By Amy Colcord Stuht

In November 2007 my research/writing partner Janie Yuguchi Gates and I presented at the state’s Closing the Achievement Gap conference in Sacramento. Our topic was identifying resilience factors in at-risk teens, and the conclusions from our pilot study were ambiguous. Even so, our presentation to an overflow crowd seemed to touch the intellectual and moral curiosity of our audience.

As we rushed to clear the room for the next presentation, an articulate and immaculately groomed young man introduced himself to me. His comments underscore the intensity of experience and emotion of “at-risk” success stories.

This young man felt compelled to tell me that he had been a homeless teen, a negative and drug-involved youth — like so many at-risk kids, hard to love. “I owe the change in my life to two people: a continuation school principal and a convenience store owner,” he said. “The principal allowed me to come to school, when by all rights, I shouldn’t have been there. The convenience store owner provided a place for me to sleep and a job so I could buy food and necessities.”

I do not remember this young man’s name. I don’t know why he wasn’t living with a parent, or what propelled him on his negative path. I never learned how a minor could have slipped through the social service safety nets we have in place in California. I only know that today, this young man is a college graduate working for the California Department of Education. How did this happen? And, more importantly to us as educators, how can we make it happen consistently for at-risk teens?

Differentiating the success stories

As Janie Yuguchi Gates and I expand our study, we find many young, at-risk successes tell equally moving stories that star a selfless parent, a caring mentor or a never-say-die educator. They talk of turning points, epiphanies and plenty of old-fashioned hard work and sacrifice. But we also speak with dropouts — young people who were similarly at-risk, but who have not yet graduated from high school, and are not actively working toward that goal. Dropouts.

We are entranced by the question, “What is it that differentiates the academic, social and economic paths of similarly at-risk students?” In other words, what is it that separates at-risk students who graduate from high school before they leave their teens from those who do not?

Scores of researchers over several decades have helped us identify risk factors. As school leaders, we know that one or more of the following conditions could lead a student to fall behind either academically or socially:

• Living in poverty.

• Living in a home headed by a single parent.

• Having minority status.

• Having been retained at least once.

• Moving frequently.

• Being older than the class cohort.

• Taking on adult responsibilities, such as teen pregnancy or family support (Colcord Stuht & Yuguchi Gates, 2007).

This list is by no means exhaustive, and the fact that a particular student lives with one or more of these challenges does not ensure that he or she will fall behind or drop out before high school graduation.

Researchers also debate the relative importance of individual risk factors. In fact, Jerald (2006) contends that attendance during the first 30 days of the ninth grade is a more powerful dropout indicator than eighth-grade test scores, age and other academic indicators. We learn more every year as talented researchers collect additional data and posit multiple — sometimes conflicting — hypotheses. That is how the body of knowledge is built and refined.

Conditions that minimize risk factors

The last two decades of K-12 educational reform and research have uncovered many conditions that can help to minimize the effects of common risk factors. The most powerful conditions are relatively few and clear-cut. We know that schools that are consistently successful in supporting at-risk students are often:

• Smaller schools.

• Characterized by strong interpersonal relationships.

• Staffed by educators who hold high expectations for their students and who find multiple ways to help their students meet or exceed those expectations.

• Staffed by well qualified teachers with deep subject area knowledge as well as a clear understanding of teaching and learning.

• Driven by a focused, rigorous and relevant curriculum.

A call for action and hope

As educational leaders, we must ask ourselves if the descriptors of supportive schools apply to our sites. If not, why not? We must also ask ourselves who will bring about the changes we know can positively impact student academic and social achievement. If not us, then who?

We know what needs to be done in a broad sense to ameliorate the impact of risk factors — in fact, to support the intellectual and social growth of all students. School leaders must be the standard-bearers for educational change, and build coalitions of students, parents, teachers and community members who will join the cause.

In the meantime, there are researchers out there searching for answers — researchers in universities and think tanks, and at counties, districts and school sites. There are educators seeking professional development in teaching, learning and leading. These people will inform the practice of educators who have the courage and passion to improve students’ lives.

References

Colcord Stuht, A. and Yuguchi Gates, J. (November 2007). What fosters resiliency in a community’s at-risk teens? In Jack O’Connell (host), Closing the Achievement Gap Summit. Symposium conducted by the California Department of Education, Sacramento.

Jerald, C. (2006). “Identifying potential dropouts: Key lessons for building an early warning data system.” New York: Achieve, Inc.

Payne, R. (2005). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: aha! Process, Inc.

National Association of Secondary School Principals (2004). Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: NASSP.

Amy Colcord Stuht is assistant principal, Educational Partnership School, Long Beach USD.