the Bronx, Brooklyn, and the southern part of Queens all having significantly
more clusters of minority populations while Manhattan, Staten Island, and southern
Brooklyn having majority White populations.

When compared with Figure 3B, one can see a slight inversion with the Bronx
and Brooklyn (in blue) having lower average income in their clusters while Manhattan
and Staten Island (in red) having higher average income. One will notice, however, that
the inversion is not perfect and that there are far less hot spots and cold spots in Figure
3B than Figure 3A. Both of these observations may denote that average income is not as
spatially clustered as minority population rates.
Racial minority population and mean income on dropouts

Figures 4A and 4B show the highest quartile of clusters according to dropout and
minority population rates, respectively. Although there were overlaps, formal analysis
in Figure 4C shows that the binary variables for high dropout rates and high minority
population rates have co-location core clusters of 76 census tracts concentrated in areas
in Brooklyn and the Bronx. However, these co-location patterns in Figure 4C do not
show the vast clusters seen in Figures 4A and 4B.
As shown earlier, the high minority concentration in the Queens area did not
seem to have high dropout rates such that the co-location map in Figure 4C did not
show any statistically significant overlap between minority population and dropout rate
in this section of the city.
A similar analysis was done for co-location of the highest quartile for
neighborhood dropout rates, and the lowest quartile for neighborhood mean income.
Figure 4D reveals 222 locations that form the core clusters (in the Bronx and Brooklyn
boroughs). The number and size of these clusters are markedly larger than the clusters
for minority population and dropout rates in Figure 4C.
<INSERT TABLE 1 NEAR HERE>

Table 1 compares the demographic characteristics of all census tracts against
those clustered census tracts that have high dropout rates and low dropout rates. The
census tracts with high dropout rates were in neighborhoods that were majority Black
and Hispanic (39.95%), majority Black (23.76%), and majority Hispanic (18.02%).
Most of these tracts (96.84%) had mean annual income of less than $40,000. On the
other hand, the clustered census tracts with low dropout rates were in neighborhoods
that were predominantly White (87.72%), and with mean annual income above $40,000
(91.43%). Total residents do not vary as much between the two groups.
When comparing all census tracts with those with high dropout rates, majority
Black neighborhoods comprised 25.98% of census tracts and they accounted for 23.76%
of high dropout census tracts. However, majority Hispanic neighborhoods comprised
5.21% of all tracts but figured as 18.02% of all high dropout census tracts.
Outliers
Aside from investigating clusters with high and low dropout rates, Table 1 also presents
the demographic characteristics of outliers. Determination of these dropout outliers
came from the investigation with Figure 1B, which includes outliers in light red and
light blue colors. Neighborhoods with low dropout rates but have neighboring tracts
with high dropouts (i.e., low-high tracts in light blue) were 31.03% majority White
neighborhoods, 41.38% majority Black, and 10.34% majority Hispanic. Interestingly,
their mean annual income ($24,364) was similar to the average in high dropout tracts
($22,948).
Neighborhoods with high dropout rates surrounded by tracts with low dropout
rates (i.e., high-low tracts in light red) were 38.89% majority White, 22.22% majority
Black, and 22.22% majority mixed neighborhoods. Interestingly still, their mean annual
income ($30,879) was actually higher than the average income for those with low-high
tracts ($24,364).
Discussion and conclusions
In a society as dependent on knowledge and literacy as the present one, high school
completion seems to be a prerequisite for a minimum standard of living, and dropping
out is a problem that needs to be overcome (Bridgeland et al., 2009). Education scholars
have studied what factors could affect it and found important consequences of personal,
social, and school factors (Rumberger, 2011; Cataldi et al., 2007). More than just these
singular factors, one can find evidence for even more negative effects when there is an
interaction of personal characteristics—like race, gender and behavior—and school
factors—like school suspension practices and teacher-student relationships (Trinidad,
2018b; Lessard et al., 2010). An added set of factors not often studied is an individual’s
neighborhood.
Neighborhood factors—such as employment opportunities, demographic make-
up, socializers’ educational attainment, and level of crime—can have an influence on
decisions to drop out or stay in school (Doll et al., 2013; Rendón, 2014b). This present
research aims at finding a way of analyzing these neighborhood spatial factors
contributing to dropout occurrence, and presenting preliminary findings on these
factors. I argue that geospatial cluster visualization and analysis can provide significant
insights into understanding dropout patterns, and that these methods also suggest
important caveats to previous studies that generalize neighborhood patterns.
Using dropout and demographic data from New York City, I find that dropouts
did not just happen randomly in the city. There were particular places considered
dropout hot spots, where clusters of neighborhoods had more than 35% of their adult
population which have dropped out of high school. Often concentrated in the Bronx and
upper Brooklyn areas, such clusters suggest possible shared characteristics among these
neighborhoods.
Further investigation in these clusters reveal that racial/ethnic and poverty
factors are correlated with such dropout statistics. Although research has shown the
higher likelihood of dropout associated with an individual’s race/ethnicity and
socioeconomic status (Archambault et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2017), the present
research suggests that the concentration of racial minority population in an area may
also affect the level of dropout. In particular, majority Hispanic, and majority Black and
Hispanic neighborhoods have figured prominently in these dropout hot spots. Although
the present research cannot test it empirically, one possible reason is the migration of
Hispanic populations to certain clusters and pockets of the city, and the possibility that
they have been unable to finish high school education (Card & Lewis, 2005; Perreira et
al., 2006). Additionally, low-income neighborhoods also have higher proportions of
dropout populations, particularly as neighborhoods can constrain students’
opportunities, and thus affect their decision-making (Dupéré et al., 2015; Harding,
2011).
Despite higher rates of dropout in minority and low-income neighborhoods, this
does not necessarily mean that these types of neighborhood clusters automatically have
more dropouts. For example, certain sections in Queens have high minority populations
but do not have the same the high dropout rates as in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Co-
location maps also showed that only 76 out of 2216 census tracts form the core cluster
of high minority and high dropout neighborhoods. For co-location of low income and
high dropout, the number of tracts just increase to 222. These numbers suggest that
although high-minority and low-income neighborhoods are more likely to have higher
dropout percentages, researchers have to be careful about making quick generalizations

