University of Nebraska Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO

Special Topics, General Special Topics in Service Learning

2-2006 Alternative Education Programs: Program and Student Characteristics Regina M. Foley Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Lang-Sze Pang Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcestgen Part of the Service Learning Commons

Recommended Citation Foley, Regina M. and Pang, Lang-Sze, "Alternative Education Programs: Program and Student Characteristics" (2006). Special Topics, General. Paper 62. http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcestgen/62

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Topics in Service Learning at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Special Topics, General by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Project MUSE0

Altemative education programs are often viewed as individualized opportunities designed to meet the educational needs for youth identified as at-risk for school failure. Increasingly, these programs have been identi­ fied as programs for dismptive youth who have been refen·ed from traditional schools. The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of the administrative structures and physical facilities of alternative education programs and to describe the student popula­ Alternative Education Programs: tion and educational services being offered to Program and Student Characteristics youth attending such programs. The findings suggest programs appear to be largely site­ based programs, often operating in physical Regina M. Foley facilities with limited access to academic sup­ Southern illinois University at Carbondale pm1s. The student population appears to be mostly high school students with a large por­ Lan-Sze Pang tion of students identified as disabled. The Soutl1ern Illinois University at Carbondale general education curriculum is reported as a predominant course of study among altema­ tive schools, supplemented with vocational education. Students appear to be provided with a number of school and community sup­ port activities. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Within tl1e past decade, a rise in the number of alternative education programs serving youth at-risk for education failure has been observed. In 1993-1994, 2606 alternative schools operated separately from traditional schools. A 47% (3850) increase in tl1e number of alternative education schools was observed by the 1997- 1998 school year (Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002). However, when the definition of alterna­ tive education for at-risk youtl1 is expanded to include public alternative schools, charter schools for at-risk youth, programs within juve­ nile detention centers, community-based schools or programs operated by districts, and alternative schools witl1 evening and weekend formats, the number of programs increased sub­ stantially. The National Center on Educational Statistics, for the academic year 2000-2001, reported 10,900 public alternative schools and programs serving 612,000 students were operat­ ing in the United States (Kleiner et a!., 2002).

© 2006 The University of North Carolina Press 10 Alternative Education Prograrns Alternative education programs are often Furthermore, youth attending alternative edu­ viewed as individualized opportunities cation prograrns appear to have diverse educa­ designed to meet the educational needs for tional backgrounds and needs. Often times, youth identified as at-risk for school failure. youth me referred to such programs for a variety More recently, these programs have been of reasons including experiencing behavioral viewed as programs for disruptive youth who difficulties in schools, being suspended or are experiencing difficulty in traditional expelled from school, being a pregnant or par­ schools (National Association of State Directors enting teen, experiencing academic failure, or of Special Education, 1 999). Likewise, the having a disability. Youth who attend the pro­ approaches and orientation of the programs grams have also been identified as being a mem­ appear to differ accordingly. Some programs ber of an ethnic minority group (Lange & Lehr, emphasize a disciplinary orientation and others 2003; Paglin & Fager, 1997; Raywid, 1994). focus on developing an innovative program that In Illinois, alternative education programming seeks to meet students' unique educational for youth at risk for educational failure is needs (LehT & Lange, 2003). Raywid (1994) offered through tillee potential entities; local identified three categories of alternative educa­ school districts, special education cooperatives, tion programs. Type I programs refer to schools and Regional Offices of Education (ROE) of the of choice such as magnet schools which may Illinois State Board of Education. Alternative have a programmatic theme for content (e.g., education programs of local school districts and n1ath, science, art), and/or instructional special education cooperatives may serve both approaches (e.g., open grade). Type II programs youth with and without disabilities. A number are for students who have been identified as of ROEs participate in the Safe Schools Program disruptive to the traditional school. These pro­ which is a statewide system of alternative edu­ grams may represent one "last chance" before cation programs for expelled, expulsion-eligi­ being expelled fmm school. The emphasis is on ble, suspended or suspension-eligible students behavior modification without regard for modi­ in grades 6-12. This system was developed in fications of cmTiculum or pedagogy. The third response to a legislative directive to provide ru1 program type, Type III, has a alternative education system for disruptive stu­ rehabilitation/remediation emphasis. The goal dents and, in1997, began serving youth (Illinois is for students to return to the traditional State Board of Education, n.d.). In some school. instances, the alternative education programs of Descriptions of altemative schools and pro­ the Safe School Program ru1d special education grams have suggested such programs exhibit cooperatives aTe cmnbined into alternative specific structural and programming character­ school programming for children and youth istics. For example, alternative education pro­ with and without disabilities. grams have often been characterized as small Despite the history of alternative education pro­ emollment programs. Earlier reports have sug­ granls, few data are available describing the gested the student populations of programs governance, physical facilities, student popula­ were approximately 200 students or less tion, educational programming, and supports (Franklin, 1992; Lange & Sletten, 2002; Paglin & being provided to students at risk for educa­ Fager, 1997). Other descriptions have identified tional failure. The purpose of this study was individualized instruction which meets stu­ two-fold. The first purpose was to examine the dents' unique acadernic and social-emotional governance, funding, and physical facilities needs as characteristic of alternative education supporting alternative educational programs. A programs (Franklin, 1992; Lange & Sletten, second purpose was to describe the student 2002). Third, supportive environments that population and the educational ru1d support strengthen relationships among peers and services of alternative school programs. These between teachers and students are often report­ data have implications for progran1ming and ed as a quality of alternative education pro­ evaluation-first, identification of the compo­ grams (Franklin, 1992; Lange & Sletten, 2002). nents of the alternative education programs

