STUDENTS AT RISK Margaret Batten & Jean Russell ON BEING "AT RISK" The term "students at risk" is a catchy one, highly charged emotionally, and used frequently in the media, official reports, government documents, academic articles and papers, as well as in everyday conversation. A common understanding of the term is usually assumed, without justification. In the present paper the risk under discussion concerns educational attainment, rather than homelessness, drug abuse or any of the other risks which have been the focus of attention from time to time in relation to students. "Students at risk" are defined as those seen as likely not to complete secondary schooling (early school leavers), a definition consistent with that used for the Students at Risk Component of the Australian National Equity Program fro Schools (Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1994). To this group of students are added those who do not benefit from school while still attending (under-achievers); without adequate participation and attainment, what is the point of school attendance (South Australia, Education Department, 1993)? The focus of concern is thus on students in their secondary school years. It is nevertheless important to note that literacy problems in primary school, especially if not adequately dealt with in the first two or three years, have a widespread, continuing and critical impact on students' educational experience, participation and attainment, as well as on their post- school life (Russell and Hill, 1994). THE NATIONAL CONTEXT: INCREASED RETENTION A broad context for the consideration of risk factors is provided by the trends in participation and retention1 during the period under discussion. Tables 1 and 2 show a rapid national increase in apparent retention rates from 1981, with a decline commencing in 1993, and also considerable variation between states and territories within that common, national trend. Concerted efforts were made by government, business and industry to increase the percentage of students completing Year 12 in Australia. The Ministerial Review of Postcompulsory Schooling (Blackburn, 1985), for example, set a goal for Victoria of 70 per cent retention by 1995, a courageous aim at the time when the Victorian retention rate was 43 per cent (1984). The Australian Education Council Review Committee (the "Finn Committee"), reporting in 1991 on young people's participation in post-compulsory education and training (Australian Education Council Review Committee, 1991) recommended the adoption of a national completion/participation target by the year 2001 of 95 per cent of 19 year-olds completing Year 12 or equivalent. Government and business/industry targets such as these, and the educational changes, innovations and funding instituted to enable them to be met, have been in part responsible for national increases in retention rates. So too, however, have been other factors such as the rise in the general unemployment rate, the collapse of the youth labour market, and the introduction of Austudy for 16 year-olds at school. The greater diversity of the post-compulsory student population that higher retention has brought to each state/territory has meant the need to consider more flexible arrangements for the Year 11/12 certificates and the post-compulsory curriculum, changed teaching, learning and assessment strategies, the inclusion of vocational education and training, together with the provision of credit and flexible pathways to diverse post-school options, and school structures and environments that are appropriate for the late adolescent (Russell, 1994). An examination of national retention figures can also provide indications of broadly defined group differences, relevant to the issue of defining those students who are at risk. For example, at present, differences in retention can be demonstrated on the basis of gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Within the context of a national retention rate of 75 to 80 per cent, it might be tempting to ignore the remaining 20 to 25 per cent of students. In fact, the disadvantage of the under-achiever and early leaver is exacerbated within a society where most people complete their secondary schooling. TYPES OF RISK FACTOR AND THEIR EFFECTS System of Categorisation There is no suggestion that risk factors act in isolation from one another. Much overlap, linking and interaction is to be expected in the complex, multidimensional web of influences that help shape an individual's life. Because of this, any discussion of risk factors will inevitably result in repetition. In order to try to reduce the repetition, a system of categorisation of risk factors was adopted. Three categories of risk factor were defined: those relating to the individual, to the main social institutions affecting the student (the family and the school), and those relating to society at large (Figure 1). Different theoretical orientations do, of course, emphasise different categories of risk factor; this is evident in the literature. Some authors stress psychological constructs relating to the individual, for example, while others view risk factors from a broader sociological, or political or economic point of view. Given that we are concerned here with highly complex, human behaviour (as educational achievement and under- achievement are), it seems reasonable for all categories of risk factor to be involved