alternative education

Hamilton Fish Institute Reports and Essays Serial

FOUNDATION FOR

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION Dennis L. White H AM ILTO N F ISH IN STITU TE G RAD UATE S C H O O L

OF

S C H OO L AN D C O M M U N ITY V IO LEN C E IN STITU TE FO R E D U CATIO N S TUD IES E D U CATIO N AN D H U M AN D EVELO PM EN T

ON

Carol A. Kochhar-Bryant D EPA R TM EN T OF T EAC H ER P R EPAR ATIO N AN D S PEC IAL E D U C A TIO N G RAD UATE S C H O O L OF E D U CATIO N AN D H U M AN D EVELO PM EN T

THE HAMILTON FISH INSTITUTE ON SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY VIOLENCE Institute for Education Studies GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT The George Washington University

The Hamilton Fish Institute was established by the U.S. Congress in 1997.

This page is blank.

This page is blank.

Hamilton Fish Institute Reports and Essays Serial +

Foundation for Alternative Education Dennis L. White and Carol A. Kochhar-Bryant

HAMILTON FISH INSTITUTE ON SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY VIOLENCE

Washington, D. C.

September 2005

+

This project was supported by Grants No. 2005-JL-FX-0157 and No. 97-MU-FX-K012 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence conducts primary and secondary research, conducts research synthesis, and provides technical assistance to schools and communities in order to make schools safer for high achievement. The views expressed by the authors of this Report or Essay belong to them. Their views do not represent the official positions or policies of the Hamilton Fish Institute, The George Washington University, or the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, the U.S. Department of Justice.

The George Washington University does not unlawfully discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This policy covers all programs, services, policies, and procedures of the University, including admission to education programs and employment. The University is subject to the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Inquires concerning the application of this policy and federal laws and regulations concerning discrimination in education or employment programs and activities may be addressed to Val Berry, Chief Human Resources Officer, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052, (202) 994-9600, to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education, or to the Director of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Washington Field Office. http://www.gwu.edu/~hrs/eo/eeo.html

ii

Hamilton Fish Institute The George Washington University Washington, D.C. Copyright © 2005 Hamilton Fish Institute, The George Washington University Printed in the United States of America Foundation for Alternative Education is available in whole in print and electronic format. The content of all versions of the media format is identical. Cataloging and indexing elements will be distributed by errata when available. ISSN 1934-4104 (Print) ISSN 1934-4112 (Online) DOI: nn.nnnn/aaaa.nnn (pending) For current information see http://dx.doi.org/nn.nnnn/aaaa.nnn (pending)

iii

Foundation for Alternative Education resides in the public domain. Any use for any commercial purpose is prohibited. Copies of this report or essay may be downloaded from http://www.hamfish.org/Publications/Serial/ for educational purposes only. The downloaded copy(ies) may be redistributed for educational purposes. However, the recipient(s) may not be charged for either electronic or print versions of the electronic copies. Express written permission from Channing Bete Company is required to reproduce or transmit Table 8, page 55. A limited number of print copies is available in whole in print. The number of copies available in print is limited to two per request. For print copies, please contact the Hamilton Fish Institute, 2121 K Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20037-1830, 202-496-2200 (voice), 202-4966244 (fax). The Hamilton Fish Institute may reproduce and redistribute print copies at cost plus shipping and handling when paid in advance.

Please use the following form for citing Foundation for Alternative Education: White, D.L. and Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2005, September). Foundation for Alternative Education. Hamilton Fish Institute Reports and Essays Serial. Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute, The George Washington University.

iv

List of Tables Table 1. Descriptions of alternative education schools and program s (Kleiner, Porch, and Fariis, 2002)

Page 5

Table 2. Strategies for alternative education schools and program s

15

Table 3. Areas of im pacts of schooling on the student and society

52

Table 4. Econom ic and character effects of schooling

52

Table 5. Benefit and cost categories for the High/Scope Perry preschool program

53

Table 6. Oklahom a criteria for evaluating alternative education schools and program s

32

Table 7. Risk factors for failing at school or failing at life

54

Table 8. Com m unities That Care ® (Channing Bete Com pany)

55

Table 9. Childhood risk factors for child delinquency and later violent juvenile offending

56

Table 10. Risk factors for unhealthy adolescent behaviors

57

Table 11. Factors leading to vulnerability

58

Foundation for Alternative Education

v

This page is blank.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS These are some of the many from the research and practice communities who took a little extra time, some in their retirement, to offer their counsel and guidance to the authors. Nancy Avolese, Pennsylvania Department of Education; Susan Barker, The Educational Council, Columbus, Ohio; Robert D. Barr, Boise State University; Susan J. Bodilly, Rand Corporation; Joan Burstyn; Christopher Scott Chalker, Warren Township Schools, Indiana; Anthony S. Dallman-Jones, National At-Risk Education Network; Edsel Erickson; Fritz J. Erickson, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay; Ruth Erickson; Mary K. Faber; E. Michael Foster, The Pennsylvania State University; Jack Frymier; Ellen Galinsky, Families and Work Institute, New York; Sylvia R. Graham, Walker Management Library, Vanderbilt University; Tom Gregory, Indiana University; Wayne Jennings, International Association for Learning Alternatives; Harry J. Holzer, Georgetown University; Renee Lacey, Prince William County Public Schools; Camilla A. Lehr, University of Minnesota; Alan W. McEvoy, Wittenberg University; Jerry Mintz, Alternative Education Resource Organization; Raymond E. Morley, Iowa Department of Education Bureau of Instructional Services; Vicki M. Nishioka, University of Oregon; William H. Parrett, Boise State University; Isabelle Potts, Florida State University; Mary Anne Raywid; Jane A. Razeghi, George Mason University, Virginia; Steve Rollin, Florida State University; Joseph Scantlebury, Youth Law Center; Marie Sobers, Prince William County Public Schools, Virginia; Jeffrey R. Sprague, University of Oregon; Christopher Swanson, Urban Institute; Juliana Taymans, The George Washington University; Mala Thakur, National Youth Employment Coalition; James R. Walker, Jr., Channing Bete Company; Teresa Zutter, Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia; Kellie Dressler-Tetrick and Scott B. Peterson, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; The Hamilton Fish Consortium [Eastern Kentucky University; Florida State University; The George Washington University; Morehouse School of Medicine; University of Oregon; Shenandoah University, Virginia; Syracuse University; The Trauma Center-Boston; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee]; And the staff of the Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.


vii

This page is blank.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT Context: There are approximately 20,000 alternative education schools and programs in the U.S. that provide educational and developmental support for children and youth who are at risk of failing in life or failing in school. These schools and programs are not cataloged in a single repository, and there is likely a need for significantly additional, effective alternative education schools and programs. The published and unpublished literature is not well organized. Comprehensive evaluation is sparse. Purpose and Focus of Study: To articulate a common definition of alternative education To identify opportunities for improvement in the field and in the literature of alternative education To identify common themes that reflect the condition of alternative education and the capacity of institutions—including pre-K, K–12, and colleges and universities—to prepare teachers and administrators for providing effective alternative education To emphasize the great strengths of alternative education: agility in application and focus on the individual’s needs To formulate actionable recommendations for future study Setting: The 20,000 alternative education schools and programs in the U.S. that provide educational and developmental support for children and youth Population: The studied population includes pre-K–12 alternative education schools and programs in the U.S. Intervention/Program/Practice: This primer is a synthesis of the published and unpublished literature. As such, it is not an intervention, program, or practice. Research Design: This report is an analytic essay. Data Collection and Analysis: The data are a collection of relevant published and unpublished literature including, primarily, prominent summaries of alternative education that were authored by alternative educators,


ix

seminal commentaries on normative and descriptive theories of alternative education, journal articles, conference proceedings, and personal communications. Findings: A common definition of alternative education involves wordsmithing more than a reorganization of understanding. Alternative education has federal, and private and public education roots. Alternative education can be applied with agility and innovation. Institutions—including pre-K, K–12, and colleges and universities—can improve the preparation of teachers and administrators for providing effective alternative education. There is no existing, specific federal policy on alternative education, but the relevant federal statutes can be seen to support alternative education. Conclusions and Recommendations: Academic and development challenges confront youth and children at early ages. The research on risk factors and Gilliam’s study (2005) inform us that learning and human development do not occur in the vacuum of a school. The child welfare system, juvenile justice system, and the school system are all systems (lateral or diagonal rather than hierarchical) with the child as the focus of service. It was demonstrated in the study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government (Ragan, 2003) that the integration of human service systems improves the quality of the services and their delivery. Systems can also be human, institutional, or geographic. The re-orientation of school districts to smaller schools contains critical implications for educational services (Gregory, 2000). As land for new schools or large schools becomes scarce or too expensive, political and economic support for traditional, regular schools will decline (Wilson, 1996). The youth employment subsystem, especially the public policy on youth employment, also impacts schools. Sustainable economic development depends on improving elementary and secondary education (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). Barr (1997) notes that alternative education is responsive to the criteria promoted by policy makers, school administrators, business, and industry for the preparation of the workforce. The cost of not educating all of our students is significant. Each student who does not finish high school costs a typical family of four (headed by the nongraduate) almost 10 years worth of salaries. Even for alternative education to be successful, it needs to be integrated into a comprehensive education system. It is more likely that additional education customer markets will emerge than existing markets will contract. For instance, it is more likely that we’ll discover new sets of learning needs. Kozol (1991) demonstrated that one education system is being delivered to multiple customer markets, and the result reinforces “savage inequalities” in education resources and outcomes.


x

Moreover, there is “a void in teacher and administrator training regarding the need and basics of developing alternative learning environments. We are floundering badly in public schools because we have maintained the school as the primary way to deliver education. The future is that public education will become a manager of many alternatives rather than just being a delivery system” (Morley, 1991). The authors recommend the following: ! Using a strategic approach to refine definitions of purpose, application, and success. ! Establishing a Consortium for Alternative Education. Alternative education is at the point where a management or facilitation structure is needed. ! Monitoring developments in multiple intelligences. ! Compiling libraries of schools, programs, and evaluations, and classify them by type, affiliation, and student characteristics. This catalog of alternative education would serve as orientation for alternative education. ! Analyzing benefits and costs comprehensively. Except for Veale (2002), it is unknown if a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis of alternative education has been completed. ! Refining appropriate assessment guidance and tools, in particular, for those settings that complicate rigorous evaluation (Tobin and Sprague, 1999). Every alternative education setting is not exactly like every other alternative education setting. ! Analyzing national, state, and local public policies. The success of students or of “just keeping students in school to finish a quality education depends upon the strong and long-term commitment of all Americans” (U.S. Department of Education, 1991).


xi

This page is blank.

FOUNDATION for ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PREFACE In preparing Foundation for Alternative Education, the authors spent much time and effort in development. Since 1997, we have worked individually and collaboratively to conduct traditional literature reviews, cull the public access and proprietary databases and database services, explore the “grey” unpublished literature that mostly comprises government products and by-products, edit electronic newsletters, present papers and workshops on alternative education at a diverse range of conferences, listen to researchers and to practitioners in public and private schools, correspond with a multitude of professional and trade associations, and sustain as best we could our currency in the field of alternative education. We even prepared more than one developmental paper, with each draft approaching but never filling the void in the literature on alternative education, namely, a primer. While preparing this primer and conducting the activities listed above, we observed some opportunities for improvement in the field and in the literature of alternative education, opportunities that we describe in the primer. We also identified some common themes that reflect the condition of alternative education and the capacity of institutions—including pre–K, K–12, and colleges and universities—to prepare teachers and administrators for providing effective alternative education. Recognizable in every application of alternative education at the district, school, and program levels, these common themes include variations in student entry and exit, curriculum and program content and delivery, purpose and scope, and statutory context, to name a few. They also reflect the two great strengths of alternative education: agility in application and focus on the individual’s needs, whether or not those needs are exclusively academic. In the fluid and dynamic field of alternative education, having common themes helps to shape opportunities for improvement. Then, there was the question of “a primer for whom?” In forming the conceptual foundation for the primer, we operated under two assumptions to address the question. First, not everyone, including novices and the most seasoned alternative educators, approaches “alternative education” with a common understanding. Second, a primer for the novice would differ substantively from a primer for the seasoned alternative educator, and a primer designed for both of these groups would differ substantively from that for the school board member. As we believed that each group’s needs called for a unique focus and probably its own primer, we decided to base our decision not on group needs or educator experience but on the place where public education has the most immediate and durable impact. That is, it is widely accepted that pubic education in the U.S. is a local matter, with the federal government usually providing no more than 7 percent of a school’s budget and state and local governments sharing responsibility for 93 percent, with variances across states. It is also recognized that education is a government unto itself, the so-called education government, with appointed and elected state and local school boards that prescribe education policy. Even in the era of the No Child Left Behind law, schools operate at the local level.

xiii

Therefore, in consideration of education budget responsibility and local control of schools, we chose to prepare Foundation for Alternative Education for school board members. Still, we anticipate that the primer will ease all groups into a common understanding about alternative education and position the field for continued success in affecting positive outcomes for youth.


