Abstract
This article explores two educational philosophies and how those specific philosophies can help at-risk students be successful. These philosophies, however, do appear to be opposites of each other. Progressivism is student-centric whereas Perennialism is teacher-centric. The most important piece of this paper is to find an approach, or a combination of approaches, that can be applied to subpopulations of at-risk student in order to remove the at-risk label altogether. (Origination date: November 30, 2014)
Keywords: progressivism, perennialism, at-risk student, educational philosophy
Introduction
There is a subpopulation in public schools of students who have been labeled as at-risk by their guidance counselor, administration and/or teachers. The term at-risk refers to the possibility that the student would not graduate from high school. According to the definition of at-risk published in the Glossary of Education Reform, at-risk can refer to many different things; however, when applying those risk factors to particular students and/or groups without any clarification, it can seem to be an overly broad reference to the specific unknown (Abbott, 2014). The National Commission on Excellence in Education published a letter to the American People in April of 1983 wherein it addressed the American Education system. The commission found that the United States was essentially behind other countries in student performance, especially in the fields of English Literacy, Math and Science. The commission contributed the problem to outdated curriculum and teachers who were not qualified to teach the subjects they were assigned. It recommended extending the school day, adding days to the school year, and increasing the amount of homework assigned to high school students. What it did not take into account is the risk factors of the students.
The majority of students are not at risk of dropping out. Actually, according to At-Risk Students, ERIC Digest Series Number 21, only about 21% of high school students will drop out (Donnelly, 1987). Some states have a higher dropout rate, such as Florida, whose dropout rate was 38 percent, the highest in the nation, which was contributed to having stricter graduation standards (Donnelly, 1987). In November 2013, the Florida Department of Education published a finding regarding Florida’s High School Graduation Rates which showed that the cohort group for 2012-2013 had only a 4.6% dropout rate with 19.8% of students who did not graduate retained or earning some other type of diploma (Stewart, 2013). This decline in the rate over the past 25 years could be contributed to many different things, including the emergence of charter schools that focus on the 19.8% of students who were unsuccessful in their traditional high school setting.
With the broad labeling of students as at-risk, the factors that actually contribute to that coding are most important in order to truly combat the problem. A recent article published by the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools specifically explored charter schools that focused on students who were over-aged and under credited. To be “over-age” a student is older than the average student for that grade level. For example, a 16 year old 9th grader is considered over-age as many students enter high school at the age of 14 or 15. To be under credited means that the student has not earned the average number of credits per year in each grade, but still has been promoted. In Florida, students need 5 credits to be categorized as a 10th grader, 11 credits to be an 11th grader, and 18 credits to be a senior. An example of an under credited student would be one who has been promoted to 11th grade; however, has only earned 4 or 5 credits. One of the things the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools found was that many of these students need different more specialized services that are not offered at larger public high schools, such as flexible schedules and student support services. There are also trends or specific indicators that arise depending on the region within which the student lives. Determining which factors are trending within which region can make the interventions and students services provided more effective. This paper will address how the Progressivism and Perennial philosophical approaches to education effect at-risk youth.
Philosophical Approaches
The first philosophy that applies to at-risk youth is progressivism. John Dewey, the father of progressive education, approached education as a move toward a student-centric model, rather than a teacher-centric model. Friedrich Froebel and Johann Pestalozzi took the student focused approach to the next level, addressing the whole student, wherein the students’ emotional needs were addressed (Ozmon, 2012). Even though this might seem like a movement away from being student centered, the whole student approach addresses all of the students’ needs rather than just ensure the students is moving forward in his or her studies.
The progressivism curriculum focuses more on student interests and questions, rather than the traditional set of standards. In a progressivism classroom, the textbooks are utilized more for research and supplemental materials. In this type of classroom the students would need to take their own experiences and apply them to the context in which they are learning. They would be the ones driving their own educations. The classroom would also look very different from the traditional rows of desks with a more clustered approach to learning, and possibly one of more singularity and individuality. A school that focuses on addressing the needs of the whole student would also ensure that social services are easily accessible as needed and other needs of the students are being met in a timely manner.
