Running head: AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON

STUDENTS

At Risk Youth Programs and Their Impact on Students

David M. Bollish
Chadron State College

January 31, 2016

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

Table of Contents
Abstract
.3
Opening
Statements
..4
Statement of
Problem
..5
Literature
Review
...5
Summary
..9
Statement of
Hypothesis.
10
References
....11

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

Abstract
This research focuses on the data connected to at risk you
programs and how they may impact students. Specifically these
programs and the research of others is being used to gauge the
development, implementation and effectiveness of the Scottsbluff High
School CHOICES program. The study will look to define these youth
and programs more clearly while providing statistics to the need as
well as focal areas for success. The focal areas include, the potential
causes and labels of at-risk youth, motivation for students and staff,
and the effect of engagement opportunities and strategies.

Key Words: At-Risk You, Alternative Education Programs, Students in

Poverty, Dropout in America

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

At-Risk Youth Programs and their Impact on Students

At-risk youth are defined as those individuals who are in jeopardy
of dropping out or not reaching their potential including standard life
bench marks such as graduating high school, gaining employment,
avoiding the legal system, experiencing young or single parenthood.
Dropping out is described as an at-risk side affect in most of the
relevant literature, however, it is defined as process rather than an
event (Kronholz, 2011). At-risk programs and alternative education is
become a more common avenue in many school districts despite
peoples seemingly stagnant awareness of what they actually entail or
are designed to combat. Almost 82% of schools are offering some sort
of online format of classes for students and 32 states offer virtual
classrooms as online resources for parents of at-risk youth (Kronholz,
2011).
Not surprisingly the term at-risk youth or at-risk programs is
commonly used and vaguely defined. It may vary from teen dropouts,
to economic dependence or sadly, death (Moore, 2006). This being the

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

case the research on the topic is broad and focused on three key areas,
the child, the family, and the community as factors towards cause and
cure if you will.
Statement of Problem
In 2012 it is deemed that high school dropout rates had both declined from nearly 6
percent and were plateauing at 3.4 percent. While the nation as worked diligently to
attack the issue of dropouts schools in and of themselves are not able to combat all the
factors that put students At-Risk as these factors are generally fluid for my most
students and family. School programs focusing on students at risk render positive
outcomes including social and emotional development in addition to academic and post
secondary success. This research should serve as two-folded evidence to support the
continued development, investment and need for educational programs devoted to
students being raised with environmental risks, which put them at greater risk. Also, the
research should beginning to document the effectiveness of similarly implemented and
motivated programs with in the Scottsbluff High School school district, specifically that
of CHOICES.
Literature Review
First, and most importantly, the position and importance of humanity in teaching
must be reiterated, Nothing will transform education if we fail to cherishand
challengethe human heart that is the source of good teaching. (Parker Palmer, 2007, p.
3 in Knight p. 8). It is all to often that teachers are overwhelmed with ineffective
workshops (Knight, 2007 pg. 6). This being noted it is a sad repercussion that teachers
are not able to utilize the training they receive to benefit the students. Consequently as

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

teachers are disconnected from teaching strategies so are students disconnected from
learning, resulting in the disconnect for students that drives the need for non-traditional
practices that are exciting and address the student as a person holistically.
At-risk youth programs have become a hot topic, closing in a buzzword of
education. Because of their growing abundance and the already broad use of the term
accurately defining such youth, programs or initiatives is easily convoluted.
Unfortunately for many students the attitudes of policymakers has also reflected a shift
toward teaching students in differing ways depending on their economic status. It is
documented that teachers often hear that poor kids come from violent, chaotic homes and
that only regimented curriculums will allow them to succeed. Although wealthier children
are taught through a variety of approaches that emphasize developing the whole child, the
emphasis for low-income children is often on developing obedience. At the same time,
many rural, urban, and suburban schools serving low-income students challenge such
prescriptive teaching. They quietly provide, intellectually and materially, for high-poverty
students (Landsman, 2014 pg. 17).
This being true it is helpful to categorize at-risk youth programs in order to more
clearly define them. According to one study, there are three types of programs. Type 1
Programs refer to schools of choice, for example magnet schools, schools with open
classes, college opportunities, or other non-traditional curriculum. Type 2 programs are
most often referred to as last chance programs and are for students who have been
identified as disruptive. Type 3 programs, have a remedial/rehabilitation focus and
work diligently to return students to the traditional environment (Foley and Pang, 2006).
This being true, it clearly helps make the topic more manageable, or provides at least a

