The Nine Facets of Quality At-Risk Education

My experience is that there is little consistency in applying quality standards to educational programs for at-risk students. For the last year the National At-Risk Education Network (NAREN) has been attempting to derive from all available research a means by which quality at-risk programs could be instituted systemically and nation-wide. I offer this article as a discussion-launching attempt in a productive direction toward focusing resources more effectively to stem this tide of discouraged learners.

This is a general introduction to the NAREN proposed schema for evaluating at-risk educational programs. It is also a succinct attempt to provide guidance and leadership in establishing a foundation for effective design and implementation of a quality program for at-risk education.

Quality Facets of At-Risk Education Programs

Certification, standards, guidelines, code points, rubrics . . . what is that all about? It is taking a stand on establishing a structure, or scaffolding, that channels resources (time, money, energy, people, materials, etc.) in the most productive of directions. It is always a matter of opinion(s), but research-based opinion is less speculative and has been field-tested under controlled circumstances in an attempt to sort out the variables that truly make a substantial difference toward, in our case, improving chances of success for at-risk youth.

At NAREN we call our research-based scaffolding the Quality Facets of At-Risk Education Programs. Although I have left out details to save length in this article, one should know that in the self-study kit version we are developing there are three major themes residing within each facet: Curriculum-wrapping (personalizing the curriculum as a way of acknowledging the value of each student's individuality), authentic assessment (clear indicators that a student and staff are moving in successful directions); and monitoring & adjusting (humility to admit mistakes and a willingness to redirect efforts more productively).

The NAREN Nine

The nine facets for quality at-risk programs that NAREN has identified follow:

Accelerated Academic Curriculum
Most at-risk students learn differently and not at all slowly when they are engaged appropriate to their learning styles and needs. High expectations that are reasonable and reachable are called for with an integration of academic and work-based learning. Meaning is a key component to learning, and especially for at-risk learners. Acceleration is accomplished by setting high and clear goals, with meaningful material, matched to learning style-signifying that each student has his/her learning individually prescribed.

Strong Literacy Component
"Can't read? Go to jail!" might as well be the banner under which the swelling population is entering our jails and prisons. Next to alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) issues, illiteracy is the number one qualifier for poverty and/or criminal behavior. The logical and rightful place to stem this tide is in the school. All academic achievement rests solidly on the ability to read and comprehend well. A NAREN certification would mean that a program is (1) assessing reading and comprehension upon entry into the program, (2) prescribing appropriate literacy activities, and (3) monitoring and adjusting the literacy curriculum for each student commensurate with individual needs and abilities to ensure success.

Deliberate Self-Management Program
NAREN research reveals that if an at-risk program is to be effective it must include a deliberate atmosphere and program of social skills in self-management and responsibility. School personnel must work toward objectives that increase student self-control, school success, attachment and commitment to education, self-efficacy expectations, and belief in a structure (e.g., guidelines, rules). In schools where such a program is well implemented, student conduct improves substantially.

Personalized Curriculum
NAREN research reveals that if an at-risk curriculum is to be effective it must shape itself to the student. NAREN strongly encourages deliberate curriculum wrapping as an intervention procedure with a curricular foundation. Each student has different individual needs, problems, and a life personal journey. A personalized curriculum holistically recognizes that one cannot separate academics from personal issues and is structured to deliberately and definitively address issues interfering with achievement and success in all facets of a student's life.

Project-Experiential-Work Orientation
NAREN research reveals that if an at-risk curriculum is to be effective it must offer a whole-to-part curriculum-students fully engaged in a productive enterprise that makes learning relevant to their learning style. A solid work component with major emphasis on developing a positive and productive work ethic is essential to high school age at-risk students. School-based businesses run by students are highly encouraged. For elementary level at-risk students, this component is still important but experiences should be age-appropriate, e.g., a play store where students can learn about working in groups, handling money, planning, decision-making, prioritizing, problem-solving, accountability.

Smaller School and Class Size
Research does not conclusively show a direct correlation between smaller class size and increases in achievement scores. NAREN believes that success is not only about content-centered scores but also about self-esteem, confidence, and the ability to be productive and healthy. A key factor in this kind of success with at-risk youth is often the creation of closer student-teacher and student-student relationships. Smaller classes allow teachers to individually prescribe instruction and monitor progress and encourage more interactivity. Smaller schools foster a sense of family/community, identity building, and caring relationships that enable successful adjustments and transitions.

Solid Planning and Administrative Support System
NAREN research reveals that if an at-risk curriculum is to be effective it must have a clear mission statement, based on a definitively stated philosophy of education, and commensurately cohesive teaching and learning strategies that are research and theoretically based. A collaborative, communicative, and supportive administration model is highly recommended with obvious evidence that staff and students are highly prized.

