Rural At-Risk Students

Copyright ©  1999  Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

A national study conducted by the National Rural and Small Schools Consortium and the American Council on Rural Special Education, both headquartered at the National Rural Development Institute at Bellingham, Washington, compared the incidence of various types of at-risk students at all grade levels in rural, urban, and suburban districts. They also made comparisons between students who were identified as mildly handicapped and those who were not. The researchers found that while both rural and non-rural school personnel estimated relatively large percentages of their students to be "at risk," rural children fared worse than non-rural children in 34 out of 39 statistical comparisons. These included the following:

• Eighteen percent of rural high school students were estimated to be substance abusers, compared with 10 percent in non-rural districts.
  
  
• Twelve percent of rural elementary school children were found to be suffering depression/suicide attempts/low self-esteem, compared with 10 percent of urban and 9 percent of suburban youngsters.
  
  
• Twenty-six percent of rural high school pupils were considered sexually active, compared to 22 percent of urban and 21 percent of suburban students.
  
  
• Seven percent of rural middle schoolers were said to be involved in crime, compared with an estimated six percent in urban and suburban schools.
  
  
• Thirteen percent of rural preschoolers were considered victims of child abuse, compared with 12 percent in urban and 10 percent in suburban districts.
  
  

Clearly, an analysis of data such as the above suggests that "the social and economic strains facing rural students are every bit as bad, perhaps worse, than those facing inner city youth. The images of rural children leading wholesome, trouble-free lives compared with youth in more crowded settings may be in need of revision." The study contains an interesting analysis of the results and makes several recommendations for serving rural at-risk students more effectively.

Source: Dr. Doris Helge, Director, National Rural Development Institute, Woodring College of Education, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. March 1991

Ronald Pitzer
Family Sociologist

Originally published in May 1991

College of Human Ecology in cooperation with the University of Minnesota Extension Service

Return to Stress Management Briefs...

Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Distribution Center at (800) 876-8636.

University of Minnesota Extension is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.