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

Policy and Program Implications for Rural At-Risk Students

Summary of the Research
For policy making at all levels of government, it is important to determine whether the at-risk student problem is different for rural schools than for their urban and suburban counterparts. This paper began by introducing five questions as a way to provide insight into the overall picture of rural at-risk students.

What do studies of dropout rates suggest about the nature and incidence of at-risk students in rural schools?
What does information about rural families, communities, and schools suggest?
What do studies about student characteristics and behaviors suggest?
What insights may be gleaned from social theory?
How do rural educators and parents perceive the at-risk problem?

These questions have been addressed as they were relevant throughout the earlier sections of this synthesis. To summarize, information about rural schools, communities, and families and about rural dropouts (i.e., the increasing poverty rate, the growing number of single female-headed households, the historic lag of educational attainment, etc.) suggests that, overall, the at-risk problem in rural schools is significant and generally ranges between the rates of prevalence of the same factors in central cities and those in suburban areas. Additionally, the rural at-risk problem differs from the metropolitan in at least four ways:

Although the average high school dropout rate for rural schools is lower than for central cities and higher for suburban areas, average post-secondary education continuation rates are lower for rural students than for their metropolitan counterparts.
Rural students who graduate from high school are at higher risk of not being successful participants in adult life because of the lack of useful vocational training programs for high school students and employment options for high school graduates.
Students in relatively isolated communities are placed at higher risk because of various direct effects of the isolation (e.g., fewer human services, fewer cultural amenities, lack of cultural diversity, lack of exposure to career options and opportunities, etc.).
Lower student aspirations appear to be more prominent in rural communities than in other settings.

These conclusions about rural at-risk students are necessarily tentative because of the relatively small number of actual studies of rural at-risk conditions. However, they provide a starting place for consideration of strategies and policies aimed at the rural at-risk population, and they suggest that programs and policies based on the urban situation may not necessarily be appropriate for rural districts. Further, the diversity of conditions in rural districts implies a need for flexibility in policy responses to rural needs.

Policy Implications for Rural At-Risk Students
According to Catterall (1986), several general themes have emerged with respect to the ways in which schools have approached their at-risk student problems. They have tended to focus upon one or more of the following:

importing/developing programs for specifically targeted at-risk student populations or actual dropouts;
identifying and providing help to at-risk students as early as possible;
addressing academic deficits through remediation;
providing counseling services to address negative attitudes, to establish goals, and to develop positive self-concepts; and
pursuing school-work linkages.

These have all been met with varying degrees of success (or lack thereof). The usual approach of providing "pull out" remedial programs has generally not shown itself to be very successful (Clark, 1991). And remedial kinds of programs, as discussed previously, tend to lower expectations and achievement. School counseling programs are far from universal. Further, where they do exist, school counselors frequently perform other tasks that tend to minimize time for counseling students. Vocational education programs are often limited and minimally relevant to the aspirations or occupational pursuits of students being served.

Recent federal legislative efforts, notably the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, the Improving America's Schools Act of 1993 (ESEA Reauthorization, not yet passed as of this writing), and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, highlight most of these same plans of action as important directions for schools to pursue relative to their at-risk student populations. However, they appear to recognize the deficiencies of many current practices.

There are at least two strong emphases in these legislations that have particular impact on rural schools and communities. One is an emphasis upon working more holistically through collaboration and cooperation with others both inside and outside the school system to improve the quality of education offered to all children in the community. There is a recognition that school improvement cannot simply be mandated from the federal or even the state level. Meaningful change must come from concerted, comprehensive efforts at the "grassroots" level. These local efforts must also enlist the cooperation and involvement of local constituents who have a stake in improving the situation as it currently exists.

A second emphasis is the incorporation of various telecommunications technologies into school curricula and routines. Advancements in computer technologies and in other distance learning capabilities provide the potential to reduce the effects of geographic isolation which confronts many rural schools and communities.

One other piece of legislation is significant for rural school policy. The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 emphasizes the importance of people being involved in the lives of others in their community. This act encourages schools to integrate community service as part of the learning process. In addition to helping to improve the plight of various local individuals in need, these efforts strengthen the ties of students to the community, as well as strengthen community commitment to their schools. The act also encourages others to be involved in their communities, including their local schools.

At least seven policy issues emerge out of what is known about rural at-risk students, about school responses to their at-risk students, and about recent legislative efforts that will have significant impact upon schools as they continue to address the needs of their at-risk students.

