Rural Students at Risk in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas
Student Behaviors
All of the at-risk variables discussed previously could be characterized as status risk factors. They are elements of students' family or personal backgrounds that can have impact on their school success. Finn (1993) identifies these factors as "demographic and historical characteristics, often used to classify large groups of individuals, that are difficult or impossible to alter" (p. 1).
A second category of risk factors are behavioral risk factors. "Behavioral risk factors are a set of behaviors that, if not manifested by a youngster, reduce the likelihood that successful school outcomes will be realized" (Finn, 1993, p. 1). This set of factors may be described as "participation" or "engagement" in school (Finn, 1993; Roderick, 1993; Office of Research, 1993; Wehlage et al., 1989). In addition to behaviors that reduce risk, there are also behaviors that increase risk. Although these behaviors are not included in Finn's discussion of behavioral risk factors, many such behaviors (i.e., truancy, delinquency, substance abuse, etc.) have been studied and reported in the literature on at-risk students. A discussion of the more prominent of these factors follows.
- "Participation" in school
- Passive Disengagement: Inattentiveness, Truancy, and Absenteeism
- Active Disengagment: Misbehavior, Delinquency, and Criminal Behavior
- Substance Abuse
- Low Achievement
- Work
- Fertility-Related Behavior
"Participation" in school
Participation in school or "educational engagement...is indicated by various observable forms of student effort that demonstrate attention to, and involvement in, schoolwork" (Wehlage et al, 1989, p. 177). Finn (1993) proposes four levels of participation that tend to increase success in school.
Level one is necessary from the earliest school years. Participation at this level requires students to be present and attentive, to be prepared, and to be responsive as directions or questions are directed toward them.
Level two builds upon the rudimentary elements of level one. Students exhibiting level two participation are more than passive responders; they take initiative to ask questions, to interact with the teacher and other students on relevant topics, and to go "above and beyond" the basic seatwork or homework assigned. It may also evidence itself by students participating in content-related clubs, extracurricular activities, etc.
Level three is a specific set of initiative-taking behaviors that involves seeking out help when academic difficulties are encountered. These behaviors stem from the student's awareness and nature of the difficulty, a willingness and desire to master the difficulty, and classroom environment that is supportive of seeking help.
According to Finn, level four is not possible in all schools, but may be particularly helpful for at-risk students. This level of engagement advocates for student participation in important aspects of school governance, particularly as this has direct impact on students themselves (academic goals, discipline policies, etc.).
As students become more involved in their schools and engaged in classroom activities, they reduce the risk of dropping out. Conversely, the more alienated and disengaged they are in school, the greater the risk of dropping out (Catterall, 1986). Disengagement may exhibit itself in daydreaming, expressions of boredom, failure to complete assignments, etc.
Wehlage et al. (1989) emphasize that engagement or participation behaviors do not occur in a vacuum. The school and classroom context plays a large part in developing, nurturing, and encouraging student engagement. Class content and activities must be perceived as challenging and relevant without being too difficult rather than boring and unrelated to student lives and experiences.
Passive Disengagement: Inattentiveness, Truancy, and Absenteeism
Finn (1993) identifies paying attention as foundational to successful participation in school. Some at-risk students are inattentive, have short attention spans, and/or are highly distractible (Lehr & Harris, 1988). They are students who daydream, or are otherwise passively disengaged in classroom academic activities. They also have very minimal or no involvement in sports or other extracurricular activities (Bempechat & Ginsburg,
1989).
Other students are passively disengaged through nonattendance. Truancy, chronic tardiness, and absenteeism can lead to the ultimate disengagement, that of dropping out altogether. Students who drop out often have had attendance problems beginning in elementary school (Texas Education Agency, 1989, p. 44). Indeed, absenteeism was found to be the strongest predictor of dropping out in an analysis of the High School and Beyond database (Bryk & Thum, 1989). Roderick (1993) found in her study that only two variables were able to separate high school dropouts from lower achieving students who graduated. One of these variables was a significant drop in attendance during the middle school years (10+ days annually increase over elementary attendance). Lower achieving students who graduated had an average attendance drop of only 5 days during this same time.