in the understanding and explanation of students at risk. Details of the views offered in the literature about each risk factor listed in Figure 1 are to be found in Batten and Russell (1995). Status of Information Used Because the review was confined to Australian literature, there was considerable constraint on the nature of articles read and the completeness of the discussion of risk factors. While some of the literature consisted of evidence resulting from research (for example, the preponderance of evidence relating to school factors came from research studies conducted by ACER), there is comparatively little Australian research which links basic psychological concepts, such as self- esteem, motivation and maladaptive cognitive constructs, to students at risk, even though these concepts are used frequently in the literature that was reviewed. Where such concepts were used technically, there was a reliance on overseas research. Frequently, however, the concepts were used in a non-technical sense. Much information and evidence in the Australian literature has an experiential basis, deriving from observation in situations in which people are interacting over time with many students at risk. For example, articles concerning Berengarra School, a Melbourne school which educates secondary students with moderate to profound learning difficulties, most of whom experience social and emotional difficulties, provide evidence supporting the view that the most common characteristic of these students at risk is their low self-esteem (Candy and Baker, 1992; Lewis and Candy, 1993). There is variation, too, in the quality of experiential evidence offered; some amounts simply to a set of unsupported assertions and claims. Relationships between Risk Factors and Educational Outcomes A range of types of relationship between risk factors and educational outcomes are stated or implied in the literature. In general, the word 'cause' and a crude statement of 'X causes Y' is avoided. Many substitute words and phrases are used, as can be seen in Figure 2. It is clear that the concept of a single cause-effect relationship in this area is a nonsense. Even the general paradigm involving several intervening variables (Figure 3) which underlies much of the writing in this area must be treated as an oversimplification. Here there may be one or a cluster of risk factors which lead sequentially to another cluster of risk factors, which in turn, directly or indirectly, lead to early school leaving. Hence, low family income, family conflict and family breakdown may be seen to lead to an individual's reduced self-confidence, pessimism about the future and homelessness, which in turn lead to educational under-achievement and early school leaving among other outcomes. Some risk factors are seen to compound the effects of other risk factors. Poverty, for example, might be seen to multiply the effects of disability. 'ther risk factors may be seen to form feedback loops, producing the cyclic patterns of a downward spiral. Examples of this are the relationship between low self-confidence and performance, or between educational disadvantage, social disempowerment and poverty. Some authors speak of relationships between risk factors and educational outcomes in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, an effective school can be seen as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for reducing the amount of early school leaving. A final example of the types of relationship proposed between risk factors and educational outcomes is the notion of counteracting factors or countervailing forces. A low level of parental education is regarded as a risk factor, for example, but its influence may be counteracted by high levels of parental aspiration and expectation regarding children's education. THE IDENTIFICATION OF STUDENTS AT RISK The value of being able to identify students at risk is obvious, both in terms of being able to take preventative action to reduce the vulnerability of such students and in terms of the effective use of limited funding. An examination of the literature provides a long list of factors which are regarded as indicators of those who are or will be students at risk. In some cases there appears to be almost an identity between the concept of risk factors and indicators of students at risk. It is more helpful to seek indicators which are behavioural signs or manifestations of vulnerability, since such behaviour can be observed in schools by those prepared to take action. A list of the main indicators identified in the Australian literature is given in Figure 4. Some research has been conducted in order to determine what are the most reliable indicators of early leaving. As part of a Students at Risk project at a Queensland co- educational secondary school, Bradley & Stock (1993) sought to identify the students at risk in Year 9, in order to invite them to participate in a Future Bound intervention program.2 A questionnaire was used to obtain information from students about: family support for continued study; academic self-concept; academic attitudes and values including attitudes to school, to staying at school and to education; academic performance; career preferences; intention to leave or stay and reasons for the choice made. The authors found that the students at risk responded to the questionnaire items in a manner which was strikingly different from that of the others. The results are shown in Table 3. In another study at the same school, Bradley (1994) administered a 55-item questionnaire to all students in Years 9-11; items concerned the school, home, societal and personal factors which Bradley had identified from the literature as ones influencing early leaving. Thirty-nine of the items were found to be significantly associated with the dependent variable, intention to leave prior to completion of Year 12. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation produced nine factors: Values school completion; Ethnicity; 'Most likely to succeed'; Family support; Socioeconomic status; Male jock; Peer influence; Career ambition; Family wealth. A discriminant analysis was then performed in order to determine the best linear combination of variables which would correctly classify students into the intended school-stayer and school-leaver categories. In addition to the nine factors, two variables regarded in the literature as strong determinants of early leaving were included in this analysis: satisfaction with school and the most recent grade point average. Membership of the intended school-stayer and -leaver categories was most parsimoniously predicted by a linear combination of five variables, with the first of these being the primary variable that distinguished the two groups: Values school completion; Family support; Grade point average Values getting satisfying, well-paid job; Male jock. Both the qualitative approach to identification of students at risk, based on observation and experience, and the quantitative approach, based on the statistical analysis of quantifiable data, are of value in the search for the best means of identifying potential early leavers. A combination of the two approaches is highly desirable. PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS AT RISK The literature contains many specific references to the types of intervention used to meet the needs of students at risk. Of necessity, the range of programs is wide and varied because, as one researcher said, there is no such person as the typical school leaver, so that 'the first prerequisite for successful strategies to meet the needs of early school leavers is to cater for diversity' (Dwyer, Wilson, Wyn & Stewart, 1990: 17: emphasis in original). The focus of many of the reports and papers published in the 1990s has been on examples of programs funded under the Commonwealth government's Students at Risk (STAR) Component of the National Equity Program for Schools (NEPS), which started in 1990. An evaluation team which reviewed the operation of this program from 1990-1992 commented that 'an outstanding feature of the STAR Program is that so much has been done with very little' (Coopers & Lybrand Consultants & Ashenden Milligan, 1992: 1). A broad categorisation of programs can be made according to their organisational basis. Many of these programs or strategies are school-based and school-focused; some are based and conducted outside the school, sometimes with links to one or more schools; others are school- based, but with links to outside agencies. The following paragraphs contain examples of reportedly successful programs in each of these categories (more examples and greater detail can be found in Batten & Russell, 1995). School-Based, School-Focused Program The Deputy Principal at Oxley Secondary College in Queensland was concerned about the underachievement of a group of students aged 12-14 years and, together with a school committee, developed a Pathways program, inspired mainly by the theoretical work of William Glasser (Gilbert & McInnes, 1994). The committee was conscious not only of the academic achievement of the students, but also of behavioural patterns and environmental influences. Pathways was a withdrawal program, structured in a different way from the regular school classes. The hours were limited (1.00 to 4.30 pm), still with some overlap with the regular school hours to preserve contact and a sense of belonging in the school environment. Subjects were few but mandatory, there were small teacher-student ratios. Students were only accepted for the program if they (and at least one family member) were committed to real participation. About 60 per cent of students in the program came from other schools, but all were re-integrated into Oxley classes initially and then encouraged to go to more local schools, although not back to their original schools where they might be labelled as failures. Once re-integrated, the students were constantly monitored by the program coordinators. In the program, there was an emphasis on students sharing with and supporting each other, taking responsibility for their learning and for their actions, and acquiring planning skills, often an alien concept to students and their families. The outcomes of the Pathways Program in the first 15 months of its operation were itemised by the coordinators: no students had opted to leave the Pathways Program (though seven had been forced to leave because they were returned to institutional incarceration after breaches of bail); 12 students remained full time within the withdrawal component, 10 had been successfully re-integrated, and three had found employment; despite very high pre-Pathways truancy rates, there had only been one day of truancy from one student for the duration of the Program; despite apparently high levels of parent alienation