Stop using the term "At risk youth".
My name is C.L. Butler. I have worked in the non profit sector for 6 years of my 14 year professional career. Throughout my time in the non profit world, I have worked in educational administrative positions. One term I have seen used by the social scientists, teachers, counselors, MSWs, and educational policy makers is the term "at risk youth". The time has come for us to abolish this from our everyday conversation.
In the education realm, students from socially economic disadvantaged areas often are described as “at risk” students. In the 2014-15 academic year I was serving in an Houston Independent School District high school. I'm not saying that children do not face hurdles, nor am I saying in some cases they are not given basic accommodations. I'm saying that as educators and activists we need to do more, by questioning if we as a society have failed them (rather than label them). According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, the following defines students as at risk youth:
Low socioeconomic status
Living in a single parent household
Non traditional school changes
Sub par middle school grades
Older siblings who are classified as high school “dropouts”
Negative peer pressure
While these definitely could be indicators, I think the number one problem is labeling these children as “at risk” in the first place. They have not had a chance to live out their youth, much less their life. I know students who I studied with at the university level who had the complete inverse of these predetermined factors yet they still ended up being self destructive in their adulthood. People are often not their parents nor are they their siblings. How else do we have so many American success stories of so and so being the "first to graduate from college"?
While low socioeconomic status is probably the most likely cause of students labeled as “at risk” it is not necessarily the primary cause of why students self destruct. There are plenty of notable individuals who came from a disadvantaged or lower socioeconomic status who have been successful. Two recent individuals that come to mind are Liz Murray (see above photo), a Harvard alum who was homeless and raised by drug addicted parents as well as NBA player Ben McLemore of the Memphis Grizzlies who stated that his family often had to choose between food and electricity. He recently signed a multi-million 2 year deal with the Grizzlies this past week.
Labeling youth at the K-12 level as “at risk” is a form of detrimental psychological conditioning for the parents, the community, and the student especially. They may not know that they are being labeled this way, but with age they will discover that their classmates have struggles that not every student in the U.S. must face.
Having worked with urban youth in the AmeriCorps, as well as an Ivy league school based pre-college summer program, and sports camps I have been able to work with children of all economic levels. One thing I discovered about kids – they just want to have a good time. No matter how rich, no matter how poor, ultimately good friendships and and having people who care about them are the keys to success. I have benefited most, from mentors who were academic administration and teacher who showed me they cared. I benefited the least in 1st-8th grade when I had no mentors, or people looking out for me outside of family or a coach. This resulted in tons of personal behavioral problems, which is why I ultimately chose to work in people oriented positions. Mind you, my K-8 experience was at a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence, far from “at risk”.
If we remove these labels, and treat our youth coming from detrimental environments no different than we would children in benign environments I would be willing to bet they would be far more likely to succeed. Showing these students that someone cares is what matters most simply because sometimes the parents aren’t always parenting. As educators, our goal is not to gain state test score quotas, but to empower youth to shoot for their dreams and believe in their higher selves. Despite what the state tells you.
Once a child’s psyche or self confidence is destroyed, it is almost impossible to rebuild. The question at hand however is, if not “at risk”, what is the appropriate terminology for this group? Earlier we addressed that lower socioeconomic status is the primary reason as to why these students are labeled “at risk” and if that is the case, then the appropriate term seems to be “under resourced”.
Its not that these children are biologically going to have higher chances to fail, but rather the reason why they are likely to fail is because they aren’t offered equal opportunity. According to Ruby K. Payne’s, Ph.D. book “Under Resourced: Strategies to boost student achievement”, They are not just under resourced financially but also spiritually, emotionally, physically, and academically. Dr. Payne states to combat this we must:
Set a high level of student expectations academically coupled with support.
Create and foster positive student-adult relationships.
Create a realm of physical and emotional security.
These things ultimately lead to students feeling a connection with their school, preventing them from being “at risk” by being properly resourced.
Payne, R. (2008). Under-resourced learners: 8 strategies to boost student achievement. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process.
Spring, J. (2010). American Education: Boston: McGraw-Hill