Individualizing to Meet Student Needs
Developing a Comprehensive Plan
Building Collaborative Partnerships
Encouraging Connections with Students
Building Community-School Linkages and Commitment
Building Challenging and Relevant Programs
Investing in Technological/Telecommunications Linkages

Individualizing to Meet Student Needs
Much has been presented in this synthesis about the nature and characteristics of at-risk students. However, as has been stated previously, a reliance on these characteristics to identify specific at-risk students is flawed. Many students who possess or display one or more of the cited at-risk characteristics will achieve adequately in school without any additional intervention. Similarly, other students, who exhibit none of these traits or behaviors, will end up dropping out of school. It is, therefore, important for each school district and school campus to assess the unique characteristics of the students whom they serve to determine who is, indeed, at increased risk of not succeeding academically. There are no generic at-risk children, and there can be no generic at-risk programs (Wehlage et al., 1989). Identifying groups of students who have a high probability of being at risk is important for planning and discussion but not necessarily for meeting the needs of individual students. Too much dependence on identification by group will lead to stereotyping some children and overlooking other children who may be in need of supportive services. Rural and small school districts are often better able (because of their smaller size) to look at students individually to assess the adequacy of their program to meet individual educational needs. However, they may need to be more creative in meeting these needs because of limited financial, human, and other resources.

Developing a Comprehensive Plan
A plethora of services for traditional at-risk students abounds in schools across the nation. There are early childhood programs, counseling programs, bilingual education, special education, vocational education, compensatory education, remedial education, and drug education. There are alternative schools with programs for pregnant students, delinquent students, former dropouts, etc. The list could go on. However, almost never do these programs interact with each other or with general education program personnel about the students each serves. Nor has the planning for and implementation of these programs developed from a comprehensive point of view.

Based upon a local assessment of which students are at risk, rural school districts should develop a master plan for reducing risk, and a strong emphasis should begin with preschool services. (It is much easier and produces much greater impact to catch problems early than to remediate embedded deficiencies later.) This does not mean that an "at-risk" label ought to be attached to young children. The negative effects, both potential and actual, of the practice of labeling students has been actively addressed (Hrncir & Eisenhart, 1991; Cuban, 1989). The comprehensive plan also has to be approached systematically so that at-risk students at all grade levels are addressed. Finally, this plan should incorporate an evaluation component to assess effectiveness in achieving program goals of facilitating learning and decreasing dropout rates.

Just as it is important to place particular focus on early childhood education to make sure that all children come to school ready to learn, it is also important for schools to prepare students for post-high school life. This means academically rigorous programs for college-bound high school students (see the "Investing in Technological/Telecommunications Linkages" section below for potential ways for rural schools to provide these alternatives). It also means that additional focus should be placed upon preparing the non-college-bound for realistic employment. To do so, schools must move beyond the traditional vocational agriculture, vocational home economics, shop, and business education options that define many vocational education programs in the nation's high schools. Tech Prep or other school-to-work opportunities (where there is an honest, realistic assessment of future regional employment options and in-depth collaborations with area businesses) provide students with foundational skills and work-related experiences to find high quality employment following graduation.

Building Collaborative Partnerships
The at-risk problem must be approached through the concerted efforts of schools, families, and the community. Since all three institutions contribute to a child's education, best results will be obtained from collaboration. Indeed, where possible, it may also be advantageous for people in smaller, more isolated communities with few resources to pursue collaborative relationships with groups beyond the community borders (Korsching, Borich, & Stewart, 1992). Neighboring school districts, intermediate education agencies/service centers, regional education laboratories, nearby universities, colleges, vocational schools, etc. may provide additional educational resources. Regional mental health centers, hospitals, and various other regional service agencies may be other resources to pursue, as are the services of community volunteers. Schools should take an assertive role in bringing together families, community institutions, agencies, and other groups and individuals to respond to the needs of at-risk children. Of the many partnerships that school leaders and teachers may pursue, meaningful associations with parents are among the most important. When parents create a positive learning environment at home, have high expectations for their child's performance, and encourage positive attitudes toward education, student achievement is significantly improved (Clark, 1991; Henderson, 1987). However, there is often a significant gap between many schools' espoused commitment to parental involvement and their actual efforts to incorporate parents in significant, meaningful ways into the ongoing education of their children.

School and community leaders should be aware that collaborative efforts are not easy. However, when the potential benefits of such collaborations are significantly greater than the prospects of achieving desired results without working with others, these kinds of interdistrict and intra-/inter-community linkages should be seriously considered. In some cases, to establish a foundation for partnerships and other collaborative arrangements, it may be necessary to develop communication and team-building skills through staff development. Teachers are skilled at working with children. However, some teachers find working with adults not to be as comfortable. In a similar way, parents, agency personnel, and others in the community may not possess adequate skills necessary to facilitate the success of efforts to develop, combine and coordinate services. Consequently, targeted training in basic communication and teamwork skills may be an important starting point.

Encouraging Connections with Students
One of the most important strategies for helping students who are at risk may be to assist them to achieve a sense of belonging in school (i.e., school membership). The importance of this sense of belonging to a supportive school community requires social bonding with other students, teachers, and/or school staff (Wehlage et al., 1989). Closely related to school membership is the concept of engagement in school. Engagement is the active involvement in at least one academic, social, or extracurricular feature of the school. Miller et al. (1988) found that engagement in even one of these aspects of the school significantly increased the likelihood of staying in school. However, there is agreement that, at some point, academic engagement must take place for school achievement to improve (Wehlage et al., 1989; Miller et al., 1988).