11

------The High School Journal- Feb/Mar 2006 serving at-risk youth and second, to facilitate 4.63; Range = 0-22) years of experience. The evaluation activities to enhance the effective­ teaching experience of the adn1inistrators was ness of educational programs. predominantly general education vvith an aver­ age of 12.61 (SD = 11.42; Range = 1-38) years. Method Related to special education, the respondents Subjects indicated an average of 3.59 [SD = 6.25; Range= E).ghty-four program directors or principals of 2-26) yems of teaching experience. alternative programs were requested to describe Questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed the chmacteristics of their individual alterna­ to identify the characteristics of alternative edu­ tive education programs. The names of pal'tici­ cation programs including the administration of pants were obtained frmn two sources. First, tl1e program, student population, educational 102 directors of special education as identified programs, school and community supports, by the Illinois State Bom·d of Education were educational faculty and staff, and administra­ contacted via e-mail explaining the pmpose of tors' experience and educational background. the study and asking each of them to indicate The six domains of interest were identified whether or not they have an alternative educa­ through a 10 yem literature review examining tion progrmn. If the district/cooperative had the characteristics of alternative education pro­ such a program, they were asked to provide the grams. Frorn previous research of alternative name and postal mailing adchess of the indi­ education programs and program descriptions, vidual who was the program director/principal 31 questions were developed to address six of the program. Fifteen of the directors of spe­ domains of interest. The final draft of the survey cial education indicated alternative education was sent to tlrree principals of alternative edu­ programs were not provided by their districts or cation programs for review. Each principal was cooperatives. Of the remaining 88 special edu­ asked to review the questionnaire for clarity, cation directors, 45 directors provided the appropriateness of items, and to provide sug­ names and adchesses of principals of alternative gestions for improvement. Based upon this schools serving their cooperatives or distl'icts. feedback, several changes in wording and order Second, 56 superintendents of Regional Offices of items were made. However, the content of the of Education (ROE) of the Illinois State Board of questionnaire remained the same. Education were also contacted by e-mail asking The final draft of tl1e questionnaire included six each to indicate whether or not they operated don1ains of interest. First, program administra~ an alternative school program. Jf so, the super­ lion, addressed the issues of administrative intendents were asked to indicate the name and structure (i.e., independent program, regional postal mailing address of the principal of the program), funding sources (e.g., state appropria­ program. Names and addresses of administra­ tions, federal grants), school management tors were received from 39 of the ROEs. In addi­ approach (e.g., site-based, centralized), and tion, 10 identified administrators served pro­ quality of tl1e facilities m1d accessability to grams jointly operated by ROEs and special resources such as libraries and science laborato­ education cooperatives. ries. Of the identified 84 directors/principals, 50 of The second domain, student population, asked the individuals returned their surveys, for a participants to describe their students relative return rate of 59%. Two additional surveys to ethnicity, gender, age rm1ge, and disability were returned as undeliverable by the U.S. mail categories. Program characteristics were of service. Of the respondents, 66% (n = :33) held interest in the third domain. Specifically, tlre Master's degrees, 22% had emned either educa­ respondents were to respond to questions indi­ tion specialist (n = 2; 2%) or doctorate (n = 10; cating whether their program was an open or 20%). Five (10%) of tlm respondents held a closed campus, locale of the program (e.g., Bachelor's degree. nrhan, rural), length of the school year, length of As administrators of alternative education pro­ the school day, length of class period, availabil­ grams, the respondents averaged 5.30 lfii2 = ity of summer school and the length of the sum- 12 Alternative Education Programs mer school session, teacher-student ratio, edu­ special education cooperatives. Of the reporting cational and functional skill prograrn offerings programs, 10 (20%) were located in rural com­ (e.g., GED, Chapter 1), and admission criteria for munities, 14 (28%) small cities, 9 (18%) sub­ a student to enter the program. urbs, and 10 (20%) urban communities. Seven (14%) of the respondents did not identify their Program supports comprised the fourth locale. domain. The respondents were asked to describe the availability of program supports for Alternative education programs appear to be parents such as parent support groups and par­ funded tln·ough a variety of sources. Of pro­ ent b·aining, personnel supports such as para­ grams reporting state grant funding [n = 32), professionals and transition specialists, and approximately 50% of the funding is provided community supports such as community health by state grants (M = 52.98%, SIJ = 30.35). State seri.rices or service learning opportunities. appropriations accounts for, on the average, 47.17% [SD = 29.54) of the funding of 28 pro­ Thf> fifth and sixth domains of interest request­ grams. Other programs are funded by local ed descriptions of the characteristics of the school districts (n = 24) and account for approx­ instructional staff and school leadership. imately one half of their funding (M = 51.68%; Specific points of interest were the number of SIJ = 32.04). Other programs supplement their general and special educators, number of fully funding tln·ough federal grants (n = 20; M = certified staff aud the number of paraprofes­ 20.50%; SD = 22.83) and community funding (n sionals employed by the program. Finally, the = 4; M = 9.25; SD = 12.07). respondents were asked to describe their aca­ demic background (e.g., df>gree) and to indicate The predominant management approach gov­ the number of years of experience as an admin­ erning alternative education programs appears istrator, general educator and/ or special educa­ to be site-based management. Over three­ tor. fourths (78%; n = 39) of the respondents indi­ cated their programs engaged in site-based man­ Procedures. Each identified alternative educa­ agement. One fifth (20%; n = 10) of the survey tion progrmn administrator ''vas sent a packet of participants reported a centralized management materials which included a cover letter, ques­ approach is utilized for their programs. tionnaire, and postage-paid addressed enve­ lope. The cover letter stated tl1e purpose of the Program facilities. An overwhelming majority study, instructions for the completion and (80%; n = 40) of alternative education programs retuTn of the questionnaire, an assurance of con­ operate in off-campus facilities. Small percent­ fidentiality of responses, and an opportunity to ages of programs reported utilizing the same receive the results of tl1e study. The participants building as traditional education programs (8%, were provided with an e-mail acldrf>ss to request n = 4) or community colleges (2%, n = 1). a copy of the results upon conclusion of the Likewise, a majority (80%, 11 = 40) of tl1e pro­ study. The participants were given a tvvo week grams operate as a closed campus/ n1ecming stu­ time period to complete and return the ques­ dents are not allowed to leave and retmn clming tionnaire. Three weeks after the initial mailing, the school clay. Eight programs (16%) reported a second mailing was completed with a packet having an open can1pus. of identical materials The principals rated the adequacy of the physi­ Results cal facilities of the program as slightly above average (M = 3.60; SD = 1.03). Ratings of good or Administration of the Program excellent were assigned by 58% (n =. 29) of the Program management. The majority (52%) of principals; 26% [11 = 13) reported average rat­ alternative education programs were adnlinis­ ings and 16% (n = 8) issued satisfactory to poor terecl by the Regional Offices of Education of the ratings. Interestingly, in spite of above average Illinois State Board of Education. In addition, ratings, accessibility to physical education (M = 22% of the programs were provided by inde­ 2.98; SD=1.64), library [M= 2.15; SD=1.25) and pendent school districts and 20% were operat­ science laboratory facilities (M = 1.64; SD = .92) ed by a consortium of school districts tlrrough 13 The High School journal- Feb/Mar 2006 w"re rated below average. Twenty-eight percent Characteristics of Students of the adrninistrators reported no access to The student population of alternative education physical education facilities, 30% indicated progrmns appems to vary considerably across some access and 40(Yo stated above average or progrruns. The average student population of full access to physical education facilities. the alternative education progrruns is 90 stu­ Accessibility to libraries and science laborato­ dents (SD ~ 90.3). The size of the programs ries appears to be more limited. Forty percent of ranged from 11 to 458 students. Furthermore, the principals indicated their programs do not the average number of male cmd female stu­ have access to a libnu-y while 12.5% reported dents was 53.6 (SD ~ 51.54) and 35.5 (SD ~ more than average or full access to a librru-y. 43.0), respectively. On the average, tbe most fre­ Forty-eight percent of the principals reported quently reported ethnic backgrounds of stu­ their students have some access to a library. The dents were Caucasian (M ~ 62.86%; SD ~ discrepancy increases for accessibility to sci­ 30.2%) and Afrimn-American (M ~ 31.28%; SD ence facilities with 70% of the principals ~ 23.87% ). Other ethnic groups served in alter­ reporting no access to science labs for their stu­ native education programs included Hispanic dents. One-fifth of the progrrun administrators (M ~ 15.07%; SD ~ 1.25%), Native Amer.ican (M reported son1e access to science facilities. An ~ 3.68%, SD~ 10.12%), and Asian (M~ 1.64%, additional eight percent noted above average or SD ~ 1.25%). full access to science lab facilities. An addition­ Alternative education programs appear to pri­ al 20% of the programs also reported accessibil­ marily serve adolescents 1N:ithin age range of 12 ity to other types of supports including com­ to 21 years. Seventy-six percent (n ~ 38) of the puter labs (16%). program administrators reported serving youth Program suppozts. One third or less of the pro­ between the ages of 12 to 21 years. Others grruns actively involved or supported parents in reported serving children between the ages of 7 their adolescent's education in alternative pro­ and 21 years (n ~ 5; 10%), 11-19 years (11 ~ 2, grams. Participation as an advisory committee 4%), and 10-20 years (11 ~ 2, 4%). member was a potential option for parents Youth with disabilities appear to comprise a reported by :l4% (n ~ 17) of the respondents. large portion of student populations served by Likewise, 32% (n ~ 16) of the programs pre­ alternative education progran1s. Progran1 pared newsletters for their parents. Other parent administrators reported, on the average, 49.89% support opportunities were parent support (SD ~ 38.99) of their students were identified as groups (24%, 11 ~ 12), pm-ent training (14%, n ~ emotional and behavior disordered. 7), and parent-teacher associations (6%, n ~3). Approximately 10% of the student populations Educational program suppozt service providers. were identified as learning disabled (M ~ The predominant educational support service 11.67%; SD ~ 10.85%), attention deficit with providers appear to be social workers (74%, 11 ~ hyperactivity (M ~ 13.07%, SD ~ 10.39%), and 37), counselors (58%, 11 ~ 29), paraprofessionals attention deficit disordered (M ~ 12.42%, SD ~ (50%, n ~ 25), school nurses (46%, n ~ 23), 13.84% ). Small percentages of youth were iden­ school psychologists (46%, 11 ~ 23), and voca­ tified as mentally impair-ed (M ~ 6.39%, SD ~ tional educators (42%, 11 ~ 21). Other less fre­ 5.14%), communication disordered (M ~ qmmt supports included child advocates (32%; 4.68%, SD ~ 4.26), and sensory impaired (M ~ n ~ 16), speech-language pathologists (28%, n 1.60; SD ~ 1.96). ~14), transition specialists (22%, n ~ 11), clini­ School Program Characteristics cal psychologists (1.2%, n ~ 6), and community On the average, alternative education programs counselors (12%; n ~ 6). Service providers provided educational services for 177.70 days reported by less than 5% of the respondents (SD ~ 11.86, Range ~ 108-200 days) per aca­ were probation officers, tmancy officers, and demic school year. The average number of class case rrwnagers.

