Topic Overview and Assumptions
There is a subpopulation of students in public schools across America 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. 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 The commission contributed the problem to outdated curriculum and teachers who were not qualified to teach the subjects they were assigned.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. It is possible that many of students need more specialized services that are not offered at larger public high schools, such as flexible schedules and student support services. It is also possible that there are 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 students services provided more effective. This project will explore the different factors labeling the students as at-risk to identify probable areas that should be at the forefront of any reform initiative.
Literature Review
All eyes have been on education, at least politically, since the National Commission of Excellence in Education published its findings in 1983 with regard to how the United States is performing compared to other major countries. The letter published to the American people, although now archived but easily found at http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html, is a call for reform. The original letter discussed how the United States is behind other nations in English Literacy, Math, and Science and contributed the problem to outdated curriculum and teachers who were not qualified to teach the subjects they were assigned to. The Commission recommended adding days to the school year, hours to the school day, and increasing homework for high school students. Unfortunately, those solutions have not helped possibly because the commission did not include one of the main factors in education: Students.
Even though the United States is considered “A Nation at Risk” the definition of at-risk and the realities causing the at-risk factors are not analyzed together. For a student to be labeled as at-risk by the teacher, guidance counselor, and/or administration, the student must be off track for graduation with his or her peers. Traditionally this would mean that the student would be at-risk of not graduating at all; however, there are many alternative program that allow an opportunity to students to continue to pursue their high school diploma after the allotted time at a traditional public 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. The definition, located at http://edglossary.org/at-risk/, states,
In most cases, ‘risk factors’ are situational rather than innate. With the exception of certain characteristics such as learning disabilities, a student’s perceived risk status is rarely related to his or her ability to learn or succeed academically, and largely or entirely related to a student’s life circumstances (S. Abbott, 2014).
However, 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.
The next factor to look at is when students are actually getting off track. Many times since ninth grade is the beginning of high school, researchers will target that subpopulation first to determine if there is something specific within that grade level that is happening, or can be done to improve the situation. According to the article, The Importance of the Ninth Grade on High School Graduation Rates and Student Success in High School, when a student transitions into high school. They leave an environment where they were not required to pass all of their courses and/or obtain an appropriate grade point average in order to move on. This can come as quite a culture shock for students who have been unsuccessful in middle school and therefore unprepared for the academic demands of high school (McCallum, 2010). The article offers many different intervention strategies to help students overcome the transition, but again, they are not addressing the life circumstance factors that could be the greatest contributor to a student being labeled as “at-risk.”
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 (Rock, 2014). This article appears to promote a charter school system that targets this particular student population, and does not include any actual research comparing those students and their successes in the charter system against their performance in the traditional high school setting.
The greatest compilation of research surrounding what it truly means to be “at-risk” can be found in the book, At-risk students: Portraits, policies, programs, and practices, written by Robert Donmoyer (1993). Even though this book was published over twenty years ago, it appears to be the most relevant when addressing the original letter from the Commission on Excellence in Education. It is not only about the research that is being done to help work with at-risk youth, it is about the specific life circumstances of the students that need to be addressed (Donmoyer, 1993). It is very difficult to put a blanket policy in place in education, as seen politically in many cases, beginning with “A Nation at Risk,” but actually looking at the causes. There appear to be many different types of successful interventions, but the one common thread throughout the entire book is that the factors and interventions are specific to the needs to the student or students involved. There is no quick fix or blanket policy that will improve or reform the entire system. A recommendation is made to address the students, and not the school structure, that have the greatest impact on any type of data collected (Donmoyer, 1993). Therefore, just changing the way the school operates will not make any noticeable impact.
This brings the argument around full circle. As a nation, the United States should be concerned that many students are labeled as at-risk and are not on track to graduate. However, putting in place more policies, adding time in school, and adding work to the student workload are not the answers. It is about looking at our society as a root cause of the risk factors. What types of life circumstances are making it impossible for students to be successful? Is the traditional diploma-mill style of high school part of the problem? Where has the community environment disintegrated to the point that it is a problem and not a solution? How does the educational system support and train the educators to deal with the problems without applying a temporary band aid? What is the true goal? Is it improving society in its entirety, or just getting students to graduation, with or without any type of sustainable success in the future?