evidenced by how the co-location of extreme values for dropout and minority/low-
income population show imperfect alignment.
Aside from the small number of co-locational clusters, high-minority low-
income neighborhoods also have outliers in terms of dropout percentages; that is, there
are areas which have less dropouts compared to their contiguous census tracts. For
example, certain areas in the Bronx have dropout levels that are no different from that
of predominantly White neighborhoods. Researchers will, thus, have to be careful in
generalizing how race/ethnicity and poverty can affect neighborhood dropout rate, and
will have to qualitatively investigate why some adjacent neighborhoods with almost the
same socioeconomic and race characteristics have markedly different dropout rates. It is
possible that high-quality and high-expectations schools in high-poverty neighborhoods
can have protective effects on their students (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011). Another
possibility is in terms of the social capital among neighbors who are more closely knit
and how their shared experience and expectation can bring about better educational
attainment (Bryan et al., 2017; Trinidad, 2018a).
Although the data concentrated in New York City, the method used here can be
applied to other urban areas. More than simply determining which schools have higher
dropout rates, it may be necessary to see the spatial dimensions and characteristics of
neighborhoods—and more importantly, clusters of neighborhoods—that have higher
dropout rates. Particularly in urban areas and in neighborhoods with more students at
risk of dropping out, high quality schools can have protective factors and compensatory
effects (Downey & Condron, 2016). In this sense, geospatial analyses can help
determine where the dropout concentrations are, and this determination can lead to
allocating resources for schools that can intervene on the pattern of dropout in an area.
Methodological contribution
In this research, I highlight the contribution and added value of performing geospatial
analyses of dropout data through (a) quartile, (b) clustered LISA and (c) co-location
maps, and the demographic analysis of these clusters. Using quartile maps can provide
insights into which neighborhoods have high rates of dropout occurrence. Clustered
LISA maps show contiguous locations that have similar high or low dropout rates; this
determination of dropout hot spots or cold spots can lead to greater specificity and
efficiency in providing contextualized interventions (Freeman & Simonsen, 2015).
These clustered maps also show outliers in terms of neighborhoods with low dropout
rates when the surrounding ones have high dropout rates, and vice versa. Determining
outliers can prompt qualitative researchers to determine what could distinguish certain
areas from their neighbors. For an area with low dropout rate in a high dropout region,
could certain school factors, like teacher quality and student discipline, be protective
and lead to such positive results (Clewell et al., 2007)?
Aside from quartile and LISA maps, I also used Anselin’s (2019) novel
technique of finding co-location clusters, where contiguous census tracts belong to
similar quartile levels on the outcome and explanatory variables (e.g., dropout rates and
minority population). Such mapping technique can offer insights into which adjacent
areas have similar characteristics in at least two variables, and how this offers
suggestions on what might be causing higher dropouts. Lastly, these geospatial
visualization tools can be accompanied by determining sociodemographic
characteristics of those in high-high, low-low, and outlier clusters (Kolak et al., 2018).
Despite the conceptual and methodological insights offered by this research, it
still carries with it some limitations. First, data availability will always pose a problem
for geospatial research and this study is no exception. The use of census data from the
year 2000 may be unappealing but I used it because of its relative completeness when
compared to other non-census survey data. Moreover, using the percentage of the
population over 25 years old who dropped out includes those who were 26 and 80 years
old, who may have had differences in contexts, reasons for dropping out, and prior
neighborhoods they came from. Second, I was unable to investigate other variables that
may shed more light on and nuance spatially different dropout rates; these possible
variables include crime prevalence, social cohesion, job opportunities, and school
quality. Given that this is an initial attempt at using geospatial analysis for dropout data,
such limitation is an invitation for other researchers to extend the understanding of how
these variables can be spatially clustered and explain spatial dropout patterns. Third,
this present study confines itself to exploratory spatial data analysis and does not yet use
spatial regression analysis (Chi & Zhu, 2008; Anselin, 2007). More than ordinary least