xiv


Table of Contents

Page v

List of Tables

vii

Acknowledgm ents

ix

Preface

xiii

Structured Abstract Introduction

1

Definition

3

Correlative Definitions

4

Com m on Definition: Practical Im plications

9 11

History of Alternative Education Ancient Western Roots of Alternative Education

11

Public and Non-Public Alternatives

12

The Public Path

12

The Federal Experience

13

The Private Path

14

A Response to Disruptive Behavior and Recognition of Obstacles to Learning

14

Research and Evaluation

15

Econom ic Benefits and Costs

18

Cost of Absenteeism

20

Cost of Dropping Out of School

20

Benefits to Society of High School Graduation

21

Young Students

21

High School-age Students

21 22

Professional Developm ent and Resources Professional Teacher Education Program s

22

A Norm ative Model for Professional Teacher Education Program s

25

xv


Table of Contents

Page

Behavior Managem ent

25

Special Services

25

The Normative Model

26

Auxiliary Program s Offered by National, International, and State Associations

27

National and International Associations

28

State Associations

28 29

Model Program s Model State Program s

29

Com m unities in School

37

Context

39

Conclusions

41

Recom m endations

42

References

46

Appendix

52

xvi

Foundation for Alternative Education Dennis L. White a Carol A. Kochhar-Bryant b a

Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, Institute for Education Studies, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University b Department of Teacher Preparation and Special Education, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University

INTRODUCTION As familiar as U.S. educators and the public may be with alternative education in general, most find themselves hard put to define it, and with good reason: differences in the alternative programs and in the descriptions of them by researchers, government agencies, and school districts. Thus, in their efforts to grasp the whole picture of alternative education, interested people become the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant—with each man identifying the animal by what they could touch: trunk, hide, tail. Likewise, people learn about a part of alternative education—their state’s definition, a library’s description, a local program’s offerings, some research models, etc. But, like the blind men, they don’t see the whole. In 1989, at the National Alternative Schools Conference, conference officials and Education Week formed an alternative affiliation, but a definition of alternative education was not prepared. According to Raywid (1990), . . . there are good and probably enduring reasons why agreement [on a definition] remains elusive. The argument over the essence of alternative education is at least as old as the alternative schools movement beginning in the 1960s—and as of today, there are further wrinkles making consensus improbable on even more fundamental grounds than earlier. It is only in part a semantic argument about labels. Primarily, it is a matter of educational organization and practice, and there are at least three distinctly discernible types of alternative schools. Classifications of alternative education schools and programs by Raywid (1990) and Lange and Sletten (1995) illuminate the “wrinkles.” According to Raywid, there are “pure alternatives,” or schools and programs that are more humane, more responsive, more challenging, and more compelling than regular schools; “disciplinary alternatives,” or schools and programs that serve as the “last chance” for the worst and weakest students; and “compensatory alternatives,” or schools and programs that are remedial for academic purposes. Lange and Sletten (1995) have described a fourth type of alternative school or program, actually a hybrid of Raywid’s three types in that it combines elements of the pure, disciplinary, and compensatory alternatives.

Foundation for Alternative Education It is most likely that alternative schools and programs today are hybrids in that the curriculum and instruction or the services that these schools and programs provide to students are alternatives to the curriculum and instruction or services that regular schools provide. A further “wrinkle” involves school reform. Although they have many elements in common, alternative education and school reform are not the same. Alternative education builds on the existing system, in the way that continuous improvement builds on existing systems, processes and resources, whereas school reform is an overt effort to build a new system. Therefore, the authors propose the following common definition of alternative education: Alternative education refers to programs, schools, and districts that serve students and school-aged youth who are not succeeding in the regular public school environment. Alternative education offers to students and school-age youth who are under-performing academically, may have learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral problems, or may be deliberate or inadvertent victims of the behavioral problems of others, additional opportunities to achieve academically and develop socially in a different setting. In the common definition above, the key words are ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Alternative education Programs, schools, and districts Students and school-aged youth Under-performing academically Emotional or behavioral problems Victims Additional opportunities to achieve academically and develop socially Different setting

In other words, alternative education can be a specific program for selected students or other school-aged youth, with other school-aged youth including, for example, incarcerated youth, previously incarcerated youth, and dropouts who cannot otherwise re-enter a regular school. The program can be operated within a regular school site or established as a separate alternative school within a school district, as a separate school district, or even as a point-of-service program for detained youth. Presenting the whole picture then is the purpose of this alternative education primer. In the sections that follow, the authors describe variations from the common definition; discuss the history of alternative education, research and evaluation, economic benefits and costs, and professional development and resources (including a normative model for preparing teachers of at-risk youth); and list model alternative education programs and the risk factors that largely define the context for alternative education. The authors conclude the primer with a discussion of future prospects for alternative education.

2


DEFINITION A label is intended to communicate, characterize, or identify a person, place, or thing. But the label, the epithet of “alternative education,” even for practitioners and advocates of alternative education, is imprecise at best. Among the many valuable contributions that Raywid (1990) has made for the community of alternative education is the classification of alternative education schools and programs that she developed. In this classification, Type I schools and programs are a challenge to regular education to become more humane, more responsive, more challenging, and more compelling; Type II schools and programs are the “last chance” for the worst and weakest students; and Type III schools and programs are remedial. In the purest sense, Type I schools and programs are “alternatives,” Type II are “disciplinary,” and Type III are “compensatory.” But the Raywid classification is explicit: Types I, II, and III are all alternative education programs. That is, the curriculum and instruction or the services that they provide to students are alternatives to the curriculum and instruction or services that the regular schools provide. It has been suggested to the authors that “complementary education” might be a preferred label for alternative education. Perhaps this is a little better (based on the goals and the practice of alternative education), but “complementary” still does not mitigate against the confusion or improve upon the imprecision of “alternative education.” Alternative education is not exactly nontraditional. It is not irregular, in itself. And it does not “complete” public education for select populations or the mainstream. In fact, no label might sufficiently replace “alternative education,” but a common definition could enhance the public perception of and appreciation for alternative education. In this section, a common definition of alternative education in public schools is offered. Then, correlates to the common definition are presented in an effort to put school reform, alternative learning, private schools, and other forms of “learning alternatives” into context with alternative education. The pedagogical practice that is understood as alternative education has been defined in the Education Week glossary as follows (Education Week, n.d.): Alternative school…broadly refers to public schools [that] are set up by states or school districts to serve populations of students who are not succeeding in the traditional public school environment. Alternative schools offer students who are failing academically or may have learning disabilities or behavioral problems an opportunity to achieve in a different setting. While there are many different kinds of alternative schools, they are often characterized by their flexible schedules, smaller teacher-student ratios and modified curricula. In formulating this common definition of alternative education, the authors have made four modifications or clarifications to the Education Week definition. The first makes the “opportunity 3

Foundation for Alternative Education to achieve” through alternative education refer both to academic achievement and social development. The second specifies that the programs, schools, and districts can be public or nonpublic. The third and fourth clarify the population of students, who can be enrolled or are otherwise school-age, and include students and school-age youth who have been subjected to the problem behaviors of others. Moreover, the authors modified the Education Week definition, which implies a “whole school” or “whole school district.” In the authors’ view, alternative education can also be programmatic, that is, tailored for student or other school-age populations of the school or district without their being removed to a separate facility. Thus, the authors’ proposed common definition of alternative education is as follows: Alternative education refers to programs, schools, and districts that serve students and school-age youth who are not succeeding in the conventional public school environment. Alternative education offers to students and school-age youth who are underperforming academically, may have learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral problems, or may be direct or indirect objects of the behavioral problems of others, an opportunity to achieve academically and develop socially in a different setting. The terms, alternative education programs and alternative schools, may be used as synonyms for alternative education: however, in general, an alternative education program co-exists in the same facility with the regular curriculum and instruction, but an alternative school resides in a separate facility. Other synonyms that may be used are alternative education “models” or, more precisely, alternative education. Correlative Definitions Correlative definitions differ from the authors’ common definition semantically or in their inclusion of examples. Included in these correlative definitions are examples, program design and effect, philosophy, student needs, academic focus, domain, durability, diversity, and /or the element of choice. For instance, the U.S. Department of Education defines alternative education as, “a school that (1) addresses needs of students [that] cannot typically be met in a regular school, (2) provides nontraditional education, and (3) falls outside of the categories of regular, magnet/special program emphasis, special, or vocational/technical education (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). The Lexicon of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (n.d.) states that alternative schools are . . . [s]chools that differ in one or more ways from conventional public schools. Alternative schools may reflect a particular teaching philosophy, such as individualization, or a specific focus, such as science and technology. Alternative schools may also operate under different governing principles than conventional schools and be run by organizations other than local school boards. 4

Foundation for Alternative Education The term alternative schools is often used to describe schools that are designed primarily for students who have been unsuccessful in regular schools, either because of disabilities or because of behavioral or emotional difficulties. However, some proponents argue against establishing “last chance” or “remedial” schools in which the students are seen as a problem to be fixed. They say a better approach is to alter the program and environment to create a positive match with each student. Although some school districts continue to operate alternative schools established a few years ago, those districts starting new unconventional schools these days often characterize them as charter schools. Examples are included in the 2001 District Survey of Alternative Schools and Programs (“District Survey”), which Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002) conducted for the National Center for Education Statistics. This District Survey is the first national study of public alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure in the United States. “[T]his survey included only public alternative schools and programs that were geared towards students at risk of education failure, that were administered by regular districts, and where students spent at least 50 percent of their instructional time” (Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002, 1). The evaluation report includes the following definition and examples of alternative education: Alternative schools and programs are designed to address the needs of students that typically cannot be met in regular schools. The students who attend alternative schools and programs are typically at risk of education failure (as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with temporary or permanent withdrawal from school). Alternative schools are usually housed in a separate facility where students are removed from regular schools. Alternative programs are usually housed within regular schools. For descriptions of alternative education schools and programs in Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002), see Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptions of alternative education schools and programs (Kleiner, Porch, and Fariis, 2002) For the purposes of this survey, include: • alternative schools or programs for at-risk students, • alternative schools or programs administered by [a school district], • alternative schools or programs where the majority of students attend for at least half of their instructional time, • charter schools (for at-risk students), • alternative schools or programs (that are administered by [a school]) district within juvenile detention centers,

5


•

community-based schools or programs (administered by [a school district] but located within community organizations (e.g., boys and girls clubs, community or recreational centers)), • alternative schools or programs that operate during weekday evenings or weekends. For the purposes of this survey, exclude: • alternative schools or programs that are not for at-risk students (e.g., gifted and talented programs, magnet schools), • alternative schools or programs not administered by [a school district] (underlining added by author), • alternative schools or programs where the majority of students attend for less than half of their instructional time (underlining added by author), • schools or programs that exclusively serve special education students, • vocational education programs (unless specifically designated for at-risk students) (underlining added by author), • child care/day care centers, • privately run sites contracted by [a school] district (underlining added by author), • short-term in-school suspension programs (lasting 2 weeks or less), detention, or in-home programs for ill or injured students” (Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002, p. C-4, Definitions for the Survey)) .

Program design and effect, if added to the definition of alternative education, would mean that the following additional examples could be included in the above list: • • • • •

Alternative schools or programs not administered by a school district Alternative schools or programs where the majority of students attend for less than half of their instructional time Vocational education programs—for either at-risk students or students not at risk—Career Centers are a prominent variation Privately run sites contracted by a public school district Hybrid schools that are jointly administered by a school district and a community agency such as Mental Health or Substance Abuse Services, or a Community Services Board

By design and effect, these additional inclusions are alternatives for at-risk students. The alternative schools and programs may or may not be choice schools or programs. As Morley (2004) has suggested to the authors on multiple occasions, philosophy defines alternative education more than schools and programs do. Having such a philosophy of alternative education means, for example, that Iowa (Iowa Department of Education, 1998) does not distinguish between alternative schools and alternative programs, as shown below: Alternative (Alt): A school or school program which meets the objectives of the school district but differs from the conventional program in instructional methods and environment. All programs addressing dropout or dropout prevention should be included in addition to special schools of choice where parents and students are given a choice of attending over the conventional program. Programs such as special education only, talented and gifted only, and institutions with school programs should not be included. (Italics included in the original.) 6


Academic achievement is the singular focus in some definitions of alternative education. In these definitions, human or social development is not acknowledged. At the same time, these definitions present alternative education as augmenting academic achievement rather than being equivalent to academic achievement in regular school. Thus, the Washington State Department of Education (Washington Office of Superintendent of Instruction, n.d.) defines alternative education program as follows in its overview of programs and services: The alternative education program assists school districts and other program sponsors in providing quality alternative education options for students that are consistent with the state’s learning goals, and that promote student achievement in non-traditional learning environments. The domain of alternative education can be a source of disagreement between professional associations and state boards of education in the same state. For example, the Washington Association for Learning Alternatives (n.d.) includes examples of alternative schools and programs in its definition. Alternative schools are any school[s] that [do] not follow the traditional school model. Some types might include: Parent-Partner Programs, where the parent is the primary teacher and instruction takes place outside the school setting; Specialty Schools, including ones that emphasize the arts, dance or music, college prep programs, or trade schools; Credit Recovery Programs [that] work with students who are behind in credits and may not graduate with their cohort; ReEntry programs [that] work with students [who] may have been suspended or involved with the juvenile justice system and need a place to catch up on academic and social skills before returning to their regular assignment; AfterHours programs [that] may be involved in credit recovery or exist simply as a convenience for the working student–but the programs’ normal hours of operation are in the evening; [and] [Programs for] suspended or expelled students… who have been suspended or expelled from their regular school—in many cases this placement allows the student to continue earning credits while serving their suspension; and programs for ELL (English Language Learners). Other models exist within the framework of alternative education. As they become more numerous, we will include them in our definition. Although regular schools are expected to endure in perpetuity, the durability of alternative education programs is not as clear. In West Virginia, however, each alternative education program is “temporary,” according to the following statute (West Virginia Department of Education, n.d.): [Title] 126- [Series] 20- [Paragraph] 3. Definition. 3.1. Alternative Education Program—An alternative education program is a temporary authorized departure from the regular school program designed to provide educational and social development for students whose disruptive 7