Active Disengagment: Misbehavior, Delinquency, and Criminal Behavior
At least 45 percent of all students who drop out have either been suspended or designated as behavior problems by their teachers ... Misbehavior in school can identify a potential dropout. Students who have been suspended, are chronically truant, or have been in conflict with the law, have a higher-than-average chance of dropping out. (Texas Education Agency, 1989, pp. 44, 51)
Eighty-two percent (82%) of America's prisoners are high school dropouts. (Davis & McCaul, 1991, p. 89)
While some students are quietly and passively disengaged in classroom activities, others are more actively disengaged through various kinds of misbehaviors. Such misbehaviors are associated with students at higher risk and range on a continuum from classroom discipline problems to delinquency and criminal behaviors.
Juvenile delinquency and other problems that youth have with the law enforcement and/or judicial systems appear to be a greater problem in urban areas than in suburban or rural communities (Snyder & Nimick, 1983). Information about juvenile crime (including urban, suburban, and rural) ranging in age from 10 to 17 years are provided by the Kids Count Data Book (1993). The reader will note the significant increases over the five year period from 1986 to 1991 for all of the states in the Southwestern Region as well as nationwide.
Juvenile Violent Crime Arrest Rate| Rate (per 100,000) | 1991 Rank | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | 1986 | 1991 | (50 States + Washington, DC) |
| Arkansas | 88 | 276 | 19th |
| Louisiana | 288 | 493 | 39th |
| New Mexico | 299 | 328 | 24th |
| Oklahoma | 201 | 337 | 27th |
| Texas | 195 | 347 | 29th |
| United States | 314 | 466 | |
The same source provides information about the numbers of violent deaths per state for teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 years. Although these data incorporate deaths from both accidents and homicide or suicide, the numbers reflect a markedly increasing trend from the mid 1980's to the early 1990's for two of the states in the Southwestern Region. Further, all five states ranked significantly above the national average.
Teenage Violent Death Rate| Rate (per 100,000) | 1991 Rank | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | 1985 | 1990 | (50 States + Washington, DC) |
| Arkansas | 81.3 | 80.8 | 39th |
| Louisiana | 74.9 | 115.0 | 49th |
| New Mexico | 101.7 | 121.1 | 50th |
| Oklahoma | 79.0 | 83.2 | 41st |
| Texas | 80.3 | 80.2 | 38th |
| United States | 62.8 | 70.9 | |
Substance Abuse
Students who misuse or abuse drugs, alcohol and/or other controlled substances are at increased risk of academic failure and of dropping out (Shannon & James, 1992; Trusty & Dooley-Dickey, 1991; Wehlage et al., 1989). Such use appears to be a common outcome of students who are prone to misbehavior. Indeed, early antisocial behavior often leads to substance abuse (Bempechat & Ginsburg, 1989). Teachers and administrators rank substance abuse among their greatest concerns as a major risk factor affecting whether or not a student will graduate from high school (Bull et al., 1992; Klingstedt, 1990).
Drug and alcohol use among teens has been inconsistent over the years, waxing at times and waning at others. The popularity of divers substances has also varied over time. Regardless of the current substance of choice, substance misuse/abuse appears to be a major concern for those who work with teens. A Wisconsin study of alcohol and drug use among teens suggest that 33 percent of high school sophomores and 43 percent of seniors are problem drinkers and/or drug users (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1991).
That same Wisconsin study suggests that, although both alcohol and other drugs are available almost universally to those who seek them, teens in rural and small communities (less than 10,000) appear to prefer alcohol, while those in larger communities have higher rates of drug use over alcohol (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1991). It should, however, be stressed that both alcohol and other drug use are prevalent in both rural and urban settings.