squares regression, this spatially-appropriate form of regression accounts for non-
random spatially clustered variables, which may further the insights from the
exploratory spatial data analysis. Such limitations, however, can lead to more research
to be done to fully flesh out the possibilities of doing spatial data analysis with
education data.
Despite the limitations, the research offers both conceptual insights to help
nuance the literature on spatial neighborhood factors affecting dropout rates and
methodological possibilities to harness geospatial analytical tools for understanding
education issues. Conceptually, evidence supports the claim that New York City has
spatially-clustered dropout rates in certain neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn.
Although such high dropouts are associated with high-minority and low-income
neighborhoods, these are not deterministic. When upper-quartile minority and poverty
variables are intersected with dropout variables, the core clusters are relatively small. In
addition, outlier detection showed that some high-minority low-income areas can have
low dropout rates, markedly different from their contiguous neighborhoods.
Methodologically, the study suggests and encourages the use of exploratory spatial data
analysis techniques that are appropriate for educational issues and problems. Such
methods can extend conceptual understanding and lead to practical implications in
terms of finding contextually-appropriate interventions and protective factors in outlier
areas that defy dropout conventions. These conceptual and methodological
contributions can encourage education researchers to further extend the technique to
practical actionable research in terms of policy formation, school regulation, and
resource allocation.
References
Anselin, L. (2007). Spatial Regression Analysis in R: A Workbook. Center for Spatially
Integrated Social Science.
Anselin, L. (2019). Quantile local spatial autocorrelation. Letters in Spatial and
Resource Sciences, 12(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-019-00234-0
Anselin, L., Syabri, I., & Kho, Y. (2006). GeoDa: An Introduction to Spatial Data
Analysis. Geographical Analysis, 38(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-
7363.2005.00671.x
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Dupéré, V., Brault, M.-C., & Andrew, M. M. (2017).
Individual, social, and family factors associated with high school dropout among
low-SES youth: Differential effects as a function of immigrant status. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 456–477.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12159
Ashenfelter, O., & Krueger, A. (1994). Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling
from a New Sample of Twins. The American Economic Review, 84(5), 1157–
1173.
Balkis, M., Arslan, G., & Duru, E. (2016). The School Absenteeism among High
School Students: Contributing Factors. Educational Sciences: Theory and
Practice, 16(6), 1819–1831.
Barrow, L., & Malamud, O. (2015). Is College a Worthwhile Investment? Annual
Review of Economics, 7(1), 519.
Behnke, A. O., Gonzalez, L. M., & Cox, R. B. (2010). Latino Students in New Arrival
States: Factors and Services to Prevent Youth From Dropping Out. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 385–409.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986310374025
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2007). The Educationa Attainment Gap: Who’s
Affected, How Much, and Why it Matters. In C. R. Belfield & H. M. Levin
(Eds.), The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of Inadequate
Education. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/pricewepay_chapter.pdf
Bickel, R., & Papagiannis, G. (1988). Post-High School Prospects and District-Level
Dropout Rates. Youth & Society, 20(2), 123–147.
Bradley, C. L., & Renzulli, L. A. (2011). The Complexity of Non-Completion: Being
Pushed or Pulled to Drop Out of High School. Social Forces, 90(2), 521–545.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sor003
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J. J., & Balfanz, R. (2009). The High School Dropout
Problem: Perspectives of Teachers and Principals. Education Digest, 75(3), 20–
26.
Brown, B. A. (2010). Social hostility and the “dropout” syndrome: Leadership assisting
youths’ re‐entry into school? Educational Review, 62(1), 53–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910903469577
Brown, T. M., Galindo, C., Quarles, B., & Cook, A. L. J. (2019). Self-Efficacy, Dropout
Status, and the Role of In-School Experiences Among Urban, Young Adult
School-Leavers and Non-leavers. The Urban Review, 51(5), 816–844.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00508-3
Bryan, J., Farmer-Hinton, R., Rawls, A., & Woods, C. S. (2017). Social Capital and
College-Going Culture in High Schools: The Effects of College Expectations
and College Talk on Students’ Postsecondary Attendance. Professional School
Counseling, 21(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-21.1.95