14 Alternative Education Prograrns

periods per day was 5.98 (SD = 1.68). The aver­ tion programs. Table 1 provides the 10 most fre­ age numbm of minutes per class period was qnently reported criteria for admission to alter­ 64.65 (SJJ = 51.78; Range = 0 - 310 minutes). native education programs. The three most fre­ The average length of the school day was 6.20 quently identified criteria for admission to pro­ hours (SJJ = 1.65; Range = 3 -11.50 hours). grams were history of social-emotional prob­ Summer school was provided by 20 (40%) pro­ lems, truancy problems, and referred by home grams with an average length of 24.40 (SD = district. Other frequently reported criteria 9.66, Range = 10-41 days) school clays. The included expelled or eligible for expulsion from average length of each school day was 5.47 traditional schools, suspended from traditional hours (SD = 1.44 hours; Range= 2-11.50 hours). school, or school dropout or potential to be a school dropout. Multiple and diverse criteria were used to guide adrnission of students into alternative educa-

Criterion n %1

Referral by home school 15 30

Social-emotional/behavioral issues 15 30

Truancy 15 30

Expulsion from h·aclitional school 12 24

Suspension from traditional school 11 22

Expulsion eligible from traditional school 10 20

Acaden1ic underachievernent 10 20

Within designated age range (e.g., 10-19 years) 8 16

Dropout 6 12

Potential dropout 6 12

Teen parent 6 12

1 Percentages total more than 100°/) as respondents had opportunity to provide more than one criterion for admission to programs.

Table 1: The Ten Most Frequently Cited Criteria for Admission to an Alternative Education Program