Foundational Elements Analysis
A major foundational element that appears throughout the research on at-risk youth is engagement theory. “The fundamental idea underlying engagement theory is that students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks” (Kearsley, 1999). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the teacher and school to engage all students in their own educations in ways that are meaningful and purposeful. One of the common themes within the literature with regard to at-risk youth is that there are many barriers to their own education, oftentimes manifesting as apathy because of the situational risk factors that students are dealing with (S. Abbott, 2014). It is absolutely possible to create an engaging classroom, or school culture; however, if the risk factors are too much of a distraction, those factors could become too great to allow for full engagement with at-risk students.
One way that some charter schools are attempting to combat this issue is through flexible scheduling, while also providing varying levels of intervention services in order to fully engage the students. This approach appears to be targeted at older students.
Because it emphasizes collaboration among peers and a community of learners, it can be aligned with situated learning theories. Because it focuses on experiential and self-directed learning, it is similar in nature to theories of adult learning (Kearsley, 1999).
Not only is it important to ensure that all at-risk students have an opportunity to become successful learners, they must have some power over the same. Without engagement, at-risk students will continue to exist on the outskirts of mainstream society, possibly drifting farther and farther away from the successes they dream of, while having not been exposed to the skills needed to obtain those dreams.
Reflective Summary and Conclusion
When I began this project, I was just beginning to scratch the surface with my research on at-risk students. My initial focus has been on the factors that contribute to the labeling of students as at-risk. What I was initially unaware of is the traditional meaning of what it means to be “at-risk” and how that meaning has changed over the past few decades. My research has also shown me that my initial impressions of the different at-risk factors were naïve and much too narrow in scope. Much of the literature included things I had never thought of, such as whether or not the student had been born of a teenage mother. Taking a second look at the findings of others, I have decided that I need to develop a deeper level of research to truly get to the bottom of the needs of at-risk students.
My initial research began with the letter regarding “A Nation At-Risk” from the National Commission of Excellence in Education. As I continued my research, I came across article after article that used the same letter as the foundation for the research. This bolstered the idea that it is this particular declaration regarding educational reform that has been analyzed over and over, with mixed results based on the breadth and scope of the research. If many peer-reviewed, respected researchers have begun in this fashion, then obviously I am on the right track.
The most important thing for me to consider as I move forward with my research on at-risk youth is to be open-minded to varying possibilities. With the expansion of an analysis at a regional level, it should reveal that the process of an overall, blanketed reform approach cannot and will not ever work, and that it will take true analysis at the school and community levels to determine the individual needs of the students, the school culture, and the pressures from within the community to determine which factors have had the most influence on overall performance of at-risk youth.
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
Bradshaw, C., Goldweber, A., & Garbarino, J. (2013). Linking Social-Environmental Risk Factors With Aggression In Suburban Adolescents: The Role Of Social-Cognitive Mediators. Psychology in the Schools, 50(5), 433-450. Retrieved October 19, 2014.
Donmoyer, R. (1993). At-risk students: Portraits, policies, programs, and practices. Albany: State University of New York Press.
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
Fantuzzo, J., LeBoeuf, W., & Rouse, H. (2013). An Investigation of the Relations between School Concentrations of Student Risk Factors and Student Educational Well-Being. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 25-36. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.aera.net/Publications/Journals/EducationalResearcher/EducationalResearcher431/tabid/15350/Default.aspx
Graham, D. (2014). Collegial Administrative Support: Reflection from a Principal at an At-Risk Public High School. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 40-44.
Haimson, L., & Ravitch, D. (2013). Unequal Schools. Nation, 296(18), 41-43.
Hidden curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
Kearsley, G., & Schneiderman, B. (1999, April 5). Engagement Theory: A freameowrk for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved December 16, 2014, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
McCallum, K., & Sparapani, E. (2010). The Importance of the Ninth Grade on High School Graduation Rates and Student Success in High School. Education, 130(3), 447-456.
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
Seita, J. (n.d.). Reclaiming Disconnected Kids. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 23(1), 28-32. Retrieved October 19, 2014.
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 