Rural Students at Risk in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas

Evolution of the Concept "At-Risk"

Education borrowed the term "at risk" from the field of epidemiology (Richardson, Casanova, Placier, & Guilfoyle, 1989), a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population, (Webster, 1975). The medical field adopted the term from the insurance industry which has used it in relation to mathematical determinations of liabilities and insurance premium costs (Baizerman, 1991). In both medicine and the insurance industry, risk is identified by defining and measuring probabilistic outcomes, and it is defined in relation to a specific event (e.g., at risk of contracting a specific disease or of being involved in an automobile accident). Medical use of the term carries with it an added implication that treatment or prevention of some kind is called for (Richardson et al., 1989).

These conceptual origins hold both promises and pitfalls for the field of education. It is promising in that the use of "at risk" generates a sense of urgency, which is appropriate considering the data on high school dropouts and employability of students with/without high school diplomas, especially in rural areas. Sherman (1992) reports that "rural youths are at least as likely as metro children to drop out of high school and, if they manage to finish high school, are less likely to finish college" (p. 107) and that "unemployment in rural areas ... is now higher than in metro areas" (p. 24).

According to Pallas (1992), "untreated education problems can be as serious as untreated medical problems" (p. 22). However, applying medical terminology to an educational context can be misleading. The untreated medical problems mentioned by Pallas reside within the patient; the untreated education problems, however, involve a complex interaction of personal, social and educational variables. The danger is that school personnel and others will focus primarily or solely on the personal variables and characteristics, viewing the at-risk student as deficient because he/she does not "fit" the system rather than viewing the situation from a broader, more systemic perspective (i.e., the system as deficient because it does not meet the educational needs of all of its students).

Another pitfall is the use of the term "at risk" without specifying in what respect the student is at risk. This has caused some criticism (e.g., Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, and Fernandez, 1989). The term has been used in numerous, vague, and disparate ways (e.g., at risk of low self-esteem, becoming alcoholic, etc.). However, in the educational setting "at risk" is most commonly related to dropping out of school. Although definitions of "dropout" vary, once a definition is determined, measuring dropout rates is possible. Consequently, risk of dropping out may also be estimated.

Although the dropout issue and the at-risk issue are practically inseparable, most practitioners use the "at risk" label in a broader context than just dropping out. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 identifies an at-risk student as one "who, because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race, geographic location, or economic disadvantage, faces a greater risk of low educational achievement or reduced academic expectations" (U. S. House of Representatives Report 103-446, pp. 99-100). As of this writing, the Goals 2000 legislation has yet to be codified. However, since only one of the eight goals outlined by this legislation is concerned with dropouts, the scope of which students are at risk is clearly more extensive than those at risk of dropping out. Other literature and state adopted definitions signal a general consensus that the concept also encompasses students who are at risk of not being prepared to be successful participants in adult life, especially as related to employment. "The term at risk is...particularly applied to young people whose prospects for becoming productive members of society look dim" (Hepburn & White, 1990, p. 5). According to Boyd (1992),

Family background, personal characteristics of the child, the school context and the social behavior of children interact to create conditions that place children at risk of failing to achieve their academic potential, dropping out of school, and/or having limits placed on their ability to function as productive adults in society. (p. 3)

One criticism which can be made is that, although dropping out of school is generally considered a discrete event that can be measured, future success in adult life or limited functioning as productive adults are difficult concepts to define in ways that facilitate assessment of "at-risk" status.

Regardless of the difficulties inherent in broadening the definition of risk, in the Southwestern Region none of the five states has sought to limit the objectives of their at-risk programs simply to completing requirements for a high school diploma. Four states have adopted definitions that include explicit reference to being successful participants in adult life.

"At risk" is defined in Arkansas as "those enrolled in school or eligible for enrollment whose progress toward graduation, school achievement, preparation for employment, and futures as productive workers and citizens are jeopardized by a variety of health, social, educational, familial, and economic factors" (Arkansas Department of Education, 1990, p. 3).

Louisiana, through Senate Bill 691 (adopted in 1990), defines students at risk as "those who are experiencing difficulty with learning, school achievement, progress through graduation from high school, and/or preparation for employment due to social, emotional, physical, and mental factors."

New Mexico has defined the term as "those whose school achievement, progress toward graduation, and/or preparation for employment are in serious jeopardy" (New Mexico Department of Education, 1990, p. 2).

Oklahoma currently uses the term "high challenge" to refer to at-risk students. Senate Bill 583, adopted by the Oklahoma Legislature in 1992, states, "High challenge children and youth are those at risk of failure to complete a satisfactory education." The Oklahoma Department of Education (1992), in a statewide "High Challenge Grant Application," clarified that "high challenge children and youth are defined as individuals whose present or predictable status (economic, social-cultural, academic, and/or health) indicates that they might fail to successfully complete their secondary education and acquire basic life skills, including skills necessary for higher education and/or employment..." (p. 6).

Rather than following the approach of the other four states, the State Board of Education in Texas differentiates "at risk" by more operational criteria [Alternatives to Social Promotion as amended by the State Board of Education in July, 1990, 19 Texas Administrative Code [[section]]75.195]. Broadly these criteria include retention, unsatisfactory performance on various standardized tests, limited English proficiency, victim of child abuse, delinquent conduct, course failure, and/or homelessness (Texas Education Agency, 1991).

Numerous conditions and circumstances can combine to characterize a student as at risk. Through research, most frequently case studies, many of these conditional and circumstantial factors that identify a student as at risk have been described (e.g., Sherman, 1992; Richardson et al., 1989; Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Bockern, 1990; Ogden & Germinario, 1988). Currently, being "at risk" is generally viewed as resulting from certain predisposing factors in a student's personal circumstances and behavior in complex interaction with the school and its culture and certain practices within the context and/or influence of the surrounding community (Finn, 1993; Boyd, 1992; Jones, Olson, Rincones, & Taite, 1991; Pallas, 1990; Frymier & Robertson, 1990; Richardson et al., 1989; Wehlage et al., 1989; Barnes, 1989).

Although the literature gives an impression of consensus on this general concept of risk, operationalizing the definition to identify which children are truly at risk is complicated. Table 1 compares the operational definitions of at-risk students in the five states of the Southwestern region. Note that Arkansas and New Mexico have not developed criteria beyond their general definitions. Therefore, phrases from these definitions are included for purposes of comparison.

Table 1
Identification Criteria for At-Risk Students in the Southwestern Region

Criteria	AR	LA	NM	OK	TX
Lagging in academic skill development: inappropriate developmental level; no substantial progress in mastering skills that are appropriate for students of their age; failed at least one section on state minimum competency test; secondary student two years below grade level in reading or mathematics		*	(*)	*	*
Lagging in credit attainment: one or more years behind age group in credits attained; secondary student who has failed two or more courses		*			*
Retention: retained one or more years		*		*	*
Low grades: grades that consistently indicate major underachievement; student has achieved less than 2.0 grade points on a 4.0 scale or equivalent		*		*
Excessive absenteeism		*		*
Student has been a dropout				*
SES: low socioeconomic level; family at or below poverty level		*		*
Limited English proficiency					*
Pregnant and/or parent		*		*
Homeless student					*
Evidence of abuse				*	*
Delinquency: delinquent behavior; adjudicated as delinquent		*			*
Use of alcohol or drugs				*
Attempted suicide				*
Nondisabled student in residential facility outside of district of parent or guardian					*
Umbrella: educational, environmental, familial, economic, social, developmental, and psychosocial factors	(*)				*

(*)- Implied by state definition

Next Page: Dropout Rates - An Overview