Card, D., & Lewis, E. G. (2005). The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants During the
1990s: Explanations and Impacts. In G. J. Borjas (Ed.), Mexican Immigration to
the United States (p. w11552). University of Chicago Press.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11552.pdf
Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y.-L., Hanson, M. A., & Schmeiser, C. (2012).
Predicting Early Academic Failure in High School from Prior Academic
Achievement, Psychosocial Characteristics, and Behavior. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(2), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027180
Cataldi, E. F., Laird, J., & KewalRamani, A. (2007). High School Dropout and
Completion Rates in the United States: 2007. National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Caton, M. T. (2012). Black Male Perspectives on Their Educational Experiences in
High School. Urban Education, 47(6), 1055–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912454442
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in High School
Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972-2009. Compendium
Report. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED524955
Chau, V., & Yager, J. (2017). Zoning for Affordability: Using the Case of New York to
Explore Whether Zoning Can Be Using to Achieve Income Diverse
Neighborhoods. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 25(1), 1–51.
Chi, G., & Zhu, J. (2008). Spatial Regression Models for Demographic Analysis.
Population Research and Policy Review, 27(1), 17–42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-007-9051-8
Clewell, B. C., Campbell, P. B., & Perlman, L. (2007). Good Schools in Poor
Neighborhoods: Defying Demographics, Achieving Success. The Urban Insitute.
Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing
and bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030416
Crowder, K., & South, S. J. (2011). Spatial and temporal dimensions of neighborhood
effects on high school graduation. Social Science Research, 40(1), 87–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.013
Daly, B. P., Shin, R. Q., Thakral, C., Selders, M., & Vera, E. (2009). School
Engagement Among Urban Adolescents of Color: Does Perception of Social
Support and Neighborhood Safety Really Matter? Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9294-7
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on
Child Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home
Environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294
De Witte, K., Cabus, S., Thyssen, G., Groot, W., & van den Brink, H. M. (2013). A
critical review of the literature on school dropout. Educational Research Review,
10, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.002
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2011). Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Increase
Achievement among the Poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158–187.
Doll, J. J., Eslami, Z., & Walters, L. (2013). Understanding Why Students Drop Out of
High School, According to Their Own Reports: Are They Pushed or Pulled, or
Do They Fall Out? A Comparative Analysis of Seven Nationally Representative
Studies. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013503834
Downey, D. B., & Condron, D. J. (2016). Fifty Years since the Coleman Report:
Rethinking the Relationship between Schools and Inequality. Sociology of
Education, 89(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716651676
Dupéré, V., Leventhal, T., Dion, E., Crosnoe, R., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2015).
Stressors and Turning Points in High School and Dropout: A Stress Process,
Life Course Framework. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 591–629.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314559845
Edmunds, K. A., Pearsall, H., & Porterfield, L. K. (2015). Narrowing Pathways?
Exploring the Spatial Dynamics of Postsecondary STEM Preparation in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Urban Review, 47(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0285-6
Fall, A.-M., & Roberts, G. (2012). High school dropouts: Interactions between social
context, self-perceptions, school engagement, and student dropout. Journal of
Adolescence, 35(4), 787–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.004
Fischer, M. J., & Kmec, J. A. (2004). Neighborhood Socioeconomic Conditions as
Moderators of Family Resource Transmission: High School Completion among
At-Risk Youth. Sociological Perspectives, 47(4), 507–527.
https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2004.47.4.507
Freeman, J., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining the Impact of Policy and Practice
Interventions on High School Dropout and School Completion Rates: A
Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 85(2),
205–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314554431
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2007). The Race between Education and Technology: The
Evolution of U.S. Educational Wage Differentials, 1890 to 2005 (Working Paper
No. 12984). National Bureau of Economic Research.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12984
Halx, M. D., & Ortiz, M. (2011). Voices of Latino male high school students on their
disconnect with education: Perspectives of “drop-outs” and those on the brink.
Latino Studies, 9(4), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2011.49
Hao, L., & Yeung, W.-J. J. (2015). Parental Spending on School-Age Children:
Structural Stratification and Parental Expectation. Demography, 52(3), 835–860.
Harding, D. J. (2009). Collateral Consequences of Violence in Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods. Social Forces, 88(2), 757–784.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0281
Harding, D. J. (2011). Rethinking the Cultural Context of Schooling Decisions in
Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: From Deviant Subculture to Cultural
Heterogeneity. Sociology of Education, 84(4), 322–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711417008
Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2010). Alienation from school. International Journal of
Educational Research, 49(6), 220–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.03.002
Heckman, J. J., & LaFontaine, P. A. (2010). The American High School Graduation
Rate: Trends and Levels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 244–
262. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.2010.12366
Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School Disengagement as a
Predictor of Dropout, Delinquency, and Problem Substance Use During

Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(2),
156–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3
Jia, Y., Konold, T. R., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high
school dropout rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(2), 289–303.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000139
Katsinas, S. G. (1989). Educational arrears: Addressing the underenrollment of
Hispanics in Illinois higher education. The Urban Review, 21(1), 35–50.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108461
Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2014). Income Inequality, Social Mobility, and the
Decision to Drop Out of High School (NBER Working Paper No. 20195).
National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20195
Kinsler, J. (2013). School Discipline: A Source or Salve for the Racial Achievement
Gap? International Economic Review, 54(1), 355–383.
https://doi.org/10.1111/%28ISSN%291468-2354/issues
Kolak, M., Bradley, M., Block, D. R., Pool, L., Garg, G., Toman, C. K., Boatright, K.,
Lipiszko, D., Koschinsky, J., Kershaw, K., Carnethon, M., Isakova, T., & Wolf,
M. (2018). Urban foodscape trends: Disparities in healthy food access in
Chicago, 2007–2014. Health & Place, 52, 231–239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.06.003
Kotok, S., Ikoma, S., & Bodovski, K. (2016). School Climate and Dropping Out of
School in the Era of Accountability. American Journal of Education, 122(4),
569–599. https://doi.org/10.1086/687275
Lee, T., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2011). High Suspension Schools and
Dropout Rates for Black and White Students. Education and Treatment of
Children, 2, 167–192.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping Out of High School: The Role of School
Organization and Structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2),
353–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002353
Lessard, A., Poirier, M., & Fortin, L. (2010). Student-teacher relationship: A protective
factor against school dropout? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),
1636–1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.250
Li, G. (2010). Race, Class, and Schooling: Multicultural Families Doing the Hard Work
of Home Literacy in America’s Inner City. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(2),
140–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903547452
Lutz, A. (2007). Barriers to high-school completion among immigrant and later-
generation Latinos in the USA: Language, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
Ethnicities, 7(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796807080232
MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t No Makin’ it: Leveled Aspirations in a Low-income
Neighborhood. Westview Press.
Martinez, M. J., & Sparks, P. J. (2018). Towards Conceptualizing and Empirically
Examining Legacy of Place: An Exploratory Consideration of Historic
Neighborhood Characteristics on Contemporary Dropout Behavior. Population
Research and Policy Review, 37(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-
018-9458-4
Maynard, B. R., Salas-Wright, C. P., & Vaughn, M. G. (2015). High School Dropouts
in Emerging Adulthood: Substance Use, Mental Health Problems, and Crime.
Community Mental Health Journal, 51(3), 289–299.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-014-9760-5
Murnane, R. J. (2013). U.S. High School Graduation Rates: Patterns and Explanations.
Journal of Economic Literature, 51(2), 370–422.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.2.370
Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis.
Harvard Education Press.
Parr, A. K., & Bonitz, V. S. (2015). Role of Family Background, Student Behaviors,
and School-Related Beliefs in Predicting High School Dropout. The Journal of
Educational Research, 108(6), 504–514.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.917256
Peguero, A. A., & Bracy, N. L. (2015). School Order, Justice, and Education: Climate,
Discipline Practices, and Dropping Out. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
25(3), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12138
Perreira, K. M., Harris, K. M., & Lee, D. (2006). Making it in America: High school
completion by immigrant and native youth. Demography, 43(3), 511–536.
https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2006.0026
Pyne, J. (2019). Suspended Attitudes: Exclusion and Emotional Disengagement from
School. Sociology of Education, 92(1), 59–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040718816684
Rendón, M. G. (2014a). “Caught Up”: How Urban Violence and Peer Ties Contribute to
High School Noncompletion. Social Problems, 61(1), 61–82.
https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2013.11237
Rendón, M. G. (2014b). Drop Out and “Disconnected” Young Adults: Examining the
Impact of Neighborhood and School Contexts. The Urban Review, 46(2), 169–
196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0251-8
Rumberger, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and
what can be done about it. Harvard University Press.
Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermund, S. (2012). The Relationship Between Engagement
and High School Dropout. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 491–513). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_24
Schafer, M. J., & Hori, M. (2006). The Spatial Dynamics of High School Dropout: The
Care of Rural Louisiana. Southern Rural Sociology, 21(1), 55–79.
Schulz, L. L., & Rubel, D. J. (2011). A Phenomenology of Alienation in High School:
The Experiences of Five Male Non-completers. Professional School Counseling,
14(5), 2156759X1101400501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1101400501
Suh, S., Malchow, A., & Suh, J. (2014). Why Did The Black-White Dropout Gap
Widen in the 2000s? Educational Research Quarterly, 37(4), 19–40.
Tate, W. F., & Hogrebe, M. C. (2015). Poverty and Algebra Performance: A
Comparative Spatial Analysis of a Border South State. Peabody Journal of
Education, 90(3), 380–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1045732
Tavakolian, H., & Howell, N. (2012). Dropout Dilemma and Interventions. Global
Education Journal, 1, 77–81.
Trinidad, J. E. (2018a). Collective Expectations Protecting and Preventing Academic
Achievement. Education and Urban Society, online first, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124518785444
Trinidad, J. E. (2018b). Structural limitations and functional alternatives reducing
suspensions and preserving racial suspension gaps. Race Ethnicity and
Education, online first, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1538119