Foundation for Alternative Education behavior places them at risk of not succeeding in the traditional school structures and in adult life without positive interventions. 4. Purposes. 4.1. The purposes of these regulations are to: (1) provide a safe and orderly learning environment for the education of all students in the public schools of West Virginia and (2) meet the educational needs of disruptive students through the development of alternative education programs In general, alternative education does not conform to regular school. And within the domain of alternative education programs and schools, alternative education is not formulaic. In fact, alternative education is fabricated—at least, each school and program is a hybrid—as a result of its elasticity of design and operation. The Indiana Department of Education (n.d.) emphasizes the diversity of alternative education as well as the similarities of alternative education programs in its description of alternative education programs: Alternative Education is designed to meet the needs of at-risk students who are not succeeding in the traditional setting…. While each of Indiana’s 270 alternative education programs is unique, they share characteristics identified in the research as common to successful alternative schools…. Alternative education types include but are not limited to: alternative classrooms, school-within-a-school programming, separate alternative schools, and second or last-chance schools for disruptive students. Just as there are many types and settings for alternative schools, there are many delivery models based on the programs’ philosophy and the needs of the students they serve. Some follow a school community partnership model that features collaboration with the larger community. Others may combine academics with a vocational intervention that focuses on making school meaningful while preparing students for the workforce. Still others employ a behavioral intervention model. In Indiana, the programs and models designed to meet the needs of disaffected youth are as diverse as the students themselves. Despite this diversity, however, all alternative education programs are held accountable for helping students master the Indiana Academic Standards and must comply with educational laws and rules or seek appropriate waivers. Nonetheless, Indiana recognizes the following fundamental features of alternative education: • • • • • • • •

Maximum teacher/student ratio of 1:10 Small student base Clearly stated mission and discipline code Caring faculty with continual staff development School staff having high expectations for student achievement Learning program specific to the student’s expectations and learning style Flexible school schedule with community involvement and support Total commitment to have each student be a success 8


The Michigan Alternative Education Organization (n.d.) has recommended the following definition of alternative education for the Michigan Department of Education: [Alternative education is] a separate program within a K–12 public school district or charter school established to serve and provide youth a choice or option whose needs are not being met in the traditional school setting. There are three indispensable goals for alternative schools: students attend by choice; the school or program is responsive to unmet local needs; and the student body reflects the racial and socio-economic mix of the community. The element of choice is debated among advocates of alternative education. For example, the International Association for Learning Alternatives (IALA) considers choice an integral element of alternative education, but the National Alternative Education Association does not specify choice in its mission statement. Common Definition: Practical Implications Two practical implications of the common definition emerge from the authors’ analysis of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and from their review of the indexed literature. First, with the advent of NCLB and options of public school choice and supplemental services, if a school is persistently dangerous or has been identified for improvement, a number of students could become eligible for alternative education. In other words, students whose needs are not being met in regular schools for any reason and through no fault of their own could be eligible for alternative education. In the 670 pages and approximately 300,000 words of NCLB, the word, “alternative” is used 60 times to characterize teacher development or certification; funding, distribution and uses of funds and grants; governance; definition of annual yearly progress; assessment; standards; and school reform. In 20 of these 60 uses, the reference is to alternative education. The phrase, “alternative education” occurs 7 times in NCLB. In addition, the word “nontraditional” does not occur in NCLB, although “traditional” occurs 17 times. Second, the organization of the indexed literature might leave savvy literature reviewers a little disillusioned and novice alternative educators a little less confident about their preconceptions of alternative education. In the Library of Congress (LOC) Subject Headings 26th Edition (2003), alternative education is described as “ . . . educational programs that are offered as alternatives within or outside of the formal educational system and that provide innovative instruction, curriculum, grading, or degree requirements” (page 200). The term is used for “nontraditional education.” Broader Terms are “education experimental methods” and “educational innovations.” The Related Term is “alternative school.” Under the subject heading for “nontraditional education,” this reference is recorded: “USE alternative education” (page 4,597). 9

Foundation for Alternative Education In the Thesaurus of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC, Educational Resources Information Center, n.d.), nontraditional education is described in the scope note as, “Educational programs that are offered as alternatives within or without the formal educational system and provide innovative and flexible instruction, curriculum, grading systems, or degree requirements” (page 219). Nontraditional students are “Adults beyond traditional school age (beyond the midtwenties), ethnic minorities, women with dependent children, under-prepared students, and other special groups who have historically been under-represented in postsecondary education” (page 219). Under the thesaurus term for “alternative education,” this reference is recorded: “USE nontraditional education” (page 17). The new-ERIC online system, http://www.eric.ed.gov, which was relaunched in September 2004, returns similar results. In other words, one index defines alternative education as nontraditional education or nontraditional learning. In the other, nontraditional education is alternative education or alternative learning. As used in the subject headings and the thesaurus, it would appear that “nontraditional education” and “alternative education” are as much different as they are similar terms, with both looking more like alternative learning. The apparent minimal attention to alternative education in NCLB and the somewhat contradictory definitions in the LOC Subject Headings and ERIC and are not irreconcilable. The definitions in the subject headings and ERIC are manageable, and informed reference librarians and researchers can navigate the differences. Insofar as NCLB is concerned, the lack of a prominent placement for and reference to alternative education in the statute can be a signal that alternative education is a legitimate customizing of regular school. The support for service learning and character education, the provision for transfer under the Unsafe School Choice Option, as well as Title I in NCLB imply policy support for alternative education. Indeed, the definition of alternative education in NCLB compares favorably to the common definition, especially in the dual emphasis on academic achievement and human or social development. In the quotations from the statute below, the term “model” is used as a synonym for “program.” [A]lternative education models, either established within a school or separate and apart from an existing school… are designed to promote drug and violence prevention, reduce disruptive behavior, reduce the need for repeat suspensions and expulsions, enable students to meet challenging State academic standards, and enable students to return to the regular classroom as soon as possible …(NCLB, page 1,751). Alternative educational programs [include programs] for those students who have been expelled or suspended from their regular educational setting, including programs to assist students to reenter the regular educational setting upon return from treatment or alternative educational programs (NCLB, page 1,782). In a second reading of the above quotations from the statute, the reader can substitute “alternative education” for “alternative education models” and for “alternative educational programs” (and change the corresponding verb to the singular) without altering the meaning of the quotations, so that: 10

Foundation for Alternative Education [Alternative education], either established within a school or separate and apart from an existing school… [is] designed to promote drug and violence prevention, reduce disruptive behavior, reduce the need for repeat suspensions and expulsions, enable students to meet challenging State academic standards, and enable students to return to the regular classroom as soon as possible… (NCLB, page 1,751). [Alternative education includes programs] for those students who have been expelled or suspended from their regular educational setting, including programs to assist students to reenter the regular educational setting upon return from treatment or alternative educational programs (NCLB, page 1,782). This exercise of substituting words in the quotations from NCLB suggests that (1) the variations in the definitions of alternative education are not substantive, (2) the definitions are more alike than they are different, and (3) most alternative education professionals and policymakers have a common, even if not an exact, understanding of alternative education. These might seem like small matters. But, alternative education is not just the alternative to regular education. Alternative education does address specific educational and development needs.

HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION There are many histories of alternative education, and many will be told in the journals and memoirs of the original group of alternative educators. One history could deal with ancient beginnings. Another could include public alternatives. Another could include nonpublic alternatives. Others could examine responses to disruptive behavior; the development of Raywid’s three types of alternative schools; and, as described by Lange and Sletten (1995), the evolution of a fourth type of alternative school, the hybrid of Raywid’s three types. Still another history might include a comparative analysis between alternative education and school reform, but this last history is beyond the scope of this primer. Ancient Western Roots of Alternative Education The ancient history of alternative education might well focus on the paidagogos, a Greek word for the slave who led children, literally, to and from school. To such a person, a pedantic style, dogmatism, and academic rigor were less important than the children themselves. In fact, the paidagogos might have been practicing alternative education, as it is practiced today. Amos and Lang (1979/1982) and Castle (1961) imply as much in the following passages: An Athenian boy first attended school at the age of about seven, and the primary stage of education lasted until he was about fourteen. He began by learning to read and to write, and to do simple arithmetic. His teacher in such subjects was called a grammatistes—gramma is the Greek word for a letter, with its obvious English derivations…. 11

Foundation for Alternative Education In many cases the school itself was simply a single room, perhaps hired, or even the corner of a courtyard in the open air. So the number of pupils in any one school would generally be small. Furniture was little more than stools or benches, and there were no desks…. The boy was constantly attended by a paidagogos, a slave whose duties were to supervise him at home and at school, where he generally sat in on the actual lessons, besides escorting him to and from school, and carrying his satchel. He was responsible for teaching the boy good manners… (Amos and Lang, 1979/1982, pages 161-162). Up to the age of seven… the Athenian child led a happy and carefree life among the women of the household. From this age he was educated by men. The family nurse was replaced by the paidagogos…. He was more important than the schoolmaster, because the latter only taught a boy his letters, but the paidagogos taught him how to behave, a much more important matter in the eyes of his parents (Castle, 1961, pages 64-65). Public and Non-Public Alternatives A second history of alternative education might focus on the alternative school movement that began in the 1960s. This history would note that without a common definition of alternative education and substantial consensus among public and emerging private school advocates in the 1960s, alternative education evolved along two paths with multiple variations in each. The two paths are the public and the private. The Public Path Open Schools represented the early public alternative school movement. These public Open Schools—Murray Road Annex in Massachusetts, John Adams High School in Oregon, and St. Paul Open School in Minnesota—were characterized by parent, student, and teacher choice (Lange and Sletten, 2002). In the simplest form of the Open School, parents chose the schools that their children attended; students chose the content that they wanted to study; and teachers chose the schools where they wanted to teach. Open Schools included such forms as • • • • • • •

Schools without Walls that emphasized community-based learning with “alternative teachers” Schools within a School that involved subdividing large schools Multicultural Schools Continuation Schools for youth at risk of not completing school Learning Centers as the original vocational and career centers Fundamental Schools that emphasized back to basics Magnet Schools

12

Foundation for Alternative Education During the late 1960s and early 1970s and under the influence of the counterculture of that period (Raywid, 1990), other public alternative schools were established. “[M]ore humane, more responsive, more challenging, and more compelling,” according to Raywid (1990), these schools appeared “at a time of great innovation and movement in the educational system with lasting implications for public schools with respect to curriculum, delivery and structure” (Lange and Sletten, 2002). Among these early schools, which could be called choice-based “learning alternatives” resembling Raywid’s Type I alternative schools, were DeKalb Alternative School, Stone Mountain, Georgia (1972); Alternative No. 1 at Pinehurst, Seattle, Washington (1969); The High School in the Community (1970), the first alternative school in New Haven, Connecticut (1972); Ferguson High School in Thompson School District, Colorado (1972); and the Santa Monica Alternative School House (1973). The Federal Experience The postal academy program represents the direct federal experience in alternative education. From 1969 until 1973, the U.S. Post Office Department operated the postal academy, . . . to motivate and train hard core dropout youth to obtain a high school equivalency diploma and become productive citizens. It does this by establishing small storefront schools and by staffing these storefront schools with postal employees who serve as teachers and street-workers (counselors) (Bentley Historical Library, 2005, 1). The postal academy was expected to provide upward mobility for educationally disadvantaged youth and underemployed postal workers. At its peak, the postal academy program operated at 17 sites in six major U.S. cities including Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Newark, San Francisco, and Washington. Capacity for all programs was initially set at 1,680 students, but capacity was never reached. The program’s primary objective to educate and motivate disadvantaged school dropouts was the strongest part of the program (U.S. Department of Labor, 1971, 62). However, the program operated at little more than 60 percent of capacity, and the cost per student ($3,900 in 1971 dollars or nearly $17,000 in 2000 dollars) was debilitating (U.S. Department of Labor, 1971, 59). The model for the postal academy was synthesized from the Post Office summer aide program and the National Urban League’s Street Academy. In 1960, Bill Milliken (founder and President of Communities in Schools) and colleagues began their “streetwork” in Harlem in New York City. The Street Academy program, which was supported by private corporations, was designed to provide a flexible and responsive alternative to public schooling for individuals who had left public school before completion. Today, the Street Academy is prominent in most U.S. cities either as a comparable approximation of the originals or as a program supported by Communities in Schools (http://www.cisnet.org/).