Other research appears to confirm high rates of alcohol consumption/abuse among rural teens (Delgado & Rodriguez-Andrew, 1990; Egginton et al., 1990; Bill, 1989). In a study of rural Tennessee students identified by their school counselors as being at high risk of dropping out, Reddick & Peach (1990) found that 86 percent of the nearly 300 students surveyed consume alcohol at an average rate of four times per week; 73 percent self-report regular use of other drugs.
An additional concern related to substance abuse involves the children born to alcohol or drug users. There is a growing prominence of "crack babies" and children exhibiting characteristics of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome entering the schools across the United States. Because of the influence of these substances on their prenatal development, these children have significant learning deficiencies. Their potential of becoming fully functioning, independent, productive adults in later life are also greatly curtailed as a result of the substance abuse of their mothers while pregnant.
Low Achievement
The characteristic most used to identify at-risk students is low achievement. This is typically measured in terms of poor performance in class, as indicated by below average/failing grades and/or poor performance on standardized test scores. "About half of those maintaining D averages or lower typically drop out" (Catterall, 1986, p. 9). Poor academic performance often delays graduation. According to the Center for the Study of Social Policy, only 68.6 percent of all students graduated from high school on time in 1990 (within 4 years of entering high school in the ninth grade). This is down from 71.6 percent in 1985. Further, the 1990 data on students who graduated on time in the five states in the Southwestern region are as follows:
| Rate (per 100,000) | 1991 Rank | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | 1985 | 1990 | (50 States + Washington, DC) |
| Arkansas | 77.7 | 76.4 | 19th |
| Louisiana | 56.7 | 58.7 | 47th |
| New Mexico | 73.8 | 57.3 | 49th |
| Oklahoma | 72.6 | 77.2 | 14th |
| Texas | 65.1 | 65.4 | 40th |
Although the issue of low/slow-achievement of students is an important factor in determining the at-risk status of students, it is only one factor. A narrow perception of at-risk students as low achieving/low ability may result in under-identifying students who need additional support to complete school successfully (Frymier & Robertson, 1990). Hess and Lauber's 1985 study of the Chicago schools revealed that nearly one third of all students who dropped out in 1984 were reading at or above grade level (cited in Wehlage et al., 1989). After a study of Texas high school dropouts, the Texas Education Agency (1991) reported that (1) the most frequently used at-risk identification criteria were related to school performance, and (2) a significant proportion of dropouts had not been previously identified as at risk.
Students whose grades and test scores drop precipitously, especially at transition times, have also been found to be at increased risk. A study of high school dropouts in Massachusetts found that all of the dropouts had shown significant drops in grades and test scores during the year following transfer from elementary school to middle school and from middle school to high school (Roderick, 1991).
Comparing student achievement (in terms of standardized test scores) between rural and nonrural areas has also been problematic because of the difficulties in controlling for influences other than geographic location. Nevertheless, improved student databases and more sophisticated statistical techniques are making such comparisons more feasible. There is evidence to suggest that, in general, rural students are not at higher risk of low achievement than nonrural students (Ferguson, 1991; Welch, 1991).
As noted earlier, educators and policymakers generally include in their at-risk student population those who are at risk of not being successful participants in post-secondary education and/or the job market. In this respect, it appears that overall, in post-secondary pursuits, rural students may be at higher risk of not achieving their potential than their suburban and urban counterparts. Significantly fewer rural than nonrural students attend and finish college (Marion et al. 1992, Sherman, 1992; Hillman, 1991). One reason may be limited access. Hodgkinson (1994) reports that metropolitan counties are three times as likely to contain a local college or university as their rural county counterparts. Further, rural students who do not attend post-secondary school may be at higher risk of not finding satisfactory employment than similar students in nonrural areas. Elliot (1988) reported that rural administrators and teachers identified the non-college-bound student as at greater risk in rural schools because of limited vocational training offerings and employment opportunities.