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

possibility to more easily organize the information and the purpose, and vision of each
program.
Under these descriptors the CHOICES program of Scottsbluff High School would be
most accurately categorized as a Type 1 program. Schools and administrators are
constantly involved in custom designing programs founded upon the need to reconnect
disconnected or high-risk youth back to the public education system prior to low student
performance and or student drop outs. These programs have a preventive maintenance
ideology, and serve as a basic tier two intervention in many schools, working specifically
with counselors and Area Cooperative Education Services, or ACES, programs around
the area. Scottsbluffs program in particular, also known as the CHOICES program
functions as a separate high school but is truthfully a secluded program from the main
building and also utilizes class offerings from the high school and local community
college, Western Nebraska Community College, to meet a variety of student needs.
Secondly, emphasizing and defining the specific potential causes of high-risk
teens is also important. This can be done using Dr. Moores (2006) work as she describes
the potential factors as the child, the family and the community. She suggests using the
schools information, contacting parents, and using interview data from kids (Moore,
2006).
Also, the terms, which are used to define these students, are important as well.
Such terms as juvenile delinquent, dropout, at-risk, superpredators, and opportunity youth
have continued to change showing a nations difficulty to express or define the tendencies
(Kamenetz, 2015). Also, according to Mason, the name with which the student is
identified with matters (Kamenetz, 2015). It seems reasonable that how society labels

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

students at a young and developmental stage may impact their self-image and ultimately
what they accomplish (Kamenetz, 2016).
Next, researchindicatesthatyoungpeoplewhoaresurroundedbyavarietyof
opportunitiesforengagementencounterlessriskandultimatelyshowevidenceofhigher
ratesofsuccessfultransitionsintoadulthood(Alberts,Chase,Naudeau,Phelps,&Lerner,
2006;Bandy&Moore,2009;Eccles&Gootman,2002;Roth&BrooksGunn,2000;
Pittman,Irby,&Ferber,2001;Pittman,1999;Lerner,2004:PositiveYouth
Development,2016).ThisinformationandstatementisalsosupportedbyNational
CollaborationforYouthwhichpublishedin2011thatThemotivationandconcentration
levelsofyoungpeopleweremuchhigherininformalyouthprogramsthantheywerein
school(orwhenhangingoutwithfriends),suggestingtheuntappedpowerinyouth
developmentprogramsthatcanpositivelyimpactschoolperformance.(Foley&Pang,
2006,pg.1).Theyalsostatedwhileaccesstohighqualityschoolsisanecessary
ingredientfortheeducationofstudents,goodschoolsalonemaynotbesufficientto
ensureuniversallyhighlevelsofacademicdevelopment.(Foley&Pang,2006,pg.4).
Additionally, motivation, specifically positive internally driven motivation is an
X-Factor for success. Daniel Pink said that goals that people set for themselves and that
are devoted to attaining mastery are usually healthy. But goals imposed by others--
standardized test scores, and so oncan sometimes have dangerous side effects in his
2009 text (Knight, 2007, p. 26). If this true then it is important that those involved in new
programs set goals for themselves and take ownership in the mission and project so as to
create and sustain motivation through the certain hardships of this sort of task. Also Pink
says, People arent motivated by other peoples goals. They are motivated by doing