13

Foundation for Alternative Education The Private Path The nonpublic alternatives included community schools and Free Schools. The community Freedom Schools were intended to provide high quality education to minorities in response to the substandard education they received in the regular public school system. These schools stood at one end of the continuum of community and individualism. At the other end of the continuum was the Free School Movement, based on individual achievement and fulfillment, instead of on community. According to proponents of this movement, mainstream public schools, which were inhibiting and alienated many students, should be structured to allow students to freely explore their natural intellect and curiosity—free of restrictions. In these Free Schools, of which Summerhill is the best known, formalized teaching was the exception rather than the rule, academic achievement was considered secondary to individual happiness, and achievement was valuable only where it helped the individual attain self-fulfillment. A Response to Disruptive Behavior and Recognition of Obstacles to Learning Finally, a history of alternative education might see alternative learning as a response to disruptive student behavior and to obstacles to learning. Whereas regular education is centered on the mainstream or the majority of students who can fit into a standardized model, alternative education is centered on the child, the learner. This focus is the core of the Raywid classification. For instance, the Type I alternative is, effectively, a “learning alternative” that emphasizes the learner and that can be viewed as a replacement for regular school. The Types II and III alternatives emphasize the person and the person’s difficulties rather than the school’s or the system’s flaws and can be viewed as enhancements for regular school. The hybrid of Types I, II, and III, the Type IV alternative or “second chance” programs (Lange and Sletten, 1995), and the variations of Type IV represent what is commonly perceived alternative education programming in U.S. public schools. These types can be recognized in the matrix of strategies upon which alternative schools and programs can be designed. The matrix, prepared by Hartzler (as cited by Morley, 1991), appears in Table 2. The Hartzler matrix represents the variations in curriculum, form, and individual student/person needs that are commonly addressed in alternative education. The Hartzler matrix is an example of the disaggregation of the Types I, II, III, and IV alternative education classification.

14

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 2. Strategies for alternative education schools and programs Curriculum-based Specialized school Community-based school Career education/vocational program

Magnet school Fundamental/structured school Advanced placement Outreach activities

Academic/college prep Magnet program Work experience/internship Experience-based learning

Form or Structure-based Comprehensive school School without walls Summer school (remediation CORE proficiency program)

Year-round school School-within-a-school School/class learning center Flexible scheduling

K-12 multigrade school Regional occupational program Teacher/peer tutoring Home schooling

Student Need-based Multicultural or ethnic center Alternative school Open school Opportunity program Migrant education Teenage pregnancy and maternity program Independent study Tenth grade counseling

Opportunity school County community school Adult school Gifted and talented education Compensatory education Competency-based GED prep Learning-style based Job development and placement

Continuation Court school Adult corrections Special education Bilingual education Adult basic education Intensive guidance Student-parent education Counseling-based Open entry-open exit

This table is adapted from Morley (1991), as provided by Lynn Hartzler of the California Department of Education.

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Information almanacs and descriptive case studies of alternative education have been compiled (Mintz, Solomon, and Solomon, 1995; Semel and Sadnovik, 1999). However, the characteristics of alternative education make generalizable research problematic, and the literature is incomplete on the effectiveness of alternative education programs (Civil Rights Project, 2000). In lieu of a comprehensive collection of evaluations (research that could support a meta-analysis, for instance), inferences about learning processes and strategy form the foundations for best practices in alternative education.

15

Foundation for Alternative Education For example, in the evaluation of designs for New American Schools, which marked the emergence of the school reform movement in the early 1990s, feedback loops, descriptions of ultimate success, and the recognition and assessment of temporal influences became important for refining and sustaining effective reform (Telephone communication with Susan Bodilly, October 12, 2000). Bodilly and others (1998; 1996) defined sets of indicators for evaluating New American School reform (Bodilly, 1998; Bodilly, Purnell, Ramsey, and Keith, 1996). Even when using the common definition, defining success in an alternative school or program is challenging. Is success absolute or relative? Have Jack and Jill succeeded when they obtain their diplomas? Did they succeed when they were recognized for attending every day of their 10th grade school year, when their teachers collaborated on promoting student strengths, when they were referred for alternative education after failing miserably on the eighth grade skills test? If the way we learn is more sophisticated than just memorizing something or reciting facts, and if it involves applying what is learned, then what can be said about the effectiveness of alternative education? In this regard, we are guided by four practice-based models for setting up alternative education programs and four guides for evaluating them. The models show that effective alternative education is not a neo-Machiavellian product of good intentions (where the end justifies the means) but rather an attempt to shape the education system, the school district or school, or an appropriate subsystem to fit the needs of individual students and subgroups of students for whom the traditional structure is ineffective. 1. The Chalker model rests on the notion that replicating the whole program that works in Manhattan, New York, is not the best way to make alternative education work in Manhattan, Kansas. In capturing a whole program, including its subtle weaknesses or nontransferability, one does not also capture its success. Chalker (1999, 1996) recommends studying coherent program modules, or “domains,” and adapting best practices from those domains. 2. The Virginia model is based on defined objectives related to behavior and psychosocial development specifically for the alternative schools. As listed by Duke and Griesdorn (1992), these objectives include the following: " " " "

Low” number of serious violations of code of conduct “High” daily attendance rate Increased percentage of students who feel good about attending school Improvement in student attendance over the previous rate for regular secondary school " Reduction in daily disciplinary referrals " Acquisition of social skills, such as anger management and peer mediation " “Low” number of suspensions/expulsions 3. The Barr and Parrett (1997) model implies that preparation is at least as important to 16

Foundation for Alternative Education success as the administration of a new program. Accordingly, this model for starting an alternative school or program includes four components. " " " "

A committee initiates a plan that represents the schools’ and students’ constituency. The committee develops a collaborative program. The committee implements curricula, instructional methods, and student services. The staff, program, and effects on students are evaluated.

4. The Tobin and Sprague (1999) model uses seven characteristics of “best and preferred practice in the education of at-risk students.” These practices are a low ratio of students to teachers; a highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management; a positive rather than punitive emphasis in behavior management; adult mentors at the school; individualized behavioral interventions based on functional behavioral assessment; social skills instruction; and high-quality academic instruction. Note that the Chalker and Barr and Parrett models are foundations for a verifiable, systematic analysis of alternative education. Ferguson (1998) suggests that the effectiveness of complex systems (like schools in general and alternative education in particular, in the Chalker and Barr and Parrett models) might be assessed more confidently by evaluating three components of the system: the program and its features, the implementation of the program (like a formative or process evaluation), and the program implementers (Mann and Schorr, 1998). The four guides that are available to assist in the evaluation of alternative education programs are as follows: 1. The Bluebook Guide developed by Quinones, Kirshstein, and Loy (1998) is helpful in setting up monitoring and evaluation systems. Although prepared for the use of technology in schools and classrooms, this guide answers common questions about monitoring and evaluation. 2. The guidance prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (2004) can assist in the planning, design, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of alternative education for disruptive youth programs in the state (page 8). This document provides guidance on needs assessment, legal considerations, budget design, site selection, community partnerships, exit criteria, and more. 3. EDNet, a self-assessment tool, was prepared by the National Youth Employment Coalition (2004) for gathering school and education program data to improve the school and its programs. A well developed tool that emphasizes effectiveness and continuous improvement, EDNet is “designed for educators and practitioners working with vulnerable youth in alternative and traditional education programs and schools” (page 1). Its criteria include teaching and learning, essential supports, opportunities and services, and purpose, organization and management. The first part of EDNet includes a self-

17

Foundation for Alternative Education assessment. The second part includes a scripted set of follow-up questions.1 4. The Baldrige National Quality Program (BNQP) is a tested guide for self-assessment in business, health care, and education “to help improve organizational [and program] performance practices, capabilities, and results, to facilitate communication and sharing of best practices information… and to serve as a working tool for understanding and managing performance and for guiding organizational planning and opportunities for learning” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005, 1). The 2005 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (Criteria) include a self-assessment worksheet that can be applied to an alternative education program or school (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005, 36-37). Since the BNQP was initiated in 1987, the Criteria have benefited from the expertise of many authorities. In contrast with the local private and public school experiences in alternative education, the BNQP criteria emphasize “learning-centered” education. The emphasis on “learning” is a variation on an emphasis on the “learner,” which derives from the private school experience, and an emphasis on the “student,” which derives from the public school experience. These variations in emphases might seem only semantic to some observers and contextual to others (in other words, the BNQP criteria do not specify alternative education, only education in general), but they are significant for the systems that support them and the resources that are required to reinforce them. For example, an emphasis on the broader goal of ‘learning’, as opposed to emphasis on the individual student or learner, may better encompass all the needs of the individual.2

ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS The economics of alternative education is as complex as that of regular education. For the past 15 years, school finance experts have struggled with the cost questions (Hoff, 2005). With or without evidence-based science to support alternative education, the challenge to demonstrate its economic benefits and costs is daunting. Very simply, three questions need to be answered. 1. What is the direct per-pupil cost of alternative education? 2. What are the individual and social sectors that are impacted by alternative education? 3. How can the benefits and costs associated with those sectors be calculated or estimated? The direct per-pupil costs of alternative education exceed those of regular schools and programs—although an exception might be the public charter alternative school, given the presence of a profit motive. Still, the cost that is most relevant for an economic analysis is the

1

Please see http://www.nyec.org/EdStrategies.html for more information.

2

Please see http://www.quality.nist.gov/ for more information.

18

Foundation for Alternative Education additional per-pupil cost in alternative education, a cost that might be as difficult to obtain as the cost for providing adequate public education. The reason is that alternative education impacts individual and social sectors in 21 areas: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Charitable giving Child quality through home activities Consumer choice efficiency Crime reduction Entertainment Fertility (viz., changed preferences for family size) Fertility (viz., attainment of desired family size) Income distribution Individual market productivity Individual productivity in knowledge production (i.e., the capacity to learn) Intrafamily [economic] productivity Labor market search efficiency (including migration) Leisure time Marital choice efficiency Nonmarket individual productivity (i.e., do-it-yourself) Nonwage labor market remuneration Own health Savings (financial) Social cohesion Spouse and family health Technological change

As noted in Tables 3 and 4 in the Appendix, both Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall (2002) and Havemann and Wolfe (1984) refer to 20 of these 21 cost items in which schooling impacts the student and society3. Barnett (1996) provides a sample summary of the costs and benefits of alternative education as viewed through the lens of the High-Scope Perry Preschool Program (Table 5, Appendix). Barnett’s summary describes cost “categories” in place of cost “items” and includes the costs of the preschool program and of later education and related services. Benefits can be realized from multiple areas, including benefits (to the children who attended the preschool program); benefits (to parents of children who attended the preschool program); benefits (to siblings of children who attended the preschool program); and benefits (to taxpayers), including decreased social problems such as crime, delinquency, and teenage pregnancy, and increased citizen competence and participation.

3

The authors understand that the work of Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall (2002) is, in part, a revisiting of the work of Havemann and W olfe (1984). The cost items in Tables 3 and 4 are similar conceptually and operationally, although semantic differences are apparent. More importantly, the cost items have not changed substantively over time.

19

Foundation for Alternative Education Prospects for economic success, such as consumer choice and savings, are seriously impeded by a lack of a high school education (Dynarski and Gleason, 2002), and durable employment is problematic for nongraduates (Farkas, Johnson, and Duffett, 2002). Cost of Absenteeism Student absences from regular school, are costly. For example, according to a report in the Mercury News (June 29, 2004), about one in five students in San Luis Obispo County, California, had 10 or more excused absences in 2002–2003. These absences and a smaller number of truancies cost 8 of the 10 area school districts $1.9 million that year. As the pace of absences increased through the first semester of the 2003–2004 school year, the absences translated into lost learning opportunities for the students, a loss that can negatively impact educational progress and lower schools' test results, in turn, possibly jeopardizing federal funding. Additionally, as California no longer distinguishes between excused and unexcused absences, funding is withheld in either case. Two districts in San Luis Obispo County escaped this fate, however. San Luis Coastal School District and Cayucos Elementary School District did not lose funding because they are funded primarily through local property taxes (not based on attendance), and not by the state (based on attendance). Cost of Dropping Out of School Even more costly than truancy to society and the individual are the costs associated with dropping out of school. For example, Veale (2002,6) examined five cost factors associated with dropping out of school in Iowa: reduction in personal income and loss in state revenue, increase in the welfare burden, increased risk of incarceration, deceleration of human growth and potential, and reduced sense of control over one’s life. Veale concluded that the individual dropout loses $540,000 in personal income during his or her 45-year working life, the state loses $2,400,000 each year in reduced revenues, and the welfare burden is increased by $1,300,000 each year. Additionally, the high school dropout is 5.6 times more likely than the graduate to be incarcerated. Although Veale’s study does not include dollar values for deceleration in human growth and potential or reduced sense of control over one’s life, it is likely that these last two cost factors would result in elevated estimated values for lost personal income, greater reductions in state revenues, and increases in welfare costs. Three other studies also show the high costs of dropping out of school. Heilbrunn (2002, p. 8, Table 2), found that total government costs alone may range between $188,000 and almost $300,000 for public social programs, lost tax revenues, and reductions in disposable income over the lifetime of a person who fails to finish high school. Cohen (1998) found that an incomplete high school education is manifest in nontrivial personal and social costs: a loss of personal income and loss of state revenue; an increase in welfare burden due to higher unemployment rates; an increased risk of incarceration; a deceleration in human growth and potential; and a reduced sense of control over one’s life. And Catterall (1987) found that the adjusted lifetime earnings loss for each dropout approaches $187,000 for males and $122,000 for females, and the inevitable social costs to local government exceed $24,000 for each dropout each year for police, employment services, welfare, health, judicial, and penal services. 20

Foundation for Alternative Education Benefits to Society of High School Graduation Research also helps education policy makers to see the benefits to society of supporting programs that encourage high school graduation. For example, incentive programs that directly encourage school completion are more cost effective than home visit and day care programs, parent training, or supervision of delinquents. And it shows that parent-training programs are the next most cost effective in terms of preventing serious crimes (Greenwood, Modell, Rydell, and Chiesa, 1998). Young Students Students, too, benefit from these programs, especially if they are involved at an early age. For example, participants in the Perry Preschool Program have accrued benefits from the program some 20 years after participation (Barnett, 1996). These students are more likely to have graduated from high school, more likely to be employed consistently, less likely to have been arrested, and less likely to have received welfare. Children in the Chicago School District’s Child-Parent Center Program (the Chicago Longitudinal Study or CLS) also accrued benefits over more than 15 years (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, and Mann, 2001). Such benefits from early interventions also appear in the study conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2002) and commissioned by the Washington State Legislature to identify effectiveness prevention and early intervention programs. Anticipating benefits for six types of outcomes—crime, education, substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, teen pregnancy, and public assistance—researchers concluded that prevention and early intervention programs that include elements of alternative education are economically effective, based on the societal perspective. The conclusions are summarized as follows: • • • • • •

Investments in effective programs for juvenile offenders have the highest net benefit. Such programs yield from $1,900 to $31,200 per youth. Some forms of home visiting programs that target high-risk and/or low-income mothers and children are also effective, returning from $6,200 to $17,200 per youth. Early childhood education for low income 3- and 4-year-olds and some youth development programs provide very attractive returns on investment. While their net benefits are relatively low, many substance use prevention programs for youth are cost effective, because the programs are relatively inexpensive. Few programs are effective at reducing teenage pregnancy. Each program area examined has interventions that are not cost effective. Some prevention and early intervention programs are very expensive and produce few benefits.

