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

Contextual Variables

Not only do school programs and practices have a direct impact upon student success, but the school and community contexts in which these programs and practices occur also affect success rates. "Context" is comprised of numerous factors. Some contextual variables can have a positive impact upon students, while others work against student success.

Generic Rural School Characteristics
School Size
School Norms
Generic Rural Community Characteristics
Community Norms

Generic Rural School Characteristics
Rural and small schools traditionally have fewer human and financial resources available than larger school districts. Their per-pupil costs tend to be higher than larger school districts because of the need to provide a wide range of courses and services to fewer students. Many states build additional weighted factors for small school size and/or isolation into their school funding formulas in an effort to help these school systems overcome these obstacles. However, state legislatures and education agencies frequently seek to reduce expenditures and increase courses and services to students through various efforts and pressures to consolidate these rural and small schools with neighboring school districts.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (U. S. House of Representatives Report 103-446) specifically singles out geographic location as an at-risk student variable. Many rural communities are remote, and many of their isolated rural, small schools have difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers. Qualified teachers are frequently unwilling to teach in these remote areas. Further, these smaller schools have difficulty competing with their urban and suburban counterparts in terms of salaries, fringe benefits, and wider social opportunities (Berkeley & Luldow, 1991).

School Size
Research on school size suggests that large schools are associated with lowered student achievement and higher dropout rates (Roderick, 1993; Fowler, 1992; Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Roweton & Bare, 1990; Bryk & Thum, 1989). Pittman & Haughwout (1987) found in their study of 988 high schools that "for every 400-student increase in the high school population, there would be approximately a one percent rise in the dropout rate" (p. 343).

Smaller school size also appears to be positively associated with factors such as school climate, orderly environment, and student-faculty engagement, which do have a direct effect on dropout rates (Jolly & Deloney, 1993). Indeed, "small schools of 300 to 400 students have fewer disruptions, higher achievement levels, more student participation in extracurricular activities, and stronger feelings of satisfaction with school life" (Clark, 1991). Certainly, many rural and small town school districts have an advantage over larger metropolitan centers with respect to school size.

School Norms
In addition to a school's characteristics, organization, and policies that affect the at-risk status of students, researchers have found that certain normative factors adversely affect student performance. Negative expectations, punitiveness, and depersonalization are obvious examples, but such norms are still evident in some schools today (Bryk, & Thum, 1989; Brendtro et al., 1990; Wehlage et al., 1989). "Students with different cultural backgrounds, values, and skills than those generally valued by American schools may be perceived as incapable of performing according to the school's standards" (Boyd, 1992, p. 31).

There are school norms that increase risk; there are also school norms that minimize the potential for certain students to be at risk. Dropout rates tend to be lower in schools where students feel safe, where "school spirit" is high (i.e., where the morale of both students and staff are high), and where teachers are perceived to be committed (Bryk & Thum, 1989).

In a synthesis of research and other professional literature on contextual factors of schools that facilitate or impede school improvement for at-risk students, Boyd (1992) suggests four school norms which tend to encourage improvement efforts. These are:

A norm of continuous critical inquiry -- Based on an understanding that all organizations have strengths and weaknesses, this norm is typified by an open examination of all aspects of the school in an atmosphere that is positive, constructive, and supportive. There is little reluctance by school personnel to share ideas, even when they appear to be counter to the group as a whole. This norm tends to encourage flexibility, creativity, and experimentation.
A norm of continuous improvement -- This school norm is one typified by action. Ideally it is closely aligned to the previous norm in that it acts upon the assessment of strengths, weaknesses and the ongoing exchange of ideas. It is a norm whereby problems are addressed by providing accurate, relevant, timely information, staff development, and other resources as needed. Communication among staff is open and clear.
A widely shared vision -- Vision, as used in this sense, has two dimensions: (1) a clear "picture" of what a school could be, and (2) an understanding of how to get the school from its current state to its envisioned state. When constituents (administrators, teachers, other school personnel, parents, and students) clearly understand and agree with both, school improvement efforts are more likely to be realized.
A norm of involvement in making decisions -- Research suggests that, to increase the probability of success in school improvement efforts, participation in decision making processes by all who are affected, especially those with the responsibility of carrying out the improvement efforts, is strongly recommended.

Generic Rural Community Characteristics
Rural characteristics vary from community to community and region to region. Unlike their urban counterparts, rural communities typically have an economy based primarily upon a single business, commercial, or industrial source. The economic bases found in rural areas are:

agriculture (29% of the U.S. non-metropolitan counties)
manufacturing (28%)
vacation/retirement/resort (11%)
mining (8%)

The remaining non-metropolitan counties are either federal land or specialized government counties (Jolly & Deloney, 1993). With such specialized economies, rural communities are more vulnerable to economic instabilities and hardships as their local economies cycle through "highs and lows." Further,

the prevalence in rural counties of extractive industries (mining, agriculture in general, forestry, and fishing), state employment (education, social service, government), peripheral manufacturing and both large corporate and very small, part-time farming seem to have a negative effect on socioeconomic conditions over time. (Howley, 1991)

Two other factors appear to be true, broadly, of rural communities. One is that the populations of many of these communities are decreasing due to the continuing migration of rural residents to larger communities and cities (Jolly & Deloney, 1993). The other is that many of these regions are quite remote, far-removed from more metropolitan cities. Many of the services, opportunities, and conveniences afforded to those who live in larger cities and towns are not as readily available to people in isolated rural areas. Health and social services, cultural resources, etc. are limited or totally lacking in these more remote regions. For this reason the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 specifically identifies geographic location as a leading indicator for identifying students who are at risk.