Trinidad, J. E. (2019). Understanding when parental aspirations negatively affect
student outcomes: The case of aspiration-expectation inconsistency. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 60(1), 179–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.01.004
Vowell, P. R., & May, D. C. (2000). Another Look at Classic Strain Theory: Poverty
Status, Perceived Blocked Opportunity, and Gang Membership as Predictors of
Adolescent Violent Behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 70(1), 42–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2000.tb00895.x
White, S. W., & Kelly, F. D. (2010). The School Counselor’s Role in School Dropout
Prevention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(2), 227–235.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00014.x
Wilson, W. J. (2012). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and
Public Policy, Second Edition. University of Chicago Press.
Winters, M. A., & Cowen, J. M. (2012). Grading New York: Accountability and
Student Proficiency in America’s Largest School District. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 313–327.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712440039
Wodtke, G. T., Harding, D. J., & Elwert, F. (2011). Neighborhood Effects in Temporal
Perspective: The Impact of Long-Term Exposure to Concentrated Disadvantage
on High School Graduation. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 713–736.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420816
Wood, L., Kiperman, S., Esch, R. C., Leroux, A. J., & Truscott, S. D. (2017). Predicting
dropout using student- and school-level factors: An ecological perspective.
School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000152

Figure 1. Dropout Rates in New York City, 2000. (A) Map of New York City that color
codes quartiles of the dropout rates for people above 25 years old. (B) LISA map that
demonstrates contiguous census tracts with significantly high (dark red) or low (dark
blue) dropout rates, or their outliers (light red or blue). Only spatial cluster cores at p <
0.05 are shown.
Figure 2. Minority Percentage and Income Averages in New York City, 2000. (A) Map
that color codes quartiles of the percentage of minority populations in different census
tracts. (B) Map that color codes quartiles of the mean income in the census tract.
Figure 3. Minority Percentage and Income Averages LISA Maps of New York City, 2000.
(A) LISA map that demonstrates census tracts with significantly high (dark red) or low
(dark blue) minority populations, or their outliers (light red or blue). (B) LISA map that
demonstrates census tracts with significantly high or low average incomes, or their
outliers. Only spatial cluster cores at p < 0.05 are shown.
Figure 4. Co-Location Maps for Dropouts and Minority Race/Average Income. (A) Upper
quartile of dropout rate. (B) Upper quartile of minority population rate in a census tract.
(C) Co-location map for clusters with high dropout rates and high-minority populations.
(D) Co-location map for clusters with high dropout rates and low average income per
census tract.
Table 1. Characteristics of Census Tracts in New York City
All Census High-High Low-Low Low-High High-Low