15 The High Schoo.! journal -Feb/Mar 2006

The predorninant educational program provid­ However, it appears that prograrns utilize para­ ed to youth was the general education high professionals to support their prograrn activi­ school curriculum. Seventy-six percent (n ~ 38) ties. The avmage number of paraprofessionals of the programs reported delivering general per program was 4.63 (SD ~ 5.73; Range ~ 0 - education curriculum to their students. Other 25). available programs included work readiness Discussion programs (n ~ 24; 48%), vocational education (n The purposes of this study were to describe the ~ 23; 46%), functional curriculum (n ~ 22; administrative arrangements, physical struc­ 44%), and General Education Development tures, student populations, and educational programs (n ~ 18; 38% [GED]). The availability programs serving youth enrolled in alternative of remedial programs such as Chapter 1 or Title educational programs. Site-based 1nanagement I reading, math and language programs is limit­ was the primary administrative structure iden­ eel witl1 two (4%) programs reporting Title tified by over 75% of tl1e respondents. The !/Chapter 1 reading programs. Otl1er progran1s results suggest that administrators and program made available to youth were life skills instmc­ personnel have the authority to make decisions tion (n ~4; 8%), career awareness (n ~4; 8%), about various prn·an1eters of the progran1 such college level coursework (n ~ 2; 4%) and inde­ as admission standards, coursewo:rk, behavior pendent study (n ~ 2; 4%). standards, and integration of support services Alternative education programs appern· to col­ (e.g., counseli.ng, support groups). Previous laborate with a nurnber of cornn1unity services research has indicated administrators and their to support the educational needs of tl1eir stu­ personnel have a high level of autonomy over dents. Unfortunately, the most frequent com­ curriculum, course offerings, grading and eval­ munity agency working with alternative school uation, instmctional methodology, and student youth is juvenile justice with 82% (n ~ 41) of behavior standards (Lange, 1998). Others have the programs collaborating with probation offi­ also suggested site-based management is a cers. On a more positive note, 70% (n ~ 35) of defining characteristic of alternative education the programs use service learning programs and programs (Franklin, 1992; Raywid, 1983). community social services. Sixty percent (n ~ The funding sources of alternative education 30) utilize community work-study programs. programs appear to be largely from state grants Con1munity health services are accessed by 25 and appropriations for nearly 50% of the pro­ (50%) of the programs. Less thrn1 half of the pro­ grams. State and district appropriations were grams seek tl1e services of wraparound pro­ predominant sources for the remainder of the g:rrnm (n ~ 22; 44%) rn1d mento:rs (n ~ 17; 34%). programs. These data appear to be a reflection Child care services including daycare and pre­ of the administrative unit of the respondents. school are made available to students in less Over one-half of the respondents were princi­ than 20% ofthe p:rograms (n ~ 8; 16%). pals of alternative education programs operated Program Staff Characteristics by the ROEs of the Illinois State Board of Persons who hold certificates to teach general Education. These programs are an extension of education content appear to comprise a large the state agency and are funded tln·ough grants po:rtion of the faculty of alternative school pro­ solicited by ROEs. Other programs appea:r to be grams. The average number of fully certified flmded by appropriations made from state and general educators was 6.00 (SD ~ 7.19; Range~ district monies as traditional school programs 0 - 38). The number of fully certified special are flmded in the state. These sources are simi­ educato:rs per program is less, averaging 2.15 lar to flmding sources identified by others (SD ~ 3.76; Range ~ 0 - 15) special educators. (Fager & Paglin, 1997). It is unknown whetl1er Some programs have a number of persons who these programs are funded at the same level are not fully certified to teach students. The (e.g., cost per pupil) as traditional educational average number of persons who do not have ini­ programs. It has been suggested alternative tial or standard certificates for their area of schools fail to seek or receive their fair share of instruction was 2.15 (SD ~ 4.32; Range~ 0- 25). revenues budgeted for students' education

16 Alternative Education Progran1s when compared to the expenditures per pupil attended alternative schools reported their per­ in traditional schools. For example, the calcula­ sistence in school was related, in part, to sup­ tion of the cost per pupil of traditional schools portive family and peer relationships (May & include costs for several administrators (e.g., Copeland, 1998). Thus, program administrators principals, athletic directors), counselors, and and others 1nay need to utilize innovative extTa-curricular activities (e.g., sports, hand) of strategies to involve parents and other family traditional schools (Gregory, 2001). Findings rnernbers in the program's educational activities from a survey of Minr1esota alternative school and to support students' successfnl completion administrators indicated nem·ly one-third of the of secondary school. administrators cited concerns about funding On the average, the students attending alterna­ and budgeting over the foreseeable two-three tive programs in the state appear to be largely year period (Lange, 1998). high school age childmn who attend small pro­ A majority of the principals of alternative edu­ grams(< 100 students). These data are similar to cation programs reported their programs were previous research reporting that the average operated in a separate physical facility from the chronological age ofyoutl1 attending alternative traditional school. The responding principals schools was 15 years of age (Carpenter-Aeby, rated their physical facilities slightly above Salloum, & Aeby, 2001; Escobar-Chaves, average, yet accessibility to academic supports Tortolero, Markham, Kelder, & Kapedia, 2002). such as libraries and science labs were negligi­ Other national data have reported 88-92% of ble for a large percentage of the programs. Tho the alternative school programs are at tl1e sec­ inadequacy of physical facilities has been iden­ ondary school level, which are consistent with tified as an on-going concern by other tl1e findings of this study (Kleiner et al., 2002). researchers (Gregory, 2001; Lange, 1998). These data suggest tl1ese schools are often the Alternative school facilities are often "hand-me­ "last chance" before students are able or decide down" buildings and may not meet the physical to leave school without a high school diploma. needs of an ilmovative educational progran1 The principal etlmic group served by alterna­ (Gregory, 2001). Nearly half(42%) of the admin­ tive schools as reported by the principals istrators of alternative education progran1s in appears to be Caucasian youth. Previous Minnesota identified physical facilities includ­ research has been conflicting about the pre­ ing space and location as the Inost critical issue dominant ethnic group of students being served facing their progrmm in the next two-three in alternative education programs (Franklin, years (Lange, 1998), Certainly, as alternative 1992). An early review of tl1e research examin­ education programs are serving increasing ing the characteristics of alternative school pop­ numbers of students, attention should be tmned ulations indicated that a majority (approximate­ to securing physical facilities that meet tl1e ly 60%) of the youth were Caucasim1 (Deal & space, location, and educational needs for effi­ Nolan, 1978). Whereas, Duke and Muzio (1978) cient and effective educational programming. reported that findings of a review of programs, Efforts to increase the school involvement of 40% of the youtl1 served in alternative schools parents of alternative school youth appear to be were Black youth. A more recent review of the limited to approximately one-third of the characteristics of alternative education pro­ reporting programs. The absence of such efforts grams indicated that predom.lnant population may be linked to perceptions students do not of alttornative school populations were repre­ want their parents involved in tl1eir education sentative of tl1e demographics of their commu­ (Dettmer, Thurston, & Dyck, 2005). However, nities (Foley & Pang, 2004). For example, 55% previous research has suggested alternative of the students enrolled in an alternative school school youth perceive their parents as not sup­ located in a predominant Latino community portive or involved in their activities (Weist, were Latino with remaining youth identified as Wong, Cervantes, Craik, & Kreil, 2001), Yet, Black (33%) and other ethnic groups (10.5%) more than one-quarter (27.8%) of youtl1 who (Escobar-Chaves et al., 2002).

