ABSTRACT
The past 20 years have marked an ongoing discussion regarding children who do not succeed in school. The debate most often centers on children who drop out, because substantial evidence ties dropping out to a host of unfavorable circumstances that follow, such as high unemployment, health problems, welfare dependence, drug abuse, and high crime and delinquency rates (Catterall, 1986; Lanier, 1986). In this chapter we join the ongoing dialogue with a focus on the student at-promise, recognizing that the language we use affects our experiences and thereby recreates our social reality. The discourse that places children “at-risk” assigns them to the role of “persons-in-trouble,” a one-down position. When we focus on people in trouble, our attention is naturally drawn to what’s wrong. We forget to look at what’s right. If we must label the children who face greater compromises, then let us at least give them hope. We choose the label “at-promise” because we believe we will be more likely to see their strengths and find the path that will lead away from disillusionment. This interpretation arises from poststructural theory, which recognizes the power in language to construct social reality.