Work
A great deal of political emphasis has been recently placed upon school-to-work transition. Two of the original six National Goals for Education, promoted by the U.S. Department of Education, are concerned with preparing students for productive employment to compete successfully in a modern, global economy. Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) funds are channeled to schools across the nation to help develop job-related skills and knowledge. Vocational education and school-business partnerships also emphasize preparing students for the world of work. One of the characteristics of many dropout prevention programs is vocational preparation through on-the-job training (Roderick, 1993; Wehlage et al., 1989; Titone, 1982). However, one of the predominant reasons given for dropping out of school is because of employment (Roderick, 1993).
Sometimes dropping out of school to go to work is an economic necessity (especially for Hispanics); for others it is simply a preference of work over school (Roderick, 1993). Working while attending high school, in and of itself, does not appear to influence students to drop out. Approximately 30 percent of all 16-17 year old teens are employed (National Center for Education Statistics, 1993). However, the amount of time spent at work does have impact on dropout decisions. Barro and Kolstadt (1987) found from the High School and Beyond data that students who work more than 10 hours per week are at higher risk of poorer academic performance and of leaving school prior to graduation than those who worked fewer hours per week. Catterall (1986) suggests that increased likelihood of dropping out occurs when students work more than 15-20 hours per week.
Fertility-Related Behavior
Davis and McCaul (1991) use the term "fertility-related behavior" (p. 89) to refer to the arena of issues related to potential results of teenage sexual activity (i.e., pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, etc.). Since approximately 40% of the young women who drop out do so because of pregnancy and/or marriage (Earle & Roach, 1989; Sherman, 1987), at least some of these issues are associated with increased risk of dropping out.
No research was found that attempted to study any potential correlation of teenage sexual activity and school performance or success. Rather, research appears to be more focused upon the effects of the various consequences of teenage sexual activity relative to dropping out. For instance, Davis and McCaul (1991) report the following facts about one consequence of teenage sexual activity--pregnancy.
- About 1 million teenagers become pregnant annually in the United States (approximately 11 percent of all young women ages 15 to 19 years).
- At least forty-two percent of teenage pregnancies end in abortion.
- Seventy percent of births to teenage women are out of wedlock.
- Almost half (44 percent) of all teenage mothers drop out of school.
Hodgkinson (1994) adds that rural women are less likely to receive medical attention during the early months of their pregnancies than women in urban and suburban areas.
The Kids Count Data Book (1993) reports the following information regarding the percent of births that are to single teenagers in the five state area of the Southwestern region:
Single, Teenage Birth Rate| 1990 total | 1990 Rank | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | 1985 | 1990 | # of births | (50 States + Washington,DC) |
| Arkansas | 9.6 | 11.8 | 4,304 | 47th |
| Louisiana | 10.8 | 12.9 | 9,277 | 49th |
| New Mexico | 8.9 | 11.4 | 3,128 | 44th |
| Oklahoma | 6.8 | 9.1 | 4,341 | 32nd |
| Texas | 6.3 | 6.3 | 19,811 | 6th |
| US Total | 7.5 | 8.7 | 360,645 |
Major decisions about marriage, abortion, and adoption, strained relationships, and stretched resources all have impact on the personal crisis of teen pregnancy. Another health issue relative to teenage sexual activity concerns sexually transmitted diseases. Davis and McCaul (1991) report that an estimated 2.5 million teens are annually exposed to and infected with a sexually transmitted disease of one kind or another. Hodgkinson (1994) reports that "AIDS is fast becoming a rural problem...The situation is critical because of a lack of appropriate resources and social isolation in rural areas" (p. 16). The consequences of these various diseases range from minimal to deadly. Some are easily treated; others remain incurable. Although no direct association of sexually transmitted diseases to increased risk of poor school performance has been studied, the psychological impacts that often accompany the burden of contracting and dealing with such diseases may impair students' ability to focus adequate attention and energy on their schoolwork. Consequently, grades may suffer, thereby increasing the risk of dropping out. Clearly, additional research is warranted in this area.
Next Page: School Practices