17 The High School Journal- Feb/Mar 2006 The alternative education progrmns appear to lack of academic supports (e.g., science labs, serve large portions of youth with disabilities, computer labs, libraries) may suggest the predominantly youth with emotional and integrity of state learner standards and academ­ behavior disorders. Other disabilities such as ic expectations are being comprised for these learning disabilities, mild mental impairment, youth. Failure to meet the academic demands of and attention deficit disorders with and with­ state-mandated standards has implications for out hyperactivity appear to comprise smaller students who transition back into their tradi­ portions of the student population. These data tional schools. Such students may not have may be inflated by the inclusion of special edu­ acquired the necessary academic preskills to cation programs serving youth for whom alter­ advance through the remainder of their high native education progrmns have been identified school curricuhun or 1neet academic progress as an appropriate educational placement. standards of the federal legislation, No Child National data suggest approximately 12% oftl1e Left Behind. Others have also voiced similar student population in alternative schools are concerns for the academic preparedness and students with disabilities (Kleiner et al., 2001). expectations of youth enrolled in alternative Certainly, the education programs of alternative education programs (Kraemer & Ruzzi, 2001; education programs will have to incorporate Lehr & Lange, 2003). special education services to meet the educa­ In contrast, nm1rly half of the programs provid­ tional needs of youth with disabilities. ed work readiness and vocational education to History of social-emotional problems, truancy facilitate student's success in seeking and problems, and home school referral were the retaining employment. Likewise, a similar per­ three most frequently reported admission crite­ centage (48%) of the alternative schools in the ria for entry into alternative school programs. country also provided vocational education or The admission criteria are silnilar to criteria skills training to their students. Previous cited in a national smvey of alternative schools. research has shown that youth with (Benz, Findings from that survey indicated approxi­ Lindstrom, & Yarnoff, 2000) and without dis­ mately 50% of the school districts reported abilities (Black et al., 1996) who have vocation­ physical aggression (52%), chronic truancy al education (e.g., work readiness, employment (51%), and verbal dismptive behavior (45%) as experience) appear to have more success criteria for removal of a student frorn a general obtaining and maintaining employment. education program (Kleiner et al., 2001). The collaboration by alternative education pro­ Likewise, youth attending altemative schools f:,TTan1s with community-based agencies appears have reported their placement was most often to be primarily focused with juvenile justice for absenteeism (57%), low academic pmform­ agencies and comn1unity partners for service ance (47%), suspensions and expulsions (35%), learning projects, community work-study and classroom behavior problems (27%) opportunities, and corrlrrlunity n1ental health (Saunders & Saunders, 2001-2002). services. The percentage of alternative schools General education curriculum was the predom­ involved with these agencies is reflective of the inant curricnlum provided to students attend­ findings of a national survey of alternative edu­ ing alternative education programs. Nationally, cation programs. Nationally, 84% of the alterna­ general education curriculum was also reported tive education programs collaborate with juve­ as the predominant program offered to youth in nile justice and 65% are engaged with health alternative education programs [Kleiner et al., and humim services agencies. The predomi­ 2001). Certainly, a number of factors may be nance of service learning and work-study pro­ considered when choosing to follow the stan­ grams among alternative education progran1s dard general education curriculum. These fac­ may be a reflective of adopted program guide­ tors may include the state and district require­ lines which stipulated programs were to ments for obtaining a high school diploma, state include community resources including work­ learner standards, and the requirements of the study programs (Illinois State Board of No Child Left Behind legislation. However, the Education, n.d.). Surprisingly, loss than half of