Collaborative Community Model
NAREN research reveals that if an at-risk program is to be effective it must involve collaborative efforts with various educational stakeholders in the community: parents, business leaders, law enforcement and the judicial system, social service agencies, and churches. Evaluations of community involvement programs indicate that these programs can consistently affect positive outcomes for attendance and persistence in school. The effects range from small to substantial but are always positive. Not to be ignored is the positive influence of local higher educational institutions. They are often influential with students prior to high school graduation in numerous ways and set a tone of expectation regarding life-long learning as a viable option for all.

Comprehensive Staff Development Program
Some alternative programs come and go with few lasting benefits for their students, and teachers often become suspicious and reluctant to buy into further "promising" reform efforts. Alternative at-risk models are very complex and often require intensive study, effort, and time to effectively implement. A successful program must include a deliberate and pertinent staff development schema in which teachers are in contact with skilled trainers in a variety of professional development settings at the school and in the classroom. Distance learning, in-house interactive involvement with experts, video-conferencing, attendance at conferences and trainings, and professional association membership offer both substantial assistance and support for modern teachers in an educational world, all sitting squarely on a needs-based curriculum.

Conclusion
There is no distinctive success formula for an at-risk program. The formulae vary dramatically across the country. Some programs have failed, and some have succeeded. Over the last decade there has either been enough success with pullout programs for at-risk students, or enough desperation and frustration with at-risk students in the traditional classrooms, or both, to encourage a mushrooming of these programs across the nation. Because of this explosive birth in at-risk student programs we are gaining a lot of knowledge about what structures and practices may encourage success and what may not. We urge a quick move to adopt a special set of at-risk education standards to catch this advancing wave of doorways into educational reform so that all students have an equal opportunity to attain success.

Bibliography of Useful Sources

Accelerated Academic Curriculum
Conrath, J. (1994). You, youth, responsibility, and self control. Lopez Island, WA, Our Other Youth.

Levin, H. M. (1988). Accelerated schools for children at risk. Research Report Series RR-0010. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Policy Research in Education.

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: approaches for students at risk. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Literacy curriculum
Moats, L. C. (1998). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 22(1).

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people's words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Personalized curriculum
MacIver, D. J., Balfanz, R., and Plank, S. (1998, July). An elective replacement approach to providing extra help in math-The CATAMA Program (Computer- and Team-Assisted Mathematics Program). Report No. 21. Baltimore: Center for Research on Education of Students Placed At Risk.

Renzulli, J. S. (1998, October). A rising tide lifts all ships: Developing the gifts and talents of all students." Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2).

Wasik, B. A. & Slavin, R. E. (1990). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A best-evidence synthesis. Report No. 6. Baltimore: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Project-experiential-work orientation
Rodenstein, J. M. Children at risk: A resource and planning guide. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students at risk. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Smaller school and class size
Farber, P. (1998, March/April). Small schools work best for disadvantaged students. The Harvard Education Letter.

Finn, J. D. (1998). Class size and students at risk: what is known? What is next? National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

LaPoint, V., Jordan, W., McPartland, J. M., & Towns, D. P. (1996). The talent development high school: Essential components. Report No. 1. Baltimore & Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Oxley, D. (1993). Organizing schools into smaller units: A Planning Guide. Publication 93û1. Philadelphia: National Center on Education in the Inner Cities at the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.

Collaborative community models
Haertel, G. D. & Wang, M. C. (Eds.). (1997). Coordination, cooperation, collaboration: What we know about school-linked services. Laboratory for Student Success: The Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory. Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.

Melaville, A. (1998, September). Learning together: The developing field of school-community initiatives. Institute for Educational Leadership and National Center for Community Education. Flint, MI: Mott Foundation.

National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Student. National Research & Development Center - CDS Project 7130.

Sanders, M. G. & Epstein, J. L. (1998). School-family-community partnerships in middle and high schools: From theory to practice. Report No. 22. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Deliberate self-management program
Hill, H. M. & Jones, L. P. (1997). Children's and parents' perceptions of children's exposure to violence in urban neighborhoods." Journal of the National Medical Association. 89(4).

McDonald, L. & Sayger, T. (1998). Impact of a family and school-based program on protective factors for high risk youth." Drugs and Society. 12(1-2).

National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students-National Research & Development Center - CDS Project 7121.

Rogers, C. R. & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn. (3rd ed.). Columbus: Prentice Hall.

Comprehensive staff development program
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: teaching for America's future. Woodbridge, VA: The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

Slavin, R. E. & Fashola, O. S. (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and promising programs for America's schools. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.