Another educational philosophy that works well with at-risk youth is perennialism. Perennialism focuses on the universal truths to be passed on from generation to generation in Western civilization (Ozmon, 2012). These truths or facts do not change. Robert Hutchins created a Great Books program in the 1960s that provided a foundation of all necessary information students must know. Mortimer Adler supported Hutchins’ ideals and added works of literature to the curriculum. This approach is teacher-centric, rather than student-centric. The curriculum is very rigid and the textbooks would drive instruction. The students would be required to read and understand materials without an understanding of the purpose. All student students would have the same knowledge of the principles they studied. The classroom would look very traditional, possibly with defined rows and obvious learning processes.
Connecting Approached with At-Risk Youth
Looking closely at the article by the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, the focus of some charter schools is the student who is definitely off track for graduation. Mostly, these students are off track due to life circumstances oftentimes beyond the control of the student. For example, illness, change in economic status, etc. are a few of the reasons that a student could become off track beyond their control. There are other life circumstances such as teen pregnancy, culture shock during high school transition, etc. that also factor heavily in a students’ ability to stay on track. A progressivist approach would focus on these particular needs and ensure that all students have access to the social services and other interventions required for students to cope with these life circumstances. Many times an at-risk student who is dealing with severe life circumstances cannot focus effectively on school due to the immediate emotional and mental needs that must be satisfied first in order to function. It is within this approach that an at-risk student could truly flourish.
What appears to be an opposing philosophy that also works very well with at-risk youth is the perennialist philosophy. Many at-risk youth are dealing with life circumstances beyond his or her control. The structure provided within a perennialist approach can provide a solid object for students to latch onto for support. Many times when dealing with things beyond one’s control there is a sense of chaos. The best way to combat the chaos is to provide structure. With too much choice a student can be overwhelmed and discouraged, but the perennialist approach requires for specific learning materials and targets that must be met in order to be successful. This approach also ensures that there is a common knowledge and common understanding among society. This in and of itself can combat the4 transiency found in the at-risk population as the families move from school to school, district to district, and state to state.
Conclusion
At-risk youth have very complex needs, which are changing constantly. The best approach to help this subpopulation is through a blended model of progressivism and perennialism. These two approaches, even though they appear to be complete opposites of each other, both lend supports for the at-risk youth. For example, as the students are working through a structured curriculum with a set of goals and milestones to reach in a perennial classroom, the emotional and mental needs of the students are being met in the progressivist classroom. The chaos of the life circumstances is receiving a stable, structured environment to focus on while the supports are in place to help students deal with the uncertain, the uncontrollable, and the things that are barriers to their successes.
The next step would be to determine which student services are needed and where. There are different risk factors within different parts of the country; therefore, it is entirely possible that within student communities there are different risk factors that need to be overcome. Identifying the different risk factors within the student community, and continuing to re-assess those needs, will truly bring about some level of reform. These factors cannot just be assessed once and dealt with. The transiency of the subpopulation is too great to only do that. Without being flexible and continually changing and evolving, the students would again find themselves in a situation where their emotion and mental needs are not being met effectively.
Another step is to determine what is considered the defined curriculum that is widely accepted and embraced by all. At least the United States was attempting to do this through the idea of the Common Core Standards. Of course, the states have individually decided what to adopt and not adopt, which is ok if a student moved within different districts of a particular state, but there will be gaps as those students move among the different states. Only time will tell if one full set of curriculum can be developed and adopted by all and how it will affect all students, not just the ones labeled at-risk.
References
A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. (1983, April 1). Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
Donnelly, M. (1987, January 1). At-Risk Students. ERIC Digest Number 21. Retrieved November 4, 2014, from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-928/risk.htm
Hidden curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
Ozmon, H. (2012). Philosophical foundations of education (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
Rock, K., Rath, B., Dawson, L., & Silva, E. (2014, January 1). Over-Age, Under-Credited Students and Public Charter Schools: An Exploration of Successes, Strategies, and Opportunities for Expansion. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/NAPCS-OPP-OverAge-Report-05.pdf
Stewart, P. (2013, November 1). Florida’s High School Cohort Graduation Rates and Single-year Dropout Rates, 2012-13. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstudent.asp
wrightteacherforum.com 