18 Alternative Education Prograrns t11e prograrns access '\-\Taparound services. Over involvement (e.g., pal'ticipation in corn.munity the past 10 years, Illinois has developed . an organizations; contacts with police). These data extensive network oflocal area networks wh1ch may be instrumental in developing or focusi~g implement local wraparound services which progrcnn cornponents to meet the acacle~Ic, are primarily geared toward youth and thetr vocational, m1d social needs of youth attendmg families whom are experiencing significant alternative schools. well-being issues [Illinois Depmtrnent of Child Related to the outcomes of youth, research is and Fan1ily Services, n.d.). Previous research needed to describe the rate an1ong alternative has snggested wraparound services provide the youth earning either a high school diploma or a necessary support for youth to allow them to GED certificate. These schools are operating in develop appropriate skills. juvenile delinquents buildings that appear to have limited or no who received wraparound services when comw access to facilities to provide the same or simi­ pared to tl1ose receiving conventional services lar opportunities accessed by in youth in tracli­ (e.g., counseling, substm1ce abuse treatment:, tional school programs. Among the issues to be tutoring) missed less school, were suspended addressed include alignment of the general edu­ from school less often, did not run away from cation curriculum of alternative schools with home as frequently, less assaultive, loss likely to state learner standards, student performance on be picked up by the police, and more likely to state assessment measures of student perform­ have a job (Camey & Butte!!, 2003). ance, and alternative school students' level of The professional qualifications of the educators achievement compared to traditional school serving youth in alternative schools appears to youth. be certified secondm·y education teachers with Given a percentage of these youth are in ele­ the support of special educators. However, this mentary and middle school, future research student population has a percentage of youth may be focused on developing appropriate pro­ who are disabled or characteristically similar to grmmning to serve younger youth enrolled 111 youth with disabilities. Previously, researchers alternative school progr8111s. While a majority of have reported high school teachers who have the youth are of high school age, a sizeable pop­ more special education knowledge, training, ulation of younger youth are being served in and experience with students with disabilities alternative school programs [Kleiner et a!., appear to be related to positive attitudes toward 2001). Resemch is needed to examine appropri­ students with disabilities m1d teaching students ate educational programs for these youth to with disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; facilitate successful adjustment back to their Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2000-2001). home schools to complete their secondary Given that many of the youth have experienced school education. If they remain in alternative academic and behavioral difficulties, it may be education programs, investigation of appropri­ beneficial for alternative education program ate transition planning activities may be neces­ administrators and educators of such programs sary to facilitate a successful move to post -sec­ to have a s1Tong background in special educa­ ondary education or employment. tion. Practice. The results of this smvey have anum­ Implications ber of implications for practice. An initial Research. The findings from this study suggest implication is the lack of accessibility to appro­ a number of areas for future research. First, data priate resources to provide e.ducational ~~peri­ describing the outcomes of youth who have ences similm to students m the tradttional attended alternative schools will be valuable to school program. A sizeable number of princi­ program development. Amoug the issues to be pals reported no or limited accessihility to key investigated are students' outcomes for employ­ tools such as libraries, science laboratones, and ment [e.g., length of employment, type of computer labs, yet indicated they were provid­ employment), educational outcomes (e.g., ing the general education curricuhm1. It appears enrollment in postsecondmy institutions; com­ administrators and other policymakers n1ay pletion of degree programs), and community need to review the academic resources being 19 The High School journal- Feb/Mar 2006 provided to students in alternative schools to professionals, and students and tl1eir families. assure they have the necesscu:y resources to These skills are necessary to guide the design of allow them to achieve the state learner stan­ appropriate educational programs and to iden­ dards. tify and implement the necessary supports for students to complete their secondary school Previous researcb has suggested parental program and/or transition to desired school or involven1ent is one of the key factors in alterna­ post-school outcomes. tive education students persisting in school aud achieving either their high school diploma or References GED cettificate (May & Copeland, 1998). The Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graclualion and employment outcomes of findings from this study suggest approximately sludenls wilh disabilities: Predictive factors and stu­ one-third of the programs have opportunities dent perspectives. Exceplionol Children, 66(4), 509- for parents to participate in their child's educa­ 529. Black, T. H., Brush, M. M., Grow, T. S., Hawes,]. H., tion. It appears seeking innovative methods of Henry, D. S., & Hinkle, R. W., Jr. (1996). National involving parents in their child's education may bridge transition program follow-up study. Journal of be beneficial to suppmting the child in the com­ Correctional Education, 47, 4-12. Carney, M. M., & Buttell, F. (2003). Reducing juvenile pletion of his/her secondary education. For recidivism: Evaluating the wraparound services example, consideration may he given to alterna­ model. Jlcscarcll on Sociall.Vork Practice, 13, 551- tive con11nunication stTategies for conveying 568. Carpenter-Aeby, T., Salloum, M., & Aeby, V. G. (2001). A student successes, working with the child and process evaluation of school social work services in his parents through self-directed transition an disciplinary alternative educational program. plans, or the use of family-centered approaches Children and Schools, 23(3), 171-181. Deal, T. E., & Nolan, R. R (Hl78). Alternative schools: A such as wraparound services to support the stu­ conceptual map. School Review, 29, 29-49. dent in the school environment. Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N.J. (2005). Consultation, collaboration and teamwozk for stu­ The academic and social-emotional characteris­ dents ;vilh special needs (5th eel.). Boslon: Allyn and tics of the alternative school population may Bacon. Duke, D. L., & Muzio, I. (1978). How effective are alter­ suggest a role for community-based services native schools? A review of recent evaluations on such as wraparound programs. These programs, reports. '!'cacheT College I~ecord, 79, 461-484. which assist the child and family in accessing Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Tortolero, S. R., Markham, C., Kelder, S. H., & Kapadia, A. (2002). Violent. behavior suppmt systems necessary for the youth to he among urban youth attending alternative schools. successful in school and community, may be a Journal of School Health, 79(4), 293-297. valuable component to meeting the diverse Foley, R. M. & Pang, L. (2004). Demographic, academic, and behavioral characteristics of youth attending needs of youtl1 attending alternative schools. alt.ernative schools/programs: A slalus report. Manuscript submitted for pnblication .. Finally, alternative school youth appear to have Franklin, C. (1992). Alternative school programs for at­ a diverse set of academic and social-emotional risk youths. Social Wotk in Education, 14(4), 2::19- characteristics which require highly skilled and 252. Gn~gory, T. (2001). Fear of success? Ten ways alternative effective educators. General and special educa­ schools pull their punches. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, tors teaching alternative school youth n1ay need 577-581. to develop knowledge of the general education Illinois Depmtment of Child and Family Services (n.d.). Wraparound and LANS. Retrieved October 15, 2004 curriculum and the GED curriculum as well as from http :1/wwvv.state.il. us/ clefs/ otherServices/ effective behavior management strategies such index.shtml as positive behavior supports. ln addition, edu­ Illinois State Board of Education [n.d.). Illinois flcgioncd Safe Schools Program. Retrieved September 17, 2004 cators vvill need an awareness of the school and from http://www.isbe.net/learnopptlrsspweb.htm community resources available to support the Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alterna­ diverse needs of youth such as health care serv­ tive schools and programs for students a/risk of edu­ cation failure: 2000-01 (NCES 2002-004). U.S. ices, substance abuse treatment programs, serv~ Department of Education, Washington, DC: National ice learning opportunities, and social service Center for Education Statistics. agencies. A second set of skills for alternative Kraemer, J., & Ruzzi, B. (2001). Alternative education cannot he left behind. Education Week, 21(G), 4:l, 5G. school educators appears to be comrnunication Lange, C. (1998). Characteristics of alternative schools and collaboration skills to work with related and programs serving at-risk students. High Sclwol service school personnel, community-based Journal, 81(4), 183-198. 20 Alternative Education Prograrns