Tracts Dropout Rate Dropout Rate Dropout Rate Dropout Rate
Census Characteristics (n=2216) (n=380) (n= 454) (n=30) (n=18)
Racial/ethnic composition
Majority White 43.32 5.74 87.72 31.03 38.89
Majority Black 25.98 23.76 6.71 41.38 22.22
Majority Hispanic 5.21 18.02 0.88 10.34 0.00
Majority Black and Hispanic 14.38 39.95 1.10 6.90 16.67
Majority Mixed 11.10 12.53 3.08 10.34 22.22
Mean Income
< $ 20 000 13.76 40.26 3.08 33.33 33.33
$ 20 000 - 40 000 41.16 56.58 5.51 50.00 27.78
$ 40 000 - 60 000 31.00 2.63 39.21 16.67 33.33
> $ 60 000 14.08 0.26 52.22 0.00 5.56
Average Mean Income ($) 40 074 22 948 62 742 24 364 30 789
Total residents, no.
< 3000 47.38 35.96 45.57 66.67 30.00
3000 - 5999 38.18 42.78 30.83 26.67 16.67
6000 - 8999 10.61 16.53 14.53 6.67 0.00
> 9000 3.83 4.46 7.05 0.00 13.33
Notes: Table 1 presents the percentage of census tracts that fall under a particular category of racial/ethnic
composition, mean annual income, and total number of residents. The first column shows data for all census tracts.
The second shows data for clusters of high dropout neighborhoods beside other high dropout neighborhoods (high-
high) while the third shows data for low-low dropout clusters. The fourth and fifth columns show outlier
neighborhoods for those with low dropout rates beside high dropout regions (low-high) or vice versa (high-low).
Appendix Figure 1. Map of boroughs in New York City