and apathy pre-Pathways, the most recent parent evening was attended by 100 per cent of parents. School-Based Program with Links to Outside Agencies Youth homelessness has been clearly identified as a deterrent to participation in education. The Burdekin (1989) report suggested that schools could take more positive action in this area. One school that has attempted to do this is Ardoch-Windsor Secondary College in Victoria, which conducted a program of care and education for up to 100 homeless students (transferred to Prahran Secondary College in 1993). The student support component of the program provided six types of support (Holden, 1993): Housing: either direct housing in flats sponsored by private companies and schools, or indirect housing through the provision of rental subsidies; a store of furniture is maintained for access by students. Food: a Breakfast Club, run by volunteers at the school, is available to students from 7.30 am every morning; food and facilities for making lunches are also available. Emergency support: an emergency supply of food, second hand clothing and a store of toiletries are available to students; shower and laundry facilities are available; and a crisis fund is available for use when money is urgently needed. Health care: through contacts with volunteers in the community, access is provided to dental, medical and optometry treatment; a Community Health Centre bus attends the school one lunch time a week. Counselling: :therapists from a health centre and from Adolescent Services provide counselling at least one morning a week, and volunteer private therapists have made themselves available for on-site work or referral. Public Relations: aimed at raising community awareness and understanding by networking, using contacts in the community, and engaging in a publicity and media campaign which often involves teachers and present and past students from the program speaking about their experiences in a public forum. The evaluation of the school's program for homeless youth concluded that 'There is every indication that the school is successful in providing education for these students' (Coopers et al., 1992: 12). Students who had been outcasts or failures at other schools succeeded at Ardoch- Windsor. A major reason for the program's success was seen to be the strong coordination and liaison strategies that had been established. In any one week, the evaluators said, a range of service providers would be active in the school, such as: Health Department promotional workers; community nurses; Youth Access Centre workers; local council youth workers; police education activities; and religious support groups. Program Based Outside the School The Education Unit at the Ballarat Children's Hospital began its operation in 1981, but in 1988 decided to adopt a new approach, based on the Integration Model of Processes, which aims to have all children participating in the educational programs and social life of regular schools (Henderson, 1991). The students who came to the Unit, mostly of junior secondary school age, were in one or more of the following categories of risk: on court orders; socially, educationally, or family isolated; subject to abuse or neglect; with multiple family, social or educational problems; family member in care; truants; and very low self esteem. Under the new model of operation, the students were involved in a three-stage program: withdrawal of student for 4 weeks to participate in a full time educational, social counselling program at the Education Unit, which had two teachers, and access to support personnel at Ballarat Children's Home and Family Services; 3 week part time integration into mainstream schooling; 3 week full time school before withdrawal of Unit teachers. Family as well as individual counselling was available. Much of the Unit's work centred around family, school and community liaison, with a follow up of any other support services that may be involved with individual cases. The program had only been operating for a year at the time of reporting, but students who had been in the program up to that time had been successfully integrated at school, and were gaining generally good reports from staff. KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION A review of the literature on programs for students at risk brings to the fore a number of issues that should be addressed by policy makers and practitioners in the area. Some of these issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. Identification of Risk The focus of attention in programs for students at risk is on the middle and later years of secondary school, but a number of writers expressed the belief that students can be identified as at risk much earlier than the middle or senior secondary years. Preventative action was found to be all too rare. Staff claim that particular students are clearly identifiable as at risk in the primary school years, and even earlier. Tell-tale signs are many: perhaps they fail to learn to read; perhaps they hate school; perhaps they come from a family which is known to produce at-risk students. Preventative action is needed for these students, but primary schools are not set up to do this at present. (Coopers & Lybrand Consultants & Ashenden Milligan, 1992: 19) A preventative strategy suggested by Russell and Hill (1994: 1) was that primary schooling should be reconceptualised so that it becomes highly