At-Risk redefined: Lab 5 Results

At-Risk students: A positive redefining for Educational equalityBy Willie J Jones IIIEDUC 707Winter 2013At-risk DefinedThe eligibility of being labeled at-risk has the negative overtone that enables some educators to disregard their perspectives on the at-risk student. These negative ideals about the at-risk student under mind the structure of the educational process cause the underdevelopment of resiliency and determination of that student to flourish despite problems. According to Capuzzi and Goss, being at risk has cause and effect implications, they include alcohol and drugs, abuse, poverty, pregnancy, physical or emotional disabilities, mobility, and learning disabilities. Fin and Owings (2006) identified students as at-risk of school failure because of status, behavior, and academics in a study to determine whether relationship existed between school engagement and post-high school accomplishments in young adults. Status risk included low socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Behavioral risk factors incorporate attendance, turning in assignments, and the understanding that school was beneficial while academic risk was indicated by poor grades and low graduation rates.Other research indicates that teachers identified students in their classroom that were either at risk or were failures. Vang (2005) presented five perspectives that teachers identified at-risk students. These identifiable markers ranged from achievement to behavioral. From and achievement perspective, students are at risk of school failure when they have earned more than two or more failing grades within a semester of school. From the perspective of behavior, students are placed at risk if students have been suspended more than two times within the school year. Most of the perspectives of students being at risk stem from teachers within the classroom.

Background informationAt-Risk: An at risk student is any student who might not complete high school or completes high school below potential because of factors such as low socioeconomic status, frequent absences, living in a single parent home, family mobility or instability, or demonstrates academic difficulty (Barton, 2006; Finn & Owings, 2006). Consequently, in theory, the term "at-risk" connotes a permanent negative psycho-educational condition that can be defined in absolute terms (Ayers & Ford, 1996; Clayton, 1996). However, much evidence suggests that "in practice" the term is vague, reflecting a lack of consensus about its meaning and criteria (Donmoyer & Kos, 1993; Richardson, Casanova, Placier, & Guilfoyle, 1989).Thus, one of the primary aims of the present study is to develop an understanding of experiential and practice-based definitions of at-risk that emerge from the perspectives of those who work most closely with children who are considered "at-risk" upon entering school. Specifically, we examine how teachers and administrators within the education setting define at-risk, and we explore how these definitions impact the way that these school professionals attempt to intervene to positively affect the lives of students and promote educational equality.

Significance of studyThe significance of this research is to develop a new attitude toward educational equality toward higher learning in the area of at-risk students with regards to graduation, grade point average, and demographics. This study is highly important because it encourages academic equality in the areas of grade point average, graduation, and demographics in regards to negative dispositions of students labeled at-risk. This data will be provided to districts with information that will close the achievement gap between students that are labeled at-risk and students that are not. The term at-risk has become commonplace in recent discussions about students, families, schools, and educational policy (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Pallas, Natriello, & McDill, 1989). It typically serves as a negative label for students who are likely to experience adverse educational outcomes, such as low academic achievement, poor school attendance, grade retention, and dropping out (Johnson, 1997). questionsH1: There is no difference between the education instructed to regular education students and at-risk labeled students scores for males and females in the area of Grade Point Average.H2: There is no difference between the attitudes of teachers instructing students labeled as at-risk and students that are not in the area of graduation.H3:There is no difference between the mean scores of students labeled at-risk in the area of demographics.variablesIndependent Variables (IVs)Graduation RateGrade Point AverageDemographicsDependent Variables (DVS):Graduation rateGrade Point AverageDemographics

hypothesisHYPOYHESIS:Use of professional training will be most effectively rated component of training teacher that exhibit negative dispositions to at-risk students.NULL HYPOTHEISIS:There will be no correlation or specific training component that shows a higher level of effectiveness for the group surveyedALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESISEffective use of training time will be the most effectively rated component of redefining negative dispositions toward at-risk students.

Survey QuestionsHow would you rate your training as related to at-risk students?How would you rate other teachers training in regards to at-risk students?How would you rate the defining mechanism of at-risk students?How would you rate your districts effectiveness into providing equitable education services for at-risk students?How would you rate your teams usage of professional development in the success of at-risk students in regard to graduation?How would you rate your teams usage of professional development in the success of at-risk students in regards to grade point average?How would you rate you teams dispositions in regard to the demographics of at-risk students?How would you rate the attitude of your support personnel in the assisting with at-risk students?

Likert Scale: ALL RESULTS WERE PRESENTED USING THE LIKERT SCALEHighly EffectiveVery EffectiveEffectiveSomewhat EffectiveNot Effective

Descriptive StatisticsT-test 0.05 level chartsT-test 0.05 LevelIn the t-test, all surveyed strategies rejected the null hypothesis. With t-scores ranging from 18.492 (Intervention Strategies) to 29.372 (Use of Time), every category surveyed produced results well above the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (ranging from 3.19 to 3.72). This definitively places the results in the upper 5% of the scores. T-test 0.001.levelT-test 0.01 levelSimilarly to the 95% confidence interval results the 99% confidence interval t-test results fully rejects the null hypothesis. In the t-test, all surveyed strategies rejected the null hypothesis. The results generated t-scores ranging from 18.492 (Intervention Strategies) to 29.372 (Use of Time), every category surveyed produced results well above the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (ranging from 3.29 to 3.80). This definitively places the results in the upper 1% of the scores.

Independent sample t-testanova

Anova textScheffe post hoc testscatterplotScatterplot textRegression tablesRegression analysisCorrelation Analysis tablesCorrelations analysis textChi-square tablesChi-square textBenefit analysisReferencesHowell, D. (2011). Fundemental statistics for the behavioral sciences (seventh edition) Wadsworth.Coefficientsa

ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.95.0% Confidence Interval for B

BStd. ErrorBetaLower BoundUpper Bound

1(Constant)1.853.5243.534.002.7682.937

Ethnicity .323.191.3331.693.104-.072.717

a. Dependent Variable: Gender