High School-age Students When the Iowa Legislature commissioned an analysis of the trends and costs of programs to prevent and retain high school dropouts, it found that improving the educational levels of individuals leads to increased personal income and more taxes paid. That is, an Iowa high school graduate earns $4,093 more per year than a high school dropout and, over a 45-year working life, the high school graduate would pay $8,595 more than the dropout in taxes to the state. If the 21

Foundation for Alternative Education Iowa dropout prevention program continues to reduce the number of dropouts each year, then the benefit to the state in the form of additional taxes will continue to exceed dropout prevention program costs (Iowa Legislative Services Agency, 2004). Further, Catterall and Stern (1986) found that alternative high school education is associated with higher employment rates for former students and higher rates of compensation and that subsequent graduation from high school enhances these labor benefits. Cohen (1998) estimated the present value of high-school graduation at $243,000–$388,000 over the graduate’s lifetime. Finally, in their analysis of Current Population Surveys administered in 1998, 1999, and 2000, Day and Newburger (2002) estimated that high school graduates without any post-secondary education earn $250,000 more than high school dropouts in work-life earnings, or average annual earnings from age 25 to age 64. This synthetic estimate, which does not control for such life events as early death or accidents leading to disability, is based on an average annual income of $25,000 for high school graduates and $18,900 for high school dropouts.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES “The alternative education network is not cohesive, and the language (i.e., vocabulary) is not common across professions and sectors that have an interest in alternative education” (National Youth Employment Coalition, 2002, p. i.). In addition, given the emphasis placed on standards and testing, new teachers are sometimes unprepared for routine teaching practice (Kauffman et al., 2002). New teachers of alternative education students can be expected to face more daunting challenges in addition to standards and testing. To help teachers cope with these challenges, professional teacher education programs provide training in alternative education and award degrees or certificates to graduates. The authors located 13 such programs, information about a normative model for the programs, and 18 auxiliary professional programs offered by state, national, and international associations, as shown below. Note that the International Association for Learning Alternatives (IALA) maintains currency in changes in state associations, whether or not they are accessible online. See International Association for Learning Alternatives (2004, May 8) for more information. Additionally, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) maintains a database of recent state policies and activities in alternative education. See Education Commission of the States (n.d.) for more information. Professional Teacher Education Programs The authors identified thirteen college and university teacher preparation programs that include a concentration or degree for teachers of at-risk youth.

22

Foundation for Alternative Education California State University at San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA Certificate program for educational and ancillary staff who serve adjudicated and at-risk students in institutions and alternative instructional settings. See http://soe.csusb.edu/csce/educ.html (accessed December 17, 2004). College of Santa Fe, Santa Fe, NM Five-year baccalaureate/master of arts with a focus on at-risk youth. See http://www.csf.edu/pr/viewbook/edu_degree_programs.htm (accessed December 17, 2004). Concordia University, Mequon, WI Add-on alternative teacher certification in Alternative Education. This certificate, which can be earned by taking and completing two courses concurrently, is available to any teacher who holds a valid Department of Public Instruction (DPI) license. See http://www2.cuw.edu/gtc/certifications/grad_cert_alternative.htm (accessed December 17, 2004). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Advanced Studies in Teaching and Learning Program. This includes an 18- to 21-credit emphasis-area component in the Master's degree (M.Ed.) program that allows candidates to specialize in alternative education, early childhood education, history, reading/literacy (21-credit), gifted and talented, instructional technology, mathematics, or science. [The 12-credit core component provides candidates with learning experiences and activities that simulate requirements for certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)]. See http://gse.gmu.edu/programs/masters.htm for program information and http://gse.gmu.edu/forms/programs/astl/altedEmpForm.pdf for the Alternative Education Emphasis Form (accessed December 17, 2004). Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA Master of Arts in Teaching, Teaching At-Risk Students Program. This prepares candidates to manage multiproblematic issues in the classroom and community professionals to work with at-risk youth. The program addresses family violence, child abuse, poverty, attention difficulties, emotional problems, learning disabilities, and cultural factors that can greatly interfere with a young person's academic and interpersonal performance. See http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges+and+Schools/School+of+Education/Teach er+Education/M.A.+Teaching+At-Risk+Students/default.htm (accessed December 16, 2004). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Risk and Prevention Program. Realizing that individual risk-taking behavior and environmental risk factors can contribute to developmental difficulties, this program draws on both strength- and pathology-based models for understanding psychosocial growth and adjustment. It considers risk and resilience within the cultural contexts in which they occur and “utilizes a wide range of human development theory and research to 23

Foundation for Alternative Education inform the training of prevention and intervention specialists for school and community settings.” See http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k586&pageid=icb.page986 (accessed December 16, 2004). Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, Lock Haven, PA Masters of Education in Alternative Education degree. This is the first online M.Ed. in Alternative Education to be offered in the nation. Lock Haven also offers an undergraduate minor in alternative education. See http://www.alted.lhup.edu (accessed December 17, 2004). Marian College, Fond du Lac, WI Alternative Education License for individuals with an initial teaching license who do not wish to complete a master's degree. Coursework for the licensure includes classroom strategies and practices; understanding at-risk and nontraditional learners; effective schools research: what works; and Stars designated. See http://www.mariancollege.edu/Academics/SOE/Grad/CI/alternative_education_license.ht m (accessed December 16, 2004). Northland College, Ashland, WI Alternative Education Certification Program. This is a post-baccalaureate program that leads to the Wisconsin Department of Instruction Alternative Education certificate. See http://www.northland.edu/outreach/teacher_cert.asp#alted (accessed December 17, 2004). Park University, Parkville, MO Master of Education At-Risk. This program deals with the everyday issues that face atrisk students and their teachers. These issues include classroom management, characteristics of at-risk students, violent behavior, reading diagnosis, and remediation. Park University is the largest provider of education to the military and serves the nonmilitary as well at 36 campuses located in 20 states in the U.S. See http://www.park.edu/ME/atrisk.asp (accessed December 16, 2004). San Jose State University, San Jose, CA Alternative Education Project in the College of Education. This project focuses on teaching students who are outside the mainstream of education: those who are in shelters, continuation high schools, court-supervised community schools, ranches and juvenile halls, state detention facilities, and other difficult settings. See http://alternativeed.sjsu.edu/project.html (accessed December 17, 2004). University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL Comprehensive Alternative Education program that focuses on dropout prevention. The program offers an Ed.S (i.e., doctorate without dissertation) with a specialty in diversity/at-risk education, a Master's degree in alternative education, and in-service training with points for certificate renewal. See http://cops.uwf.edu/copsweb/teached/alted.cfm (accessed December 16, 2004).

24

Foundation for Alternative Education University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI Alternative Education Certificate Program. Authorized by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), this is a post-baccalaureate certificate program in which students receive a DPI certificate upon completion of the program requirements. See http://www.soe.uwm.edu/pages/welcome/Certification_and_Degrees/Academic_Program s/Alt_Ed_Cert (accessed December 17, 2004). A Normative Model for Professional Teacher Education Programs Such professional teacher alternative education programs are proliferating for two reasons. First, they are an attempt to meet the needs of students who would benefit from non-traditional approaches to learning. Second, they are a response to the needs of alternative education programs that vary dramatically from carefully structured, well-regulated options embedded within a district’s school system, to small, unregulated, private programs of questionable quality. As states report that they are now more likely to rely on alternative placements for students with learning and behavioral problems, particularly in response to the pressure of new student achievement accountability requirements, attention is needed to the quality of these programs and the professionals who teach in them. Behavior Management Practitioners and administrators of alternative education programs in the Washington Metropolitan region report to us that general education classroom teachers are poorly trained to address the needs of at-risk youth in their classrooms, particularly in the area of behavior management. They suggest that teacher behavior, or the responses of teachers in the classroom during behavioral incidents, are a predictor of a student’s removal from the classroom and placement into alternative settings. They are unfamiliar with the social emotional needs of these students, or do not know the most effective strategies, or wait too long before intervening. Further, many teachers in alternative education settings need additional training to meet the “highly qualified teacher” definition under NCLB. Special Services Better trained teachers are able to keep students in their classrooms longer and tend to have a positive impact academically. There is great concern in school districts about the impact these students are having on standardized test scores and the ability of these individual schools to achieve Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). These scores are now well publicized in the states, and this intensifying pressure for accountability is having a profound impact on school programming. As many school districts are developing systems of services to support students with special learning needs, they are incorporating in their continuum new models for alternative schools and educational programs. Schools will be required to collect data on students who are placed into alternative settings and the kinds of services they need and receive. It is the obligation of school systems to ensure that as alternative placements proliferate, appropriate special educational services are extended to students who need them. The relatively high dropout rate of students 25

Foundation for Alternative Education with disabilities, as well as the increasing rate of outplacement of youth with disabilities to alternative educational programs indicates a need to implement transition planning and support services at much earlier ages. At-risk youth have complex needs and require a more intensive educational and support program. The nature of their needs also demands close coordination between alternative school and community-based human services. The primary goal of most alternative programs is to meet the needs of students who would benefit from non-traditional approaches to learning. Although alternative programs are designed for a variety of reasons, they are commonly designed for youth with challenging behaviors that interfere with their learning and social development. Although these students may or may not be eligible for special education services, they are in need of special learning strategies, interventions or supports in order to be successful in school (Lacy & Sobers, 2004; Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2001). However, many alternative education programs are staffed with inexperienced teachers who are not prepared to address the complex needs of at-risk youth. The Normative Model Improved preparation of educators in schools and alternative schools is likely to lead to a reduction in the overuse of in-school discipline, inappropriate referrals to alternative schools, increased success in alternative settings, decreased dropout from school, and improved long-term adult outcomes. The authors propose a model Masters degree program, designed to prepare teachers for a variety of Alternative Education settings, that would offer a choice of either (a) dual certification in special education (emphasis on learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disabilities) and a content area specialization, or (b) non-categorical special education preparation for educators and youth workers. The model program would address the following competencies: 1. Demonstrate knowledge of the spectrum and classification of alternative educational programs and settings, their philosophy, organizational and administrative structures, target populations, and legal issues; 2. Demonstrate mastery of teaching methods in a content area (mathematics, science, language arts, social studies, etc) and prepare for completion of Praxis III in a content area; 3. Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the learner’s physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and cultural development and his or her learning and academic progress; 4. Demonstrate knowledge of and skills in planning, designing, and delivering instruction to students with learning, emotional and behavioral disabilities; 5. Organize and manage a classroom using positive behavioral approaches supported by student learning needs and evidence-based practices; 6. Demonstrate knowledge of emerging research and an understanding of the relationship between adolescent brain development and behavior; 7. Demonstrate knowledge of evidenced-based strategies for differentiated instruction and the integration of students with special needs into the general education curriculum; 8. Demonstrate understanding of reading development, assessment and instruction; 26

Foundation for Alternative Education 9. Use valid assessment approaches, both formal and informal, that are age-appropriate and address a variety of developmental needs and curriculum goals; 10. Demonstrate understanding of career-vocational development and curriculum options and of legal requirements to assist youth in transition from high school to post-secondary education 11. Use computer and computer-related technology to meet student and professional needs; 12. Collaborate with the broad educational community, including parents, businesses, and social service agencies; 13. Demonstrate knowledge of interdisciplinary collaboration and interagency coordination strategies to promote learning and ensure access to needed support services within the school and in the community; 14. Demonstrate knowledge of evidence-based practices in alternative education, through extended practicum and internships in alternative education settings; 15. Demonstrate knowledge of the referral process (voluntary and involuntary) and transitions to and from alternative settings; 16. Demonstrate an understanding that classrooms and schools are sites of ethical, social, and civic activity; 17. Engage in careful analysis, problem solving, and reflection in all aspects of teaching; 18. Incorporate a multicultural perspective that integrates culturally diverse resources, including those from the learner’s family and community; 19. Offer a train-the-trainer track or concentration in order to expand more quickly the competency of the alternative education community; 20. Track graduates in order to assess the effectiveness of the program; 21. Provide publishing and dissemination support for the field through core faculty and graduate students; 22. Include a preparation track for youth workers in addition to educators. Those who successfully complete the model Master’s degree program should be able to help students in their school districts to attain seven outcomes. ! Improved test scores (with special emphasis on passing state standards of learning assessments) ! Increased community service and responsibility ! Increased enrollment in and completion of higher education ! Increased employment success through and after high school ! Increased maintenance of students in public schools ! Decrease in serious disciplinary offenses in schools ! Decreased involvement in crime and the juvenile justice system Auxiliary Programs Offered by National, International, and State Associations The professional teacher programs are augmented by state, national, and international associations. These associations, representing alternative education, learning alternatives, and dropout prevention, are listed below. 27