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

work that makes a difference. (Knight, 2007, p.27). Hence it seems imperative that we
treat adults like adults and allow them to find their own natural motivation through the
ownership. This may also be translated to youth. Many at risk youth are not unmotivated
because of choice; they are disheartened by the circumstances of their life, their parents,
family or personal health, lack of meaningful relationships and or since of purpose. A
capable unmotivated group, driven by the chain of command will likely not have as high
of output as the same capable group driven by their own intrinsic motivations. Those
adults pursuing or driving at-risk programs and youth in them must seek to find internally
motivations and not dwell on extrinsic factors. These positive youth development
organizations are educations community-based, largely under-appreciated and
unrecognized resources, waiting in the wings to contribute their considerable child
development expertise to the challenge of improving U.S. school achievement with much
greater intentionality (Foley & Pang, 2006, pg.1)
Summary
At-risk youth and their programs are vaguely and widely referred to as well as
described. However, evidence of their success is readily available, and the opportunity to
more clearly define their impact, the students who may fall into the expanding
classification and the available types of programs to assist them is achievable as well.
This will be our task as we collect our own data, while sifting through complex statistics
to more concisely organize information supporting students increase in achievement
during and post secondary education. An in-depth look at the programs visions,
philosophy, and curriculum will be an interesting base to draw supporting evidence from.

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

10

The primary goal of the Choices program is to provide an alternative opportunity

to many of Scottsbluffs students. The program targets at risk youth, though this term
is often miss guided and loosely used. The clear identity of the program is to help
reconnect disconnected students to education, via alternative forms of assessment,
enrichment opportunities like college courses, mock interviews, internships and college
visits, and a smaller more structured environment. A school target implementation plan
has put into place in order to achieve the following primary goals.
First, Choices aims to provide an alternative and extremely safe setting focused
around relationships with in the building not only between students and staff but also
students and peers. In many cases at risk students struggle with anxiety and relationships
making their environment a critical component of their education.
Next, Choices second goal will be quality teaching and instructional programming
to create interest and reconnect students to their education and the opportunities that are
inherently connected to its success. The goal will be to improve students NESA
performance while also preventing potential drop outs do to overwhelming credit
deficiency or huge gaps in learning due to absences, behavior, anxiety, health, etcThe
program will also focus on programming that is relevant and applicable to the students
future goals including both the work force and post secondary options.
Last, the school will function as a tier two-intervention support for the main
building. This support will help to create the most effective and efficient learning
environments for all of Scottsbluff High Schools students. In addition, the tier two
interventions allows students receive the types of supports additional and supplemental

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

11

opportunities they are seeking through flexible learning schedules, and individualized
programs geared towards each students short and long term goals.
Statement of Hypothesis
The data supports the inference that schools and communities who invest in at
risk programs for students see increased rates of secondary and post secondary success.
Therefore, it is hypothesized that students who participate in these types of youth at-risk
programs will experience increased attendance in secondary school, achievement at
multiple levels, and community involvement. Also, the continued development and focus
on holistic education geared towards reconnecting students to their education and
motivating them to remain active in their role to society is increasing demand, as risk
factors continue to rise while dropouts continue to remain the same (Stark, P & Noel, A).

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

12

References
Foley, R. M., & Pang, L.-S. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student
characteristics. The High School Journal, 89(3), 1021. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364229.
Kamenetz, A. (20015). Delinquent. Dropout. At-risk. When words become lables.
nprED. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/04/28/39949478/
delinquent-dropout-at-risk-whats-in-a-name.
Knight, J. (2011). Unmistakable Impact. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, A SAGE
Company.
Kronholz, J. (2011). Getting at-risk teens to graduation. Education Next, 11(4).
Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/getting-at-risk-teensto-graduation.
Landsman, J. (2014). Overcoming the challenges of poverty. Making a Difference, 7, 1621. Retrieved http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/jun14/vol71/num09/Overcoming-the-Challenges-of-Poverty.aspx.
Moore, K. A. (2006). Defining the term "at-risk" child trends. Retrieved from
http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/DefiningAtRisk1.pdf.
Positive youth development. (2016). Retrieved February 14, 2016, Retrieved from
http://youth.gov/youth-topics/effectiveness-positive-youth-development-programs.

AT RISK YOUTH PROGAMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STUDENTS

13

Stark, P., and Noel, A.M. (2015). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates
in the United States: 19722012 (NCES 2015- 015). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
The Impact of youth development programs on student academic achievement: A brief
prepared by the National Collaboration for Youth. (2011). National Collaboration
For Youth. Retrieved from http://nationalassembly.org/Uploads2/Resources/
SchoolSuccessBrief.pdf.