Programs for At-Risk Students in the Washington County (Oregon) Schools: A Policy Study

Abstract

This study develops recommendations for school district administrators and policy makers regarding policies and programs for students at risk of school failure. The study develops a descriptive picture of policies and Data collection, analysis and evaluation were guided by five research questions focusing on procedures used to identify at-risk students, policies and programs implemented to serve the needs of at-risk students, procedures used to evaluate at-risk students and programs, and the effectiveness of at-risk student programs and policies.D"",'. were collected from the 13 Washington County school districts and other agencies using interview, document analysis, and survey techniques. Interviews were conducted with 11 school district administrators, 66 documents were examined, the 13 Washington County school district superintendents were surveyed, and 56 of 93 elementary, middle and high school principals completed and returned a 29 item survey. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and written descriptive summaries. The data were further analyzed by applying the program evaluation technique of comparison to a standard, using the criteria for effective policies and programs developed from the literature as standards. 3 The results show nearly all schools and districts meet two of four criteria related to at-risk student identification. Identification practices vary from formal to informal.Most schools and districts meet both criteria related to the use of ineffective programs. Retention at grade level and diagnostic/prescriptive pullout programs are seldom used as an intervention with at-risk students.Most districts and schools meet one of four criteria regarding programs that prevent students becoming at risk.No district offers preschool programs. Few full-day kindergarten options are available. Tutorial reading programs are available at the primary grades in most schools.Three of 12 criteria regarding programs that serve identified at-risk students are met by nearly all schools and districts. A variety of classroom, schoolwide and alternative programs exist that partially meet criteria for effectiveness. Most programs serve secondary students.No district meets the criterion for supporting programs with written policy. Few policies $pecific to at-risk students or programs exist.In summary, nearly all Washington County schools and districts meet eight criteria for effective policies and 4 programs for at-risk students. The remaining 15 criteria are either met by some schools and not others, partially met by some or all schools, or met by few or no schools at all.Other results show that little or no at-risk student or program evaluation occurs in most districts, that administrators perceive resources for at-risk students and programs to be inadequate, and that coordination of at-risk programs both within and between schools and districts is varied and often minimal or lacking.Based upon these results, 52 specific recommendations are made to school districts administrators and policy makers. ...

Managing the bottom line: risk management in policing

“…Local government agencies are exposed to risk that could increase the probability of loss of organizational assets. Young (2000) identifies three general categories of assets that local government agencies are responsible for managing, including:Physical assets.Human assets.Financial assets.Physical assets include vehicles, buildings, computer equipment and other technological equipment. If physical assets are damaged or lost, the organization must absorb the cost of not only replacing the item, but also the time that is lost in replacing such items.…”

“…Human assets in local government agencies include elected officials, managers, and other workers employed within local government agencies (Young, 2000). These individuals are at risk for both physical and economic harm while on the job.…”

“…And finally, financial assets within local government agencies include any financial resource that is available to municipalities that have a direct impact on how agencies are able to function or perform expected duties/tasks (Young, 2000). The most important financial asset within police agencies includes resources that are part of annual budgets.…”

“…Risk managers deal with high risk incidents (such as use of force and police pursuits) by tracking and identifying incidents that have resulted in some loss for their organization, and ultimately make changes to policies, training, and supervision of officers to reduce officer exposure to such risks. The benefit of using risk management as part of a police liability management strategy is three‐fold (Young, 2000):To increase the safety of both police officers and citizens.Increase the quality of police services provided to the public.Financial management of the costs associated with police‐involved liability incidents resulting in liability claims or litigation.…”

“…Risk management is a process used to identify and control exposure to potential risks and liabilities in both private and public organizations. In the past 20 years, risk management has been transformed from an insurance‐based technical tool to a broad, policy‐oriented managerial technique (Young, 2000). A wide variety of organizations adopt risk management practices to avoid increasing threats of litigation, reduce the risk of physical harm to their clients and themselves, and provide a higher quality of service to their clients (Wong and Rakestraw, 1991).…”