Foundation for Alternative Education National and International Associations •

Alternative Education Resource Organization, http://www.educationrevolution.org/; 417 Roslyn Road, Roslyn Heights, NY 11577; 800-769-4171 (tool free in the U.S. and Canada, only), 516-621-2195 (regular commercial); 516-625-3257 (fax); mailto:[email protected]

•

International Association for Learning Alternatives, http://www.learningalternatives.net/; 449 Desnoyer Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104-4946; 651-644-2805; 651-644-2020 (fax)

•

National Alternative Education Association (NAEA), 1359 Diamond Hill Road, Cheshire, CT 06410-1899; 860-224-1698; mailto:[email protected]

•

National At-risk Education Network, http://www.naren.info/; PO Box 463, Fond du Lac, WI 54936-0463; 920-907-8337; 920-907-8337 (fax); mailto:[email protected]

•

Correctional Education Association (CEA) http://www.ceanational.org/; 4380 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706; 301-918-1915; 301-918-1846 (fax); Membership 800783-1232; mailto:[email protected]

•

National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (not a membership organization) http://www.dropoutprevention.org/ndpcdefault.htm; Clemson University, 209 Martin Street, Clemson, SC 29631-1555; 864-656-2599; 864-656-0136; mailto:[email protected]

State Associations • • • • • • • • • • • •

California Continuation Education Association, http://www.cceanet.org Connecticut Association of Alternative Schools and Programs, http://www.caasp.org Iowa Association of Alternative Education, http://www.iaae.net Michigan Alternative Education Organization, http://www.maeo.org Minnesota Association of Alternative Programs, http://www.maapmn.org Missouri Association for Alternative Education, http://maae.info New York State Alternative Education Association, http://www.nysaea.org Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center, http://www.csdcotac.org/otacmain.htm Oregon Association for Alternatives in Education, http://www.oaae.org Pennsylvania Association for Learning Alternatives, http://www.palearningalternatives.com Texas Association for Alternative Education, http://www.taae.org Washington Association for Learning Alternatives, http://www.walakids.com

28

Foundation for Alternative Education Model Programs During academic year 2000–2001 according to Kleiner, Porch, and Farris (2002, p. 7, Table 2), an estimated 10,900 public alternative schools and programs served about 612,900 at-risk students. This estimate of schools is likely a lower boundary, for the definition that was used in this survey of randomly selected regular school districts combined with the nonresponse bias would combine to yield an undercounting of alternative education schools and programs. About 1.7 times as many students participate in alternative schools and programs according to another survey. In their survey of state education agencies (SEAs), Lehr, Moreau, Lange, and Lanners (2004, p. 11) estimate that 1,023,000 students are enrolled in alternative education schools and programs. If we assume that the student populations of alternative education schools and programs are proportional for the self-reports from school districts and SEAs, then the Lehr et al. estimate of students can be extrapolated to approximately 18,200 alternative education programs and schools. The extrapolated estimate approaches the estimate of 20,000 operational alternative education schools by Barr and Parrett (2001, 170). Thus, it may be said that alternative education is offered by at least 10 percent of regular public school districts and as many as—if not more than—20 percent of the 94,112 public schools in the U.S. The 94,112 public schools is the count obtained by the Common Core of Data for the 2001–2002 school year (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Model State Programs An annotated list of alternative education programs in seven states follows. Note that the authors selected these programs not to generalize about the 10,000 to 20,000 such programs that exist, but to illustrate their diversity. Note also that the program descriptions have been paraphrased from the programs’ Web sites, which are provided below. California Santa Monica. Santa Monica Alternative School House (SMASH) in the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), is one of the older alternative schools in the U.S. It was conceptualized by a community group of educators, students, and parents who were seeking an educational program that differed significantly from the district’s standard programs. SMASH was intended to be a more relaxed school where nonauthoritarian, noncompetitive, and nonsexist methods would be emphasized. The SMASH group, which was inspired by a similar group in Los Angeles, began to meet in the summer of 1972 to discuss the possibility of creating a publicly funded, humanistic school for the Santa Monica/Malibu area. In February 1973, after having spent several months sharing ideas about alternative education with the community at large, 150 educators, children, and parents approached the members of the SMMUSD Board of Education and requested a feasibility study for the establishment of an alternative school. After reviewing a Feasibility study, SMMUSD board voted to establish the school for the 1973–74 school year (Santa Monica Alternative School House, n.d.).

29

Foundation for Alternative Education For SMASH, in the most literal sense, alternative means other than the norm. However, SMASH prefers to think of itself as “beyond the norm”¯to move ahead and lead in the areas of innovation and educational practices. As an alternative school, everything is in constant review and development¯curriculum, practices, structures, and policies¯and the only constant is change itself. However, this change is not change for change's sake but change that is deemed necessary after review and analysis. It is change that will continue to promote children's development in the ways cited above. SMASH is a school of choice. Notably, SMASH and the SMMUSD are supported by the Santa Monica-Malibu Education Foundation (SMMEF; http://www.smmef.org). SMMEF is a nonprofit organization administered by parents, business people and community leaders. Established in 1982, SMMEF raises funds to enhance the curriculum by •

Increasing literacy development for every student through enhancement of school library resources • Providing support for inquiry-based, hands-on science programs for all elementary schools • Extending the core curriculum to after-school programs for middle school and high school students • Funding academic clubs, such as physics or debate, for high schools • Ensuring district-wide curriculum enhancement by awarding teacher grants for innovative classroom programs North Carolina Within the Acebedarian Project, alternative education as a prevention strategy takes the form of a pre-school intervention program, where the at-risk families of preschoolers receive program services, based on an assessment using the socio-demographic scale of the High Risk Screening Index. Among the project’s benefits are the following (RAND Corporation, 2003, August): Besides the main finding of significant effects for the Abecedarian program as a whole at enhancing long-term IQ and academic achievement, another important conclusion to be drawn from the evaluations is that five years of the Abecedarian preschool intervention is almost equally as effective as five years of the preschool program with a three-year primary school follow-up, and definitely more effective than the Abecedarian primary school intervention alone. Ohio Central Ohio. The students of the Magellan Program, in central Ohio, are last-chance kids. This means that, for them as for the majority of at-risk students, late elementary and middle school is their last chance to be reached in the regular school setting. To reach its last-chance students, the Magellan Program takes a holistic approach, providing wraparound services for students, their parents, and the school staff. These wraparound services include the following:

30

Foundation for Alternative Education • • • • •

Individualized and group instruction based on identified student needs Intensive counseling based on thorough assessments of mental health and behavioral needs Social-skill-building activities that enhance relationships with adults and peers Job-embedded professional development: research on best practices, modeling successful instructional strategies, and seminars aligned with local professional development plans On-going support for students, parents and school staff through a school-based, licensed social worker who links agencies and community and educational resources

The Magellan Program currently serves students in selected schools in Whitehall, SouthWestern, Groveport, Madison, and Gahanna school districts. The Magellan Program is operated by the Educational Council, Columbus, Ohio (Educational Council, n.d.)4. Oklahoma Tulsa. Union Alternative Academy, in the Union Public School District, has provided alternative education to district students from its conception in 1996. Since then, it has enabled 395 students to complete enough credits to graduate, and it has given a new lease on life to students with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and emotional disabilities. In design, the academy looks like a gifted education school offering a wide range of technology applications, well rounded art opportunities, and seminars. Its mini courses, offered in a variety of areas, include forensic education and physical education, and its seminars include health and wellness. All center around the core subjects. In addition, career education covers everything from interviews to on-going support and evaluation of work-site jobs. Counseling is student-centered. The academy also organizes town meetings where students may request program changes or ask for explanation of the rules—through a student-selected spokesperson who queries the school staff. An excellent communications vehicle for both the students and teachers, these meetings often result in program changes. Union Alternative Academy is an exemplary alternative education program, according to the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center (OTAC), which conducts evaluations of Oklahoma’s alternative education program. The seventeen criteria used in this evaluation appear in Table 6. Not only was Union Alternative Academy designated by the OTAC as an exemplary program, suitable for replication in every area that was evaluated, but it also received many other citations. It earned the 2003 Oklahoma Medal for Excellence in Alternative Education from the Oklahoma Excellence Foundation. It earned the 2004 Crystal Star Award from the National Dropout

4

Formed in 1986 as an outgrowth of an agreement between the Columbus Public Schools and most of the other school districts in Franklin County, the Educational Council supports the collaboration of school districts to work together on common issues for the benefit of the students and communities they serve. Today, the Educational Council promotes collaboration among school districts and communities, enhances the capacity of school districts to achieve at higher levels, develops innovative best practices for school districts in Greater Columbus, and identifies and communicates results.

31

Foundation for Alternative Education Prevention Center/Network for its achievement as the top program in the nation for working with students with attention deficit disorder and emotional disabilities. And the academy’s principal received the 2004 Janis Updike Walker Award from the Oklahoma Alternative Education Association for a lifetime of work and dedication to at-risk youth.

Table 6. Oklahoma criteria for evaluating alternative education schools and programs Intake and screening Collaboration Individualized instruction Counseling and social services Graduation plan Life skills instruction Self-evaluation Effective instruction Arts education Certified teachers Courses meet curricular standards

Clear and measurable goals and objectives Effective class size and student/teacher ratios Faculty selection Budget Student participation Designed to serve students in grades 6-12 most at risk of not completing a high school education for a reason other than a disability.

Texas Harris County. The Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP) is administered by Harris County’s Juvenile Probation Department for students who have been expelled from one of 22 local school districts for serious criminal activity or serious misconduct while at school. The department has contracted with Community Education Partners to operate two 6–12 schools in Houston for JJAEP. The department also operates another Abecedarian Project as a prevention strategy for the at-risk families of preschool children. Features of the JJAEP include an emphasis on accelerated academic growth and behavior skills, presence of juvenile probation officers at the schools, and ancillary services. The services involve mental health, social, and health-related services; substance abuse intervention; after-school programs; and summer school. The Harris County Juvenile Justice Charter School (JJCS) provides educational services under one comprehensive academic program to all juveniles placed by the courts in detention and residential facilities. JJCS focuses on student progression in the core academic curriculum, vocational education, and social/life skills. It is a year-round school with after-school tutorials so that students can continuously improve their educational skills. The JJAEP also includes academic transition services in their home schools for juveniles returning from county juvenile institutions (Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, n.d.).

32

Foundation for Alternative Education Virginia Fairfax County. Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) alternative education programs provide challenging learning environments where the Virginia Standards of Learning are converted into an effective learning curriculum. Coordinated by the Office of Alternative Schools in the FCPS’s Department of Special Services, these programs offer the students the necessary academic and social tools required to achieve mastery of learning in elementary, middle, and high school. Students are instructed to think critically and creatively, and to embrace life-long habits of strong mental, emotional, and physical health (Fairfax County Public Schools, n.d.). FCPS alternative education stresses high academic success, self-esteem, and self-determination; strong social skills, ethical behavior, and connection to family, school, and community; love of learning and respect for authority; effective problem-solving, decision-making, and coping skills; ongoing development of responsible behavior; and post-secondary career planning. It does so through the following seven programs, which are evaluated using multiple indicators: 1. Adult/Alternative High Schools—FCPS supports three alternative high schools: Bryant Alternative High School, Mountain View Alternative High School, and Pimmit Hills Alternative High School. These schools offer programs designed to help students whose life circumstances could result or have resulted in an interruption of their education or in their dropping out of school. They accept students who are based at another school and who wish to accelerate their educational program, and they administratively place students through an area records review process or by nomination by the school board. Students with severe discipline problems do not attend these schools. 2. Alternative Learning Centers—The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) provides continued educational opportunities in core classes for students in grades six through ten who have been involved in serious disciplinary incidents. Credits earned at the ALC are transferred to the student's cumulative transcript. Consideration for re-entry into a base school is contingent upon each student's successful completion of all Fairfax County School Board and ALC program requirements (attendance, academic effort, and behavior). 3. Character Education 4. Contract Services—FCPS places students with disabilities in private schools when no appropriate program is available within the school system. 5. Inter-Agency Alternative Schools—FCPS provides faculty and staff, materials, and program direction to 28 school programs, referred to as Inter-Agency Alternative Schools. Located at sites administered and funded by other public agencies, this cooperative interagency effort meets the needs of the whole child at no cost to FCPS for support staff, facilities, and utilities. These alternative schools offer an education program for disruptive or disaffected youth who have not been successful in regular school settings. Each school is specifically designed to meet the needs of the student population of the host agency. For students who have exhibited truancy, serious delinquency, poor school performance, substance abuse, criminal behavior, abuse and neglect, school refusal, conditional expulsion, and family dysfunction, comprehensive services, such as intensive assistance and, often, long-term interventions, are provided by FCPS in partnership with 33