Community Norms
According to an African proverb, it takes a whole "tribe" to educate a child (Brendtro et al., 1990). In addition to generic demographic characteristics, rural communities and their institutions play a significant role in socializing students for readiness to learn and for success in adulthood (Pallas, 1990; Smith et al., 1991; Brendtro et al., 1990, Coleman & Hoffer, 1987). Students who have minimal community support are at higher risk of school failure than students who have such support. "Community," used in this sense, involves more than just a residential community. Coleman and Hoffer (1987) describe a functional community where social interaction, networks, and other resources go beyond the level of the family and school. In a functional community, the adults feel responsible for all children through knowing and caring about others in the community. Coleman (1990) describes this phenomenon as intergenerational closure, where "a child's friends and associates in school are sons and daughters of friends and associates of the child's parents" (p. 318).

Today, many children are isolated from these kinds of community influences. Where such a variety of influences and resources exists, the ability of children to be successful and even to rise above the socioeconomic class of their parents is enhanced. However, "the decline of such communities in the present [time] leaves parents, whether middle class or lower class, without a strong set of social resources, able only to draw upon whatever individual resources they have" (Coleman & Hoffer, 1987, p. 8). Again, students who have few or none of these social resources to draw upon for support are at higher risk of school failure than students who have more of these resources available.

The size of small towns and rural communities makes the development of such "functional community" resources easier. Most people in these smaller communities know each other. On this foundation of familiarity it is possible to nurture a greater, more mature commitment, concern, care, and support for each other. One example is Cicero, Indiana, the community that eagerly accepted Ryan White (one of the first known students with HIV/AIDS) after his home city (population in excess of 45,000) refused to allow him to attend public school.

Cicero prepared for Ryan by teaching its school staff, students, and community about AIDS. The results were compelling. The boy who had to be taught via a computer at home for fear of casual contact in Kokomo was not shunned but embraced on his first day of school in Cicero. (Sroka, 1990)

However, this kind of interpersonal involvement does not happen naturally. Indeed, it is often easier for factions and cliques, "insider" versus "outsider" attitudes, and/or "other side of the tracks" mindsets to develop and persist in smaller communities.

What causes some rural areas to be "functional communities" and others not? Social theory provides some insight. According to rural sociologists, students are at higher risk of failure in some rural communities because of the lack of human and social capital (e.g. Smith et al., 1991; DeYoung, 1989). Human capital is the combined skills, knowledge, and talents of a particular group of people. It is increased primarily through schooling and job training (Smith et al., 1991). Social capital, a concept developed by Coleman (1988), is the sum total of "the norms, social networks, and interactions that facilitate educational attainment" (p. 334). Social capital includes those factors that can be identified in both families and communities which facilitate the creation and development of human capital.

Smith et al. (1991) used the High School and Beyond database to study the relationships between school dropout rates in the South and the social capital found in families and communities. They found several family and community social capital factors that significantly influenced dropout rates. These include--

High family social capital variables:

two parents present
one sibling
mother did not work when her child was young
mother expects her child to go to college.

Low family social capital factors:

one parent present
four or more siblings
mother worked full-time when her child was young
mother has no expectation for college for her child.

High community social capital indicators:

child has never changed schools since grade 5 because of a family move
child participates actively in church activities.

Low community social capital variables:
child has changed schools 3 or more times since grade 5 due to family moves
child does not participate in church activities.

Using these significant factors, they were able to construct a model that explains variations in dropout rates among the southern communities in the study. The following table was borrowed from the study to illustrate the relationships among these variables.

Table 2
Predicted Dropout Rates in the South Between Grades 10 and 12
(Spring Semesters)

		FAMILY SOCIAL CAPITAL
		Low	High
COMMUNITY SOCIAL CAPITAL	Low	47.7%	11.9%
COMMUNITY SOCIAL CAPITAL	High	15.2%	2.6%

Note. This chart denotes dropout rates for students whose families and communities differ in social capital, controlling for human and financial capital.

Coleman's (1988) social capital theory and the findings of Smith et al. (1991) help explain the wide variance in dropout rates in different rural communities. Further, the theory suggests that increasing family or community social capital could facilitate educational attainment for disadvantaged students who are at risk.

Without taking away from the impact of Smith's study, one of its limitations is found in the narrow scope of identified factors, particularly in identifying social capital in terms of religious involvement and mobility (or lack thereof). Certainly there are a variety of other community resources that might contribute to increasing educational productivity. School leaders are increasingly pursuing coalitions and collaborative efforts with businesses, health departments, various social agencies and community organizations to expand the resource base available to meet a wide diversity of student needs. Partnerships or other cooperative arrangements are also being developed between schools and other educational entities--daycares, universities, community colleges, vocational/technical schools, intermediate education agencies, state departments of education, and other school districts. Indeed, further research is warranted.

Next Page: Why Students Drop Out