Rural Students at Risk in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas
School Practices
"Students do not fail simply because they are black or poor or pregnant or from a single-parent home. They fail, in part, because schools are not responsive to the conditions and problems accompanying these personal and SES conditions" (Wehlage et al., 1989, p. 50-51).
Teachers can have a significant impact on how well their students achieve. How they treat their various students may make the difference between decisions to remain in school or to drop out. Many students report teacher conflicts as a significant factor in their decision to drop out (Roderick, 1993). It is apparent from research that at-risk students are frequently treated differently from their higher achieving peers.
For example, sometimes these [at-risk] students are ...
- seated farther away from the teacher.
- given less direct instruction.
- offered fewer opportunities to learn new material.
- questioned primarily at the knowledge/comprehension levels.
- not prompted when they do not know the answer to a question.
- given less praise.
- rewarded for inappropriate behavior.
- criticized fore frequently.
- given less feedback.
- interrupted more often.
- given less eye contact and other nonverbal communication of attention and responsiveness.
In addition to teacher effects, some school practices and policies (for example, tolerance of truancy) can also increase risk of failure or dropping out. Indeed, some policies, ostensibly designed to maintain high standards in school, have had unintended consequences that have exacerbated the dropout problem. Such policy issues include (1) student retention, (2) the frequent use of out-of-school suspension to control behavior, (3) high rates of course failures, and (4) ability grouping.
Student Retention
Retention in at least one grade is a predictor of dropping out (Clark, 1991; Pallas, 1990; Bryk & Thum, 1989). This factor has been a known dropout correlate for quite some time. Schreiber reported in 1963 that out of every ten dropouts, nine had been retained at least one year. Whiteside and Merriman in 1973 found that of all pre-ninth grade dropouts in their study, all had been retained at least one grade. Indeed, 84 percent had been retained two grades.
Although the practice of retaining students who do not make satisfactory progress appears to be a logical strategy for maintaining academic excellence, a review of the literature led Slavin (1991) to conclude that there is solid research to show that retention does not improve achievement. Roderick (1993), reporting on studies measuring the effects of retained students against matched students who were not retained, concludes that
promoted students perform better than nonpromoted students in the next year on measures of academic achievement, personal adjustment, self-concept, and attitudes toward school....[Further, a] widely quoted finding from the Youth in Transition Study is that one grade retention increases the risk of dropping out by 40 to 50 percent, and more than one by 90 percent. (pp. 104-105)
Additionally, some evidence points toward discrimination in retention practices with disproportionate numbers of males, African-Americans, and Hispanics being retained (Slavin, 1991; Witte and Walsh, 1985).
Course Failure and Poor Grades
"Whenever students do more poorly in school, they are more likely to drop out" (Roderick, 1993, p. 90). Poor and failing grades are a strong predictor for dropping out of school (Wehlage et al., 1989). "Failure and dropping out are intertwined. Three times as many school failures dropout than those who succeed" (Titone, 1982, 4). This dropout correlate is quite understandable and, like retention, has been a known variable for a long time. For instance Schreiber (1963) suggested a threefold course failure rate of dropouts over those who completed high school. A strong link between those students whose grades drop significantly at major transition times (from elementary to middle school or from middle school to high school) are also at increased risk of dropping out (Roderick, 1993).
In secondary schools, the need to maintain academic excellence often leads to higher numbers of course failures. As with retention practices, requiring students to maintain certain standards in order to receive passing grades appears to be a practice grounded in logic. However, when students perform poorly in or fail courses, the school's practices (e.g., the curriculum, teaching strategies, etc.) must also be subject to investigation and modification. The challenge is to modify programs to improve at-risk student success without "watering down" course contents.
Suspension and Expulsion
High numbers of out-of-school suspensions are also related to higher dropout rates (Wehlage et al., 1989). "Eventual dropouts tend to be...more entangled in school disciplinary proceedings, more frequently suspended, and in more trouble with the law" (Catterall, 1986, p. 9). Goll et al. (1989), reporting on the results of a large, national, "at-risk" study conducted by Phi Delta Kappa, indicate that suspension and absences are the two leading variables having impact on students being retained. This finding is not surprising since it is virtually impossible to make satisfactory academic progress when one is not present in the classroom. Grade retention, in turn (as stated previously), influences student decisions to drop out.
The issue of potential discrimination is evident with course failures as it is with suspensions and expulsions. In a study of Boston schools, where the dropout rate was 50 percent, Wheelock (1986) found that one in ten students was suspended each year. Further, African-American and Hispanic students were suspended at higher rates than were their White counterparts.
Ability Grouping
Ability grouping or "tracking" came into prominence as large numbers of immigrants came to the United States earlier this century and began to enroll their children in the public schools. Its purpose has traditionally been to match student ability with appropriate curricula and teaching methodologies. However, research has shown that
this practice has created as many problems as it was designed to solve. Tracking...allocates the most valuable school experiences--including challenging and meaningful curricula, top-quality instruction, and high teacher expectations--to students who already have the greatest academic, economic, and social advantages. On the other hand, those who face the greatest struggles in school--and in life in general--receive a more impoverished curriculum based on lower assessments of their learning capacity. (Wheelock, 1992, p. 6)
Placement in lower ability groups is associated with increased frequency of delinquent behaviors and a higher rate of dropping out (Slavin, 1990). Furthermore, there is evidence to show that expectations are reduced, the curriculum is less rigorous, and less creative instructional techniques are used for students placed in lower ability groups (Pallas, 1990; Slavin, 1990, Wells, 1989). "Being locked into a lower track over several school years and many subjects is [also] likely to restrict opportunity as an adult" (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989, p. 50). Another significant criticism of ability grouping surrounds the issue of educational equity relative to minority students (Black, 1993; "Federal Magistrate Says," 1993; Wheelock, 1992).
Heterogeneous grouping is one of the hallmark aspects of many reform efforts, particularly in many middle school restructuring efforts (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). There is also a strong movement nationwide to incorporate disabled, limited English proficient, and other traditionally segregated/isolated students into "mainstream" classrooms full-time, providing appropriate resources in regular education classes rather than through "pull out" or "self-contained" classroom settings.
Multiple-age classes, peer tutoring, peer-mediated conflict resolution, mastery learning, and cooperative learning strategies are some ways that many schools, elementary and secondary, are attempting to address the inadequacies of homogeneous grouping (Doyle, 1986; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Slavin, 1990; Black, 1993). Research evaluating these and other strategies appears to be generally favorable toward heterogeneous grouping (Black, 1993; Manning & Lucking, 1990). However, some resistance to, criticism of, and conflicting research results relative to heterogeneous grouping approaches involving gifted students may be found. Some advocate, with research support, for grouping gifted students heterogeneously with others in the school (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1992); others point to different research supporting homogeneous grouping of the gifted (e.g., Feldhusen & Moon, 1992; Kulik & Kulik, 1987).
Next Page: Contextual Variables