Foundation for Alternative Education community agencies. These agencies include the Virginia Department of Family Services, Fairfax-Falls Church Community Services Board (including Alcohol and Drug Services and Mental Health Services), the Virginia Department of Education, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court 6. Summit Program—Through the Summit Program, FCPS provides intensive behavioral and academic interventions to students, grades kindergarten through eleven, who have been unsuccessful in their base school due to behavior problems. It builds responsibility, positive relationships, and resiliency. A short, 18-week intervention, this program is designed to intervene in the area of problem behaviors while offering an appropriate academic program. It serves students at 12 locations throughout the county, providing separate classroom instruction that minimizes negative large group social interactions and other distractions that may have led to the original serious disciplinary actions and academic distress. Students are accepted and placed in the program approximately every five weeks coinciding with the beginning of the grading period, with Summit staff meeting with referring school staff to determine the appropriateness of the placement. After the students’ 18-week placement, they are returned to their base school, or possibly referred to another alternative setting, if necessary. Because this is a relatively short intervention, collaborative transition planning is critical. 7. Time Out Rooms—The FCPS Time-Out Room program was developed in response to requests from both educators and parents for a method of curtailing disruptive behavior in the classroom. Each program is staffed with a trained, full-time instructional assistant. The benefits are twofold. The Time Out Rooms serve as resources for teachers to use before a student is referred for disciplinary action. And they allow staff members to maintain the integrity of the instructional program by providing an alternative environment for students who interrupt the instructional program. 8. The Landmark Career Academy—Under the direction of Bryant High School’s principal, the Landmark Career Academy is a FCPS/business community partnership located in the Landmark Shopping complex. Specialized training is designed to combine school-based and work-based components to develop employment skills and opportunities. The FCPS alternative education program uses multiple indicators to assess student success: • • • • • •

Improved test scores (with special emphasis on passing state standards of learning assessments) Increased community service and responsibility Increased enrollment and completion of higher education Increased employment success through and after high school Increased maintenance of students in public schools Decrease in serious disciplinary offenses in schools

Compare these indicators to the seven expected outcomes from the Normative Model above. Portsmouth. The Portsmouth Public Schools (PPS) offer four alternative education programs: early intervention, the New Directions Center, the Excel Campus, and the Cradock Career and Technical Center. 34

Foundation for Alternative Education Early intervention is provided for students at-risk of educational failure and for their parents and guardians, who are encouraged to participate. The services include classroom work on test-taking strategies for the Virginia Standards of Learning and on anger management, crisis intervention, character development, peer pressure, bullying, and career development. The New Directions Center (New Directions Center, n.d.) is a structured, nontraditional alternative learning environment for elementary and middle school students with “challenging behaviors.” Such students have been removed from their zone schools due to behavior problems and referred by a principal to a hearing officer, who makes the placement decision. A dedicated facility, the center stresses the improvement of personal behavior and continuation of corecontent area instruction. It does so by requiring students to attend for 94 percent of their assigned time, providing students access to an affective skills enhancement program on a daily basis during this time, and requiring parents and guardians to attend a minimum of two parental involvement sessions during the student's tenure at the center. While at the center, the student continues to receive instruction in the four core areas. The Excel Campus (EXCEL Campus, n.d.) is a flexible, accelerated, educational campus where older high school students and adults can complete the requirements for a diploma or GED certificate; improve their basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and language arts; learn introductory computer skills; or participate in learning new arts and crafts and leisure activities. Designed to help participants achieve academic success and self-improvement, the Excel Campus includes five major programs: the High School Diploma Program; the ISAEP/GED Program; the Academic Preparatory Program; Adult GED and Basic Education Programs; and the Computer Skills/Special Interest Program. It operates from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. The Cradock Career and Technical Center (Cradock Career and Technical Center, n.d.) provides training in auto mechanics, horticulture, and nursing and offers an apprentice program at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Prince William County. The county’s Office of Student Management and Alternative Programs (OSMAP) endeavors to meet the educational and behavioral needs of students who are not successful in a traditional school setting. Aligned with the district’s strategic plan, it has five goals and eight programs, as follows (Prince William County Public Schools, n.d.): 1. To provide a safe school environment conducive to teaching and learning and free from violence, conflict and unnecessary disruptions (Strategic Plan Goal #2) 2. To decrease the number of long-term suspensions and expulsions through a process that provides alternative placements (Strategic Plan Goal #2) 3. To provide an increased number of alternative placements that meet the educational and behavioral needs of chronically disaffected students (Strategic Plan Goal #1) 4. To maintain strong school/home partnerships to improve student achievement (Strategic Plan Goal #3) 5. To involve appropriate school and community agencies to ensure student progress (Strategic Plan Goal #3) 35


The following programs are offered to students for egregious violations of the Code of Behavior (Tier I), serious violations of the Code of Behavior (Tier II), and referrals from base schools (Tier III): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

New Dominion Alternative School (grades 6–8)—service learning New Directions Alternative School (grades 9–12)—service learning Night School GED Program for 16- and 17-year-olds Virtual High School—Online, distance learning Independent Study Home-based Instruction Summer School

Wisconsin Milwaukee County. Wraparound Milwaukee is a model of alternative education that does not originate in the school but includes the education system and delivers a comprehensive and flexible array of services to youth and their families. Actually, Wraparound Milwaukee is a health maintenance organization that promotes collaboration among Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Mental Health and Education in the treatment of children with serious emotional, mental health, and behavioral challenges. It is operated by the Behavioral Health Division, Department of Health and Human Services, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. In existence since 1995, Wraparound Milwaukee was developed out of a 6-year, $15 million federal grant that Milwaukee County received from the Center for Mental Health Services of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. The intent of the federal grant was threefold: (1) to foster the development of more comprehensive, community-based care for children with serious emotional needs and for their families; and (2) to promote more family inclusion in treatment programs; and (3) to encourage collaboration among child welfare, education, juvenile justice, and mental health agencies in the delivery of services. One of the first 10 such sites funded throughout the country, Wraparound Milwaukee was designed to reduce the use of institutional-based care, such as residential treatment centers and inpatient psychiatric hospitals, while providing more services in the community and in the child’s home. It, thus, engages families as equal partners in the care of their children and does so with competence (Milwaukee County, n.d.)5. Wraparound Milwaukee is an integrated service system that presents extraordinary opportunities for success. Although it was not included in the evaluation by Ragan (2003), it does reflect the

5

For information about the grant program that funded W raparound Milwaukee, contact the U.S. Department of Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services (http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/cmhs).

36

Foundation for Alternative Education characteristics Ragan cites of effectively integrated human service systems. Those characteristics include the following: • • • • • •

Anecdotal evidence of impacts on clients Anecdotal evidence of impacts on staff and managers — collocated sites, cross-program teams Shared case planning, and common intake and assessment processes all contribute to better communication, less redundancy, fewer conflicts, and improved client outcomes Satisfaction surveys¯high levels (90 percent and more) of customer satisfaction reported on customer surveys Program performance measures — elevated client participation in work-related activities and caseload reduction Community-wide measures — broader measures of community well-being, such as poverty rates, home ownership rates, high-school graduation rates, illegitimacy and teen pregnancy rates

Communities in School Communities in Schools (CIS; http://www.cisnet.org) was established in 1977. Although not developed or presented as an alternative education program, CIS builds partnerships with families, schools, and community leaders to create a support system and effective local programs for students. It recruits support from businesses, organizations, government agencies, social service providers, and volunteer groups, and works in partnership with public schools—principals, superintendents, teachers and administrators. CIS is a process for developing public/private partnerships; brokering, in an effective and coordinated way, existing community services through the schools; cutting across institutional lines to provide comprehensive services and community support for children and families in need; and promoting systemic change. CIS promotes "Five Basics" for the student support system and local programs. 1. A Personal Relationship with a Caring Adult—Mentors, Tutors and Parental Involvement Programs 2. A Safe Place—After-School and Extended-Hours Programs 3. A Healthy Start—Mental Health Counseling, Family Strengthening Initiatives, Drug and Alcohol Education, Physical and Dental Exams, Eye Care and Immunizations, and Help for Teen Parents 4. A Marketable Skill—Technology Training for the Future, Career Counseling and Employment Skills, College Preparation and Scholarship Opportunities 5. A Chance to Give Back—Community Service Opportunities and Junior ROTC Programs The development of a local CIS is a community-based initiative. First, someone in the community makes an initial inquiry about the feasibility of a local CIS program. A representative from CIS, Inc. or from a State CIS Operation then provides a community orientation on CIS 37

Foundation for Alternative Education goals, operations, and values. Out of the community orientation, a local champion for the program will emerge. The local champion will serve as a liaison with CIS, Inc., or the State Operation and will take the lead in further development, including establishing a PreImplementation Task Force to assess community needs, assess community assets to address these needs, and develop and implement a work plan for a local program (Communities in Schools, n.d.). In general, CIS local programs tend to fall into one of four basic models. Whole School Model—Chicago Communities In Schools works with existing school personnel who are reassigned to the CIS effort. The school system has committed to helping CIS identify and enlist the most qualified person within the school site to serve as the CIS services coordinator. Often these people are assistant principals or student support services personnel. Once recruited to the cause, these staff coordinate the process by which needed services are matched with the right students. They also ensure that all students have access to the services provided. Chicago site coordinators track the number of students accessing each service. They also closely monitor indicators for improvement of the entire school (i.e., stay-in-school rates, attendance rates, promotion/graduation rates, dropout rates and incidents of discipline). The premise is that if the process effectively assesses school community needs, and effectively repositions quality outside service providers to address those needs, then whole-school indicators will gradually improve. Case Management Services—Texas CIS programs are mandated by state legislative dollars to provide a broad array of services, including traditional case management services, to a certain number of students per campus. Each of these students is officially enrolled in the CIS case management process. A case plan is developed, and a case manager regularly meets with each student to monitor progress against outlined goals. Texas programs also broker outside resources to provide service to groups of students and to individuals. However, case management still tends to be the centerpiece of what they do. Many Texas programs have learned to creatively leverage this legislative funding over the years. For example, when the CIS process consistently works over a period of years in a given community, school principals will often pay all or a portion of the CIS site staff's salary. Repositioned Services—In Renton, Washington, CIS has repositioned an alreadyexisting, state-funded case management service called Readiness To Learn (RTL). By repositioning this existing service, CIS of Renton can focus intensive care on a limited number of students while freeing up its own staff to broker additional resources for the larger school populations in which they work. CIS and RTL worked out an agreement that ensures that key CIS outcome indicators are tracked and reported on a regular basis.

38

Foundation for Alternative Education Academy Model—Burger King Corporation and the NFL have supported the CIS process over the years by lending their resources to small, case-managed learning environments called academies. These organizations have realized that concentrated efforts produce great results for some of the most underserved students in the country's school systems. CIS uses the academy process as a way to meet the intense needs of students that have not succeeded in the mainstream school environment. Academies simultaneously leverage high-profile partnerships and galvanize more support for solving the larger, systemic school problems (Communities in Schools, n.d.).

CONTEXT Because the research about risk factors is essential to an understanding of alternative education, the authors present this review of selected literature about risk factors as context for learning and living through alternative education. Beginning in the 1960s and continuing for about 20 years, alternative education was creative but reactive. It responded, through prevention and intervention, to failing and disruptive students. Beginning in the 1980s, researchers began a rigorous study of risk factors—the individual and environmental barriers to succeeding in school or succeeding in life. The results of this research enabled alternative education to become proactive, offering more options for defusing risk by diffusing schooling. This research about the concept of risk has generated attention in other sectors and at all levels. For example, when the White House sought ways to improve the conditions for youth to grow up healthy and safe, ready for work, college, and military service, ready for marriage, family, and parenting, and ready for civic engagement and service, it convened the Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth (2003). The task force focused on research about . . . Youth who, because of certain characteristics, circumstances, experiences or insufficiencies, encounter financial, legal, social, educational, emotional and/or health problems and may have significant difficulties growing into adults who are responsible citizens, productive workers, involved members of communities, and good parents (White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth, 2003, p. 123, Endnotes to Chapter 1).6 6

On February 16, 2005, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Mike DeW ine (R-OH), and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced S.409 (the related bill is H.R.856). Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) became a co-sponsor on April 11, 2005. S.409 was referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The PDF version of S.409 is available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s409is.txt.pdf. Also on February 16, 2005, Representatives Tom Osborne (R-NE), Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Pete Hoekstra (RMI), and Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) introduced H.R.856 (the related bill is S.409). Congressman John E. Peterson (RPA) became a co-sponsor of H.R. 856 on March 15, 2005. H.R. 856 was referred to the U.S. House Committee on Education and the W orkforce. H.R. 856 is available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-

39


Even before the White House initiative, multiple agencies of the federal government and many prominent researchers were focusing on risk factors. The research reviewed here includes that of Frymier et al. (1992); Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, O’Donnell, Abbott, and Day (1992); Loeber and Farrington (2001); Howell (1995); and the National League of Cities (n.d.). Frymier et al. (1992) studied risk for failing at school or failing at life. The risk factors that they documented are presented in Table 7 in the Appendix. Frymier and colleagues assign the risk factors to one of three categories: family factors, personal pain factors, and academic failure factors. The work of Hawkins et al. (1992) has evolved into a prevention and intervention program known as Communities That Care ® (Channing Bete Company). The researchers developed Communities That Care ® after several years of study in the Seattle Social Development Project. The risk factors that they identified are presented in Table 8 in the Appendix. Hawkins and Catalano assigned the risk factors to one of four categories: community, family, school, and peer and individual. Research by Loeber and Farrington (2001) revealed risk factors for child delinquency. These are presented in Table 9 in the Appendix. Loeber and Farrington assigned the risk factors to one of four categories: individual factors, family factors, peer factors, and school and community factors. Research by Howell (1995) included risk factors for unhealthy adolescent behaviors. These factors are presented in Table 10 in the Appendix. Howell assigned risk factors to one of four categories: community, family, school, and individual/peer factors. In addition, the National League of Cities (NLC, n.d.) has studied risk factors that lead to vulnerability (see Table 11 in the Appendix). NLC classifies the risk factors that lead to vulnerability in four categories of challenges: individual, personal, educational, and social. The cited research supports three irrefutable conclusions: ! ! !