Lange. C. M., & Sletten, S. j. (2002). Alternalive educa­ Raywid, M.A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of tion: A brjcf hist01y and research synthesis. the art. Educational LeadCI~s·hip, 2(-J-31. Alexandria, VA: Project Forum, National Association Saunders, J. A., & Saunders, E. J. (2001-2002). of State Directors of Special Educalion. Alternative school students' perceptions of past (t.ra­ Lehr, C. A., & Lange, C. M. (200::1). Alternative schools clllional) and current (allernative) school environ­ serving students with and without disabililies: What ments. High School journal, 85(2), 12-24. are the current issues and challenges'f Preventing Scruggs, T. E .. & Maslropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher per~ School Failum, 47(2), 59-(15. cept.ions of mainstreurning/inclusion, 1958-1995: A May, H. E., & Copeland, E. P. (1998). Academic persist­ resemch synthesis. J::"'.yccptional Children, 63, 59-74. ence and alternative high schools: Student and site Van Reusen, A K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S., (2000- c:haracterislics. High School journal, 8.1, 199-209. 2001), High school teachers attitudes toward inclu­ National Association of State Directors of Special sion. High School joumal, 84(2), 7-21. Education (1999, March). Issue: AltcrnaUve schools. VViest., D. J., Wong, E. B.. , Cervantes, J. M., Craik, L., & Alexandria, VA: Project Forum At National Kreil, D. A. (2001). Intrinsic motivation among regu­ Association of State Directors of Special Education. lar, special, and alternative education high school Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative Schools: students. Adolescence, 36(14). 111-126. Approaclws for Students At IUsk. Retrieved February 1 0, 2004 from http:/ /wvvv.. r.nwrel.orglr~£Jll8Sll §ept97 /index.html Raywid, M. A. (1983). Alternative schools as a model for public education. Thcozy in Praclicc, 22, 190-197.

,i 1 1 !j il ]

J -~ ~JJ 21 ;1 j

-~ ®

~! -,~

~