For SocArXIv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

For SocArXIv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT

Jose Eos Trinidad1

Version: March 24, 2022

For correspondence: 5551 S Kimbark Ave., Chicago IL 60637

Funding: No outside funding was used for this research.

In contemporary society driven by the knowledge economy, the importance of

individuals or small groups (Freeman & Simonsen, 2015). In order to effectively

students’ personal and social lives (Tavakolian & Howell, 2012).

Research on predictors of high school dropout often focus on individual-

(Maynard et al., 2015). In terms of school-contextual factors, high dropout rates in

2018b), high concentrations of low-income minority students (Rendón, 2014b), and a

school’s lack of resources (Wilson, 2012).

second example, neighborhood clusters of dropout prevalence may indicate shared

example is in terms of the detrimental influence of students’ activities outside of school,

I argue that neighborhood spatial data analysis can supplement people’s

divided into individual-personal, school-contextual, and neighborhood-spatial factors

Individual-personal factors for dropping out

exclusionary discipline practices like suspension and expulsion, which consequently

Hispanic groups can be disproportionately represented in dropping out due to poverty

individual racial identification captures some of the group’s shared experiences,

particularly in inner-city areas (Li, 2010).

females than males actually graduated from high school.

Aside from these sociodemographic and economic measures, certain behavioral

of disengagement in school is associated with higher likelihood of dropping out, in

that personal behavioral factors can contribute to increased likelihood of academic

failure, seen significantly in high school dropping out.

Although seemingly an individual independent act, the person’s dropping out

School-contextual factors for dropping out

Burkam, 2003). In a meta-analysis of the dropout literature, De Witte and colleagues

influence on dropout risk.

A school’s social climate is particularly important as research suggests that

Additionally, when students in a school collectively share high expectations, it is

students’ decision to drop out of high school (B. A. Brown, 2010).

Inasmuch as student-to-student interaction can affect students’ decision to

have high authoritarian climates, manifested in the prevalent use of out-of-school

suspensions, are linked with negative academic consequences, inclusive of students’

person’s non-completion of high school.

Neighborhood-spatial factors for dropping out

like a community’s socioeconomic advantage and the perception of neighborhood

rather than think of neighborhood disadvantage as directly influencing high school

dropout, this disadvantage actually affects dropouts because “[n]eighborhood contacts

neighborhood violence is suggested to mediate how neighborhood disadvantage affects

features of urban neighborhoods, consequential for completion of high school. It is not

lead to expectations of behaviors counterproductive to school completion, like truancy

behaviors, the perception of safety or incivility in a neighborhood can also impact

(Daly et al., 2009).

Despite these studies that highlight the importance of neighborhood factors in

2015). In urban areas in particular, it is important to see how clustered neighborhoods

(Martinez & Sparks, 2018).

discerned in terms of its association with high school dropouts.

Data and methods

racial/ethnic composition of each census tract, I used two variables: a continuous

Aside from racial/ethnic composition in the census tract, the neighborhood’s

provide a more intuitive interpretation.

understanding spatial associations between and among variables related by space. To

shades of orange denoting higher rates of a particular variable. Appendix Figure 1

which sections of New York have higher or lower concentrations of particular

one neighborhood can influence another neighborhood.

have similar rates in dropout.

city share similar racial minority status or mean income.

To see if the dependent variable of dropout is related to both space and

variable. Following this, I identified co-location clusters of high quartile observations

<INSERT FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE>