Technology to Support Academic Achievement for At-Risk Students

Introduction

In an era of high-stakes testing, the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, and school district budgets stretched ever thinner by dwindling state and federal funding, identifying opportunities to improve the delivery of educational services to at-risk students has assumed new relevance and importance. Although the fundamental purpose of education has remained the same over the years, innovations in technology have presented a number of ways in which high-quality educational services can be delivered both in the classroom and through distance learning programs. While at-risk students differ from their mainstream academic counterparts by virtue of a wide array of disabilities and other constraints to learning, they are also so-called digital natives who have grown up with technological innovations and typically share the ability to use computers and computer-based applications in highly skilled ways.

Because resources are by definition scarce, it makes good educational and business sense to take advantage of the cost efficiencies that technological solutions can offer to the problems at-risk students face, and to identify what works best and then do more of it. In an effort to identify recent trends and innovations in the use of technology to assist at-risk students and to establish a general set of best practices, this paper provides a review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature concerning the use of technology to support academic achievement for at-risk students, followed by a summary of the research, a discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for those involved in technology planning and implementation in schools.

Defining At-Risk Students and the Legal Framework

According to Fagan and Warden (1996), it is the law of the land in the United States that at-risk students receive a free public education appropriate to their individual needs in the least restrictive setting possible. The controlling legislation for this mandate can be found in the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), passed in 1975, which was subsequently reauthorized in 1990, at which time it was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA was amended and reauthorized once again in 1997 (Drasgow & Yell, 2000). It is the responsibility of public schools to develop educational initiatives that satisfy the mandates of this controlling legislation. In this regard, Drasgow and Yell emphasize that, "Since the passage of the original law, educators have been charged with the responsibility for developing and delivering a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. A FAPE is a publicly funded and individually designed educational program developed to meet the unique needs of eligible students with disabilities" (2000, p. 205).

Since the passage of IDEA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has also compelled educators and policymakers to identify improved approaches to providing educational services to at-risk students, but progress in the United States has been mixed at best (David-Medrano, 2003). In reality, all students are "at risk" of becoming poor academic performers over time because of significant changes in their home life, evolving peer relationships, involvement with substance abuse, contact with law enforcement, and similar challenges. However, the term is generally applied to those students who are currently experiencing problems in school. According to Dunn (2004), "When students' home resources and experiences differ from the expectations on which school experiences are built, they are often at risk of not realizing their personal and academic promise" (p. 46). Clearly, not all at-risk students share the same circumstances that have caused them to be categorized in this fashion; some may simply be victims of circumstances such as frequent family moves or broken homes that have contributed to lackluster academic performance. This point is underscored by Armijo, Stowitschek, Smith, Mckee, Solheim, and Phillips (1999), who cite a report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) finding that 12.5% of students aged 16 through 24 are high school dropouts. These authors emphasize that, "While many of the individuals cited in this report are younger students at risk for strictly academic reasons, many more are at risk because of family-related problems" (p. 66).

Despite these differences in circumstances, the term "at-risk" continues to be applied broadly to all students who are in jeopardy of failing to achieve their potential. As Dunn notes, "Because the term 'at-risk' focuses on individual characteristics, it labels and stigmatizes the learner. However, although objectionable, the term 'at-risk' persists because of its wide acceptance and research base" (2004, p. 47). By and large, the term typically refers to several groups of students, including those who are (a) ethnic minorities, (b) academically disadvantaged, (c) disabled, (d) of low socioeconomic status, and (e) on probationary status by virtue of disciplinary actions or poor academic performance (Heisserer & Parette, 2002). This definition suggests that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to helping these young learners overcome the constraints and obstacles in their lives, but various technologically enabled approaches have been shown to provide substantive benefits for this purpose.