reliable in relation to literacy achievement, ensuring as close to universal literacy as possible: 'The focus would be on the early years of primary schooling, with system/school goals, resource allocation and performance indicators reflecting this'. Achievement and Behaviour An issue that has been the subject of debate, not just for students at risk but for all students, is the relative importance of social and personal development compared to academic development in a school program. The issue is of particular importance in programs for students at risk, because behaviour problems are often identified as the barrier to educational progress. A teacher at Banksia Park High School, where a serious attempt was being made to lift the school's retention rate, commented on the relationship between behaviour and achievement: We also believe that successful behavioural development for young adults is more critical than academic progress. If a student cannot negotiate effectively with peers and adults - in our case, teachers - and/or has low self-esteem, then these must be resolved and reversed, before academic success can be ensured. (Batten et al., 1991, Booklet 7: 6) Other writers (Lewis & Candy, 1993) pointed out the importance of separating the way in which the student is regarded from the way in which the student's behaviour is regarded - the former can be respected while the latter can be found unacceptable, and this distinction should be made clear to student participants in programs. Welfare One of the main issues raised in the literature, particularly by practitioners, was concerned with the nature and extent of the school's responsibility to students at risk, and with the scope of the school's role. One subject of debate was whether schools should extend their responsibility into areas such as housing, financial support and health services. The immediacy of the need for welfare assistance can be a problem. Students' educational problems often do not originate in the school but in some family or social trauma. Traditionally, schools look to welfare agencies for support, but often community welfare services are available only after a point of crisis. An alternative to schools going out to agencies is for agencies to come to the school, as in a pilot infrastructure program in Victoria, in which a part time Community Officer was located on school premises with the responsibility of bringing in the welfare services as required by students and their families, so that the school became a focal point for a range of community services. It was pointed out that schools wanting to venture into the area of welfare assistance for their students must be careful to explore the legal and resource implications of the assistance they plan to provide, particularly if it involves the out-of-school lives of students. For instance, if schools take out housing leases for student accommodation, there arises the question of responsibility for student actions outside the school's normal area of responsibility. Flexibility and Structure Organisational flexibility seemed to be a major component of successfully implemented programs for students at risk. A cluster of schools in Western Australia (Coopers & Consultants & Ashenden Milligan, 1992) worked together to implement the STAR program, and identified a lot of inflexibility in the existing government school structure: for instance, teacher union regulation of working hours limits the capacity of the school to offer timetables which enable students to fit schooling around work and other commitments. The staffing profile (with inadequate welfare support staff), facilities (no common rooms, no public telephones, no child care), and regulations about compulsory attendance were also factors which mitigated against program success. A preparedness to be flexible within a clearly articulated structure was an acknowledged reason for the success of the program at Berengarra school, with its emotionally disturbed students; for them, the school represented a place of constancy, with a staff and structure that was responsive to their needs (Lewis & Candy, 1993). Assessment and Evaluation Assessment is the 'lost' issue in programs for students at risk. In the literature, there is considerable discussion of teaching styles and teacher-student relationships in programs for students at risk, but there is very little on assessment, apart from one reference (Connell, Johnston & White, 1992), a study of assessment and evaluation in the Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP). According to Connell et al., the DSP schools they studied had moved away from the main types of assessment regimes found in schools, which were adaptations of a regime that was standard a generation ago, with frequent tests (with marks) and regular formal examinations. The DSP schools favoured individualised assessment, where the student is compared with her/himself, not with others. While acknowledging these advantages, the authors go on to point out an inbuilt hazard with the use of individualised assessment with students at risk. The more continuous the assessment, the more intensive the surveillance, which may be counterproductive with these students. The authors also question the need for more individually tailored education for disadvantaged students: 'Reflection on their situation might suggest that they are suffering from all too common deprivations, and that what they need is a shared way of dealing with them' (Connell et al., 1992: 57). The Learning Environment The source of contention in many of the schools which implemented programs for students at risk was the way in which pedagogy was enacted in the classroom. It was felt by some practitioners that traditional approaches to teaching in an academic environment were inappropriate, with their emphasis on 'control, didactic methods, classroom based, and little capacity for the teacher to respond to the social, educational and personal needs of the students' (Coopers & Lybrand Consultants & Ashenden Milligan, 1992: 20). To Thomson (1992), a school principal with extensive experience of educational provision for students at risk, negotiation is the key to engaging students in learning, and it is essential in working with students at risk. Her experience with this process was initially in relation to negotiating about behaviour problems, and she found it a natural transition to apply the same principles to the classroom and the formal curriculum, working with both individuals and groups. To the critics of the use of the negotiating process with students who regard it as an abrogation of a teacher's responsibility, she says: Negotiation is never just about getting the kids to do what interests them. Either in the realm of values, skills or content, there will be a teacher intervention. There will be a point where the teacher will have to decide what is acceptable and what isn't, what needs to be learnt. (Thomson, 1992: 250) Curriculum flexibility and responsiveness was an issue addressed by successful programs for students at risk. In reports of programs, staff often spoke of the need to develop a new type of relationship with at-risk students, with a blurring of the strong and traditional distinction between school and the rest of students' lives. Staff played a more active welfare role, and focused on building a relationship with students in which trust, keeping confidence and faith in the students were key components. REFERENCES Australian Education Council (1993). National report on schooling in Australia 1992: Statistical annex. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation. Australian Education Council Review Committee (1991). Young people's participation in post-compulsory schooling: Report of the Australian Education Council Review Committee. Canberra: AGPS. Batten, M. & Russell, J. (1995). Students at risk: A review of Australian literature 1980-1994. Camberwell, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Batten, M., Withers, G., Thomas, C. & McCurry, D. (1991). Senior students now: The challenges of retention (Booklets 1-13). Hawthorn: ACER. Blackburn, J. (1985). Report of the Ministerial Review of Postcompulsory Schooling. Melbourne: Ministerial Review of Postcompulsory Schooling. Bradley, G. (1994). Identifying students at risk of early withdrawal from secondary school. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 11(1), 1-7. Bradley, G. & Stock, J. (1993). Students-at-risk: Identification and intervention. A case study. Set, 1. Burdekin, B. (Chair, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission). (1989). Our homeless children: Report of the National Inquiry into Homeless Children. Canberra: AGPS. Candy, L. & Baker, M. (1992). What Berengarra School has learned about working with families. In J. Elkins & J. Izard (Eds.), Student behaviour problems: Contexts, initiatives and programs. Hawthorn: ACER, pp.276-282. Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training (1994). Commonwealth programs for schools 1994: Administrative guidelines. Canberra: AGPS. Connell, R., Johnston, K. & White, V. (1992). Measuring up: Assessment, evaluation and educational disadvantage. Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association Coopers & Lybrand Consultants & Ashenden Milligan. (1992). Students at Risk Program: Case studies. Canberra: AGPS. Dwyer, P., Wilson, B., Wyn, J., & Stewart, F. (1990). Early school leavers. Research report No.4. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Institute of Education, Youth Research Centre. Gilbert, M. & McInnes, M. (1994). Pathways for change. In M. Tainsh & J. Izard (Eds), Widening horizons: new challenges, directions and achievements. Camberwell: ACER, pp. 109-120. Henderson, S. (1991). Education and children 'at risk'. In J. Vernon & S. McKillop (eds) Preventing juvenile crime: Proceedings of a conference. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Holden, E. (1993). Services and early school leavers: Policies, programs and practices. Working Paper No.10. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Institute of Education, Youth Research Centre. Lewis, N. & Candy, L. (1993). Berengarra School. In D. Evans, M. Myhill & J. Izard (Eds.), Student behaviour problems: Positive initiatives and new frontiers. Hawthorn: ACER, pp.249-257. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (1994). National report on schooling in Australia 1993: Statistical annex. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation. Russell, V.J. (1994). Post-compulsory education and training arrangements in the Australian states and territories. Canberra: AGPS. Russell, V.J. & Hill, P.W. (November, 1994). The case for early intervention. Paper presented to the 1994 Annual Conference of the Australian Association of research in Education, Newcastle, Australia. South Australia, Education Department (1993). Students at Risk Program in South Australia. Richmond, South Australia: Education Department of South Australia. Thomson, P. (1992). One, two, three, four: how do you stop the classroom war? Two, four, six, eight: it's easy, just negotiate. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. Onore & J. Cook (Eds), Negotiating for the 21st century. London: Falmer Press, pp. 232-252. TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: National Apparent Retention Rates of Secondary School Students 1981-1993 Sector 1981 1986 1991 1993 Govt. 28.5 42.3 66.9 73.1 Catholic 45.6 57.4 71.9 76.6 Indep. 89.2 91.2 100.8 98.1 Total 34.8 48.7 71.3 76.6 (Australian Education Council, 1993; Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 1994) Table 2: State/Territory Apparent Retention Rates of Secondary School Students 1981-1993 % State 1981 1986 1991 1993 Increase 1981- 1993 ACT 67.9 77.7 95.6 94.2 138.73 NSW 32.9 44.4 61.4 70.6 114.59 NT 18.0 34.1 57.5 47.5 163.89 QLD 38.7 57.5 79.6 82.9 114.21 SA 38.9 54.8 83.5 86.3 121.85 TAS 26.7 30.3 52.6 60.6 126.97 VIC 33.1 46.8 75.7 79.1 138.97 WA 35.1 50.3 71.1 75.6 115.39 (Australian Education Council, 1993; Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 1994) Table 3: Comparison of at-risk and not at-risk year 9 students (Bradley & Stock, 1993) % of % of students students at-risk not Characteristic (n=24) at-risk (n=98) Parental Support Currently live with only one parent 46 15 Get along 'very well' with parent(s) 17 54 Discuss school 'most days' with 38 69 parent(s) Parent(s) think it is 'extremely 17 55 important' to complete year 12 Believe it is very important to do 30 72 as parent(s) think best Academic Self-concept (self-ratings) Above average verbal ability 29 65 Above average maths ability 13 57 Above average academic ability 21 63 Above average sporting ability 50 71 High self-esteem 29 84 Academic Attitudes and Values Above average level of involvement 13 55 in the life of the school Think school is better than 'OK' 42 79 Believe staying at school will 42 88 'greatly improve' chances of obtaining a good job Believe staying at school would be 13 78 enjoyable Believe it is important to do one's 50 91 best at school Career Intend to enter a profession 17 57 Intend to work in a sporting or 26 7 recreational role The individual Psychosocial Physical Behavioural factors factors factors Self-esteem Health, Disruptive illness, and behaviour disability Motivation Passivity Cognitive Pregnancy/ constructs mother-hood Socially Young limited offenders personality Drug use/ substance abuse Academic performance Social institutions 1 The family Family Family Family socio- Separation structure functioning economic from family status Fragmented Disturbed Income Homelessness and parent/child reconstituted relationship family s structures Family size Conflict Education Wards of state Abuse Modelling Mobility 2 The school School Curriculum School organisation climate Organisationa Content T./student l policies relationshi and practices ps Discipline Decision- Peer making relationshi ps School Teaching/lea School leaving and rning psychologis re-entry strategies ts Assessment Student participati on School/home relationshi ps Staff prof. development Society Poverty Figure 1: Summary of risk factors discussed 1 Commonly used phrases 'associated with' 'influences' 'contributes to' 'affects' 'a factor in' 'a precondition for' ' a source of' 'predisposes to' 'correlated with' 'impact on' 2 Relationships stated or implied sequential processes multiplicative effects feedback loop necessary and sufficient conditions counteracting factors Figure 2: Relationships of risk factors to educational outcomes RISK FACTOR r r EARLY LEAVING INTERVENING VARIABLES (eg. low self- esteem, low motivation, inappropriate curriculum, poor teacher/ student relationships, poor academic performance, homelessness) Figure 3:General paradigm of relationship between risk factors and educational outcomes Indicators of Students at Risk: stated intention to leave early truancy homelessness lack of interest in schooling; low valuing of school completion alienation from school; dislike/loathing of teachers poor academic performance disruptive behaviour in class; often in trouble at school passivity; being quiet and withdrawn in class frequent changes of school feels school is not supportive; lack of family support enrolled in default of a job; desire to pursue a practical course/career; lack of interest in obtaining a satisfying, well-paid job extremely poor self-image; low self-esteem drug and alcohol use/abuse; unsafe sexual practices; self-injury social isolation pregnancy and motherhood lack of competence in English or in own language Figure 4:Indicators of students at risk mentioned in the Australian literature _______________________________ 1 The apparent retention rate is defined as the number of students in Year 12 compared with the number in the cohort at the commencement of secondary schooling, expressed as a percentage. It is noted that care needs to be taken in the interpretation of apparent retention rates; factors such as a high percentage of repeat students in Year 12, migration and re-entry of mature- age students may inflate the rate. 2 It is important to remember that the research described in this and the subsequent study are based on data obtained on a restricted sample at a single school.