Improving school membership and engagement for at-risk students may require staff development to heighten teacher sensitivity. Several authors addressed student perceptions of teachers as uncaring, especially in the more academic content areas (e.g., Grannis, 1991; Frymier & Robertson, 1990; Elliot, 1988; Brendtro et al., 1990). These kinds of perceived characteristics, whether accurate or not, often contribute to decisions to drop out of school.

Because of the potential for being more "personal," small schools are more likely to achieve the kind of school climate that facilitates school membership and engagement (e.g., Fowler, 1992; Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Bryk & Thum, 1989; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987; Friedkin & Nechochea; 1987). Alternative schools and programs for at-risk students have generally attempted to create a kind of "small school" environment in their efforts to provide more responsive teachers and greater flexibility in instructional methods (Wehlage, 1989). However, small size alone does not guarantee a more personal, caring environment. Developing the kind of school culture that promotes student membership and engagement takes work and commitment from all school staff.

Building Community-School Linkages and Commitment
Especially for rural communities to survive and thrive, it is important for schools to be strong and effective. Many of these communities have had a steady decline in their populations as young adults move away and new families do not move in. Community survival rests largely on the decisions of each generation to make their homes where they were raised. Consequently, in addition to formalized organizational collaborations, more personal linkages between the school and community members are also important. A network of adults who work to see that all children succeed in school and in life develops a truly "functional" community, and establishing such a network is one of the best ways of reducing a school's at-risk potential.

Actually, these community-school linkages should go both ways, with community members serving students in various ways and visa versa. Community residents could serve as "foster grandparents," "Big Brothers/Big Sisters," tutors, coaches, mentors, sponsors, school aides, etc. to lend support personally to students and schools. However, students can also be involved in their communities through service learning projects and activities. When integrated into academic curricula, service learning projects give meaning, dignity, and worth to learning. They also strengthen the ties that these children have to the community.

A specific example of students being more actively involved in their communities is a school-based program called REAL (Rural Entrepreneurship through Action Learning) Enterprises. Through this program "with help from teachers, students research community needs and then design and establish small businesses to fill economic niches" (Watkins, & Wilkes, 1993, p. 48). This program not only enables students to see how they can use their talents and energies to build a business that actually meets a community need, but also facilitates greater self-esteem and fosters higher aspirations as students begin to see the potential of becoming entrepreneurial employers rather than simply employees. Further, students are potentially able to envision staying in their community (or returning after college).

Building Challenging and Relevant Programs
In many cases, students who are classified "at risk" are placed in programs or groups which might be described as "lower track." They are subjected to simplified curricula at slowed down rates. Expectations of both their teachers and themselves are lower as they proceed through repetitious drill and practice exercises.

There are a growing number of educators who espouse that students who are below grade level in achievement need accelerated programs--not slowed down, simplified programs (Guthrie, 1989; Levin, 1988; Slavin, 1987). Strategies such as explicit goals for closing the achievement gap, gaining parental commitment through written contracts, and increasing quality instructional time, particularly in individualized or small group settings, are part of the accelerated school concept. Providing students opportunities to learn from each other (through cooperative learning strategies, peer tutoring, etc.) also enhances student learning while freeing teachers to work more intensively with those students of greatest need. Further, as teachers adapt learning objectives to the learning styles and preferences of their students, greater learning occurs. Skilled use of computers and software (beyond lower-level "drill and practice") as learning aids are other ways to facilitate significant, accelerated, academic gains in students typically classified as at-risk.

Investing in Technological/Telecommunications Linkages
The combination of small community size and isolation place many rural areas at a distinct disadvantage relative to their urban and suburban counterparts. Per pupil costs to educate rural children are significantly higher; social, health, and other services are frequently limited; and economic development is both limited and difficult to achieve. One way that some rural school districts are dealing with limited resources is to share teachers by linking electronically with neighboring districts through two-way interactive audio/video telecommunications. Some are also linking with nearby community colleges oruniversities to offer dual enrollment or advanced placement courses to high school students. (This has helped to ease college-bound students into college by allowing them to experience college electronically and to gain college credit simultaneously with high school graduation credit.) Others are linking via satellite to resources that provide expanded course offerings. Also, the advent of access to the Internet is providing students and teachers with wide-ranging resources and connections worldwide via computers. And these are just a few of the technological options becoming more readily available to schools.

Computers, software, satellite uplink-downlink capabilities, fiber optic cable, Instructional Television Fixed Service (microwave transmission and reception) capacity, classrooms with full motion, audio/video telecommunications abilities, etc. are expensive. And beyond the initial purchase of hardware and systems, there are maintenance and expansion-of-capability costs. Therefore, rural schools should carefully consider many things before pursuing the acquisition and implementation of any of these various technologies into their educational systems. However, implementing certain new technologies (e.g., advanced/enhanced telephone, computer, and video telecommunications) can be one way to bring additional and enriched resources into rural classrooms. These technologies can also decrease the impact of isolation on students and others who live in rural areas or small communities (Sullivan, Jolly, Foster, & Tompkins, 1994; U.S. Congress, 1991; Barker, 1990).

Next Page: Concluding Remarks