There is risk in living and in schooling. The risk is greater for some than for others. Risk is a causal agent—not a product agent—that is usually beyond the capacity of the afflicted individual child or youth to neutralize alone.

bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h856ih.txt.pdf.

40


CONCLUSIONS Academic and development challenges confront youth and children at early ages. Just recently, Gilliam (2005) reported on the rate and impact of expulsion on prekindergarten programs. Expulsion is the complete cessation of educational services without the benefit of alternative services provided by or through the educational program that has expelled the child. As Gilliam (2005, 1, top) reports, “Expulsion is the most severe disciplinary sanction that an educational program can impose.” In his survey of 52 state-funded prekindergarten programs in 40 states, Gilliam found: •

•

•

The prekindergarten expulsion rate—6.67 preschoolers per 1,000 enrolled—is 3.2 times higher than the rate for K-12 students. In 37 of the 40 states that fund prekindergarten programs, the expulsion rate was higher for preschoolers than for K-12 students. The expulsion rate is higher for older prekindergarteners, for boys, and for African American students. Expulsion and access to classroom-based mental health are significantly, negatively correlated. In other words, as access is increased, the expulsion rate declines. Given the complexity and wide variation across states of preschool programming, a causal association could not be inferred. Teachers in schools and Head Start centers are much less likely to expel students than teachers in faith-affiliated, for-profit child care, and other community-based settings. School-based teachers are less likely than Head Start teachers to expel students.

The research on risk factors and Gilliam’s study inform us that learning and human development do not occur in the vacuum of a school. The child welfare system, juvenile justice system, and the school system are all systems (lateral or diagonal rather than hierarchical) with the child as the focus of service. These systems comprise a suprasystem (Laszlo, 1996): they can be coordinated naturally around the focus of service. If the school is operated as a closed system—a system that is encapsulated in such a way that neither matter, energy, nor information leaves or enters the system—then academic and development services for the child cannot be coordinated. Consequently, risk will likely prevail. If the school is operated as an open system—the area of emotional interaction among the individuals in the system is promoted—then academic and development services can be coordinated and focused. In time, risk can be managed if not eliminated. It was demonstrated in the study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government (Ragan, 2003) that the integration of human service systems improves the quality of the services and their delivery. Systems can also be human, institutional, or geographic. The re-orientation of school districts to smaller schools contains critical implications for educational services (Gregory, 2000). As land for new schools or large schools becomes scarce or too expensive, political and economic support for traditional, regular schools will decline (Wilson, 1996). The youth employment subsystem (of the suprasystem that is focused on services to youth) also impacts schools. Public policy that compensates for a lack of education in order to mediate the 41

Foundation for Alternative Education youth unemployment problem effects a “reshuffling” of employment (Thurow, 1977) and exacerbates the problem. For instance, wage subsidies to employers for hiring under-qualified workers serves to delay (at best) the impact of under-qualified workers on the economy. At the same time, there is little incentive for the other components of the youth services supra-system, including the school, to enhance capacities for preparing workers. Sustainable economic development depends on improving elementary and secondary education (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). Barr (1997) notes that alternative education is responsive to the criteria promoted by policy makers, school administrators, business, and industry for the preparation of the workforce. The cost of not educating all of our students is significant. Each student who does not finish high school costs a typical family of four (headed by the nongraduate) more than 10 years worth of salaries. Even for alternative education to be successful, it needs to be integrated into a comprehensive education system in order to resist the compensatory feedback associated with intervention strategies. It is more likely that additional education customer markets will emerge than existing markets will contract. For instance, it is more likely that we’ll discover new sets of learning needs before we fill the learning needs of many. Kozol (1991) demonstrated that one education system is being delivered to multiple customer markets, and the result reinforces “savage inequalities” in education resources and outcomes. The challenges for one education system become more daunting as the number of customer markets increases. Already, there are additional student groups in other school districts in other states that are not represented in the table of 50 (Table 2, above). Pushing or pulling all of them onto one campus seems more like herding than it does teaching. Morley (1991) observed, [There is] a void in teacher and administrator training regarding the need and basics of developing alternative learning environments. We are floundering badly in public schools because we have maintained the school as the primary way to deliver education. The future is that public education will become a manager of many alternatives rather than just being a delivery system. The state of the art in alternative education reflects the innovativeness of its designs. Primary and secondary research can facilitate assembling, organizing, and managing the lessons learned. Substantial efforts have been initiated. To enhance our understanding of the effects of alternative education, additional work is recommended.

RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations that follow are intended to combine short- and long-term strategies that will address the needs of students and communities as well as the sustainability and improvement of alternative education.

42

Foundation for Alternative Education 1. Use a strategic approach to refine definitions of purpose, application, and success. 7 There are advantages with a strategic approach. Some of them are listed below: ! Stakeholders are involved in planning and decision-making. ! The scope of alternative education can be defined along with roles and responsibilities of contributing groups and individuals (i.e., the stakeholders). ! Commitments are made to core values, the mission of alternative education, children and youth, core competencies and their improvement, and a vision for alternative education. ! Exemplary practices can be systematically benchmarked. ! Needs can be assessed along a range of methods, including situation analysis, asset inventories, and gap analyses (e.g., between mission and vision; between needs and assets). ! Management tools can be developed, including schedules and milestones, goals and objectives, action plans, implementation plan, operating plan, monitoring plan, and an evaluation and improvement plan. ! Administrators can monitor stalls, milestones, and critical success factors, and repair and improve action and implementation plans, and operations; evaluate outcomes related to the objectives; disseminate results, findings, and conclusions; and institutionalize the components of the program(s) that work. 2. Establish a Consortium for Alternative Education. Alternative education is at the point where a management or facilitation structure is needed. There is no certainty that the merging of fledgling international, national, and state professional associations will return more than marginal, nondurable benefits. But, it is clear that formal cooperation among seven groups will enhance the collection, refinement, redistribution, and institutionalization of best practice. These groups include (a) the professional associations, (b) the colleges and universities that prepare teachers to teach in alternative education settings or with at-risk youth, (c) the researchers who study alternative education and the youth that it serves, (d) the practitioners who represent multiple disciplines and professions and who deliver services on the front line, (e) officials and policy makers at all levels, (f) school and district administrators, and (g) school boards, among others. No such structure exists for alternative education. Short of a consortium, local officials and school boards should coordinate and support activities of professional alternative education and constituent associations. As a minimum, alternative education professionals should schedule status reports: grass roots to ivory tower and ivory tower to grass roots. If no improvements occur in cooperation, coordination, or the sharing of information, there will be no improvement in alternative education, and there will be no way to know. 3. Monitor developments in multiple intelligences. Two places to start include the work of Gardner (1983), with important implications for teaching, and the Bridges Program

7

The proposed common definition can serve as a foundation for a strategic approach. It is not required that a strategic approach form around the proposed common definition. It is imperative, however, that we understand alternative education as it is practiced and as it can be practiced in order to allocate and utilize resources and deliver educational services effectively.

43

Foundation for Alternative Education (http://bridgeslearning.com/aboutus.htm), with a focus on the individual. It is clear that education (having it or not having it) is a significant predictor of lifetime earnings. Providing teachers with the skills to address the particular learning needs of students, especially the students who can benefit from alternative education, and neutralizing the social, economic, and other contextual barriers to learning and human development ensure a greater opportunity for each student to maximize potential. 4. Compile libraries of schools, programs, and evaluations, and classify them by type, affiliation, and student characteristics. This catalog of alternative education would serve as orientation for alternative education. Notable efforts have been made to build the catalog, such as Mintz, Solomon, and Solomon (1995). All will attest that the effort is taxing for the first edition and even more challenging to maintain currency. 5. Analyze benefits and costs comprehensively. Except for Veale (2002), it is unknown if a comprehensive benefit/cost analysis of alternative education has been completed. Only the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Barnett, 1996; Parks, 2000) and the Chicago Longitudinal Study (2002) have examined alternative-like programs longitudinally. The benefit and cost analyses cited in Economic Benefits and Costs, above, were studies of not finishing high school. Consequently, the findings from those analyses represent proxies for the benefits and costs of alternative education. 6. Refine appropriate assessment guidance and tools, in particular, for those settings that complicate rigorous evaluation (Tobin and Sprague, 1999). Every alternative education setting is not exactly like every other alternative education setting. Accordingly, the meaningful evaluation of alternative education depends on the customization of evaluation tools for each assessment. Perhaps just as crucial as the findings of outcomes of evaluations are the precision and detail of the process components of the alternative education application. For example, if the superintendent alters an alternative education initiative that had been championed by his or her predecessor, it can be expected that important elements of the new initiative would affect learning and human development in different ways. In another school or district, if the social worker is removed from (or relocated to) the school, the capacity to deliver social welfare services from the school would change. If a district focuses on developmentally-appropriate instruments in place of age-appropriate instruments to measure absolute or incremental learning and human development, the new measures of success for the district would likely represent a much different picture. 7. Analyze national, state, and local public policies. Students are graded and tested. Teachers and administrators are accountable. The best policy is informed policy. We should know how public policy—not just funding—impacts learning and human development, in particular, policy on zero tolerance, expulsion, and suspension. The emerging evidence on these policies suggests that we replace existing policies. The success of students or of “just keeping students in school to finish a quality education depends upon the strong and long-term commitment of all Americans” (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). For many if not most of our students, our schools facilitate success. The 44

Foundation for Alternative Education history of the paidagogos—leading kids to school so they can learn and nurturing their development outside of school—is the lesson to apply.

45


REFERENCES Amos, H. D. and Lang, A. G. P. (1982). These were the Greeks. Chester Springs, PA: Dufour Editions. (Original work published by Hulton Educational Publications, Raans Road, Amersham, Bucks, England, 1979.) Cited in text as Amos and Lang (1979/1982). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2004, from http://www.ascd.org/cms/index.cfm?TheViewID=1113, at “alternative schools,” Last Access June 22, 2005. Complete URL: http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.4247f922ca8c9ecc8c2a9410d3108a0c/template.articl e?articleMgmtId=ee2a016620520010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD Barnett, W. S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Barr, Robert D. 1997. Reflection on educational reform. Changing Schools 25(3), 15. [a newsletter]. Barr, R. D. and Parrett, W. H. (2001). Hope fulfilled for at-risk and violent youth: K-12 programs that work (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. (2005). Postal Academy Program 2 Term Report: May 1970-February 1971. Washington, DC: U.S. Postal Service. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase. Washington, DC: RAND. Bodilly, S. J., Purnell, S., Ramsey, K., and Keith, S. J. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation’s demonstration phase. Washington, DC: RAND. Butts, J. A., Buck, J., and Coggeshall, M. B. (2002, April). The impact of teen court on young offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved September 4, 2003, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410457.pdf Castle, E. B. (1961). Ancient education and today. Baltimore, MD: Penguin. Catterall, J. S. (1987). On the social costs of dropping out of school. The High School Journal, 71(1), 1930. Catterall, J. S. and Stern, D. (1986). The effects of alternative school programs on high school completion and labor market outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(1), 77-86. Chalker, C.S. (1994). A description of separate secondary alternative school programs in Georgia in 1993-1994. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5602A, p. 0411. (University Microfilms AAI9520789) Chalker, C. S. (1996). Effective alternative education programs: best practices from planning through evaluating. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company. Chalker, C. S. (2003, June). Facilitating successful school-to-work-to-life transitions. Paper presented at the 2003 International Association for Learning Alternatives conference, June 26-29. Valley Forge, PA. Chalker, C. S., and Brown, K. S. (1999). Effective alternative education programs: solutions for K-8 students at risk. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company. Chicago Longitudinal Study. (2002). Chicago Longitudinal Study Newsletter 2, June 2002. Author. Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(1), 5-33. Communities in Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://www.cisnet.org/training/00intro/mod04-pg00.html as indicated in the Course Menu, last access June 22, 2005 Cradock Career and Technical Center. (n.d.). Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://pps.k12.va.us/schools/CCTC as indicated Day, J. C. and Newburger, E. C. (2002, July). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings, Current Population Reports, P23-210. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. 46

Foundation for Alternative Education Duke, D. L. and Griesdorn, J. (1999). Considerations in the design of alternative schools. In Denti, L. and Guerin, G. (Eds.), Issues in alternative education (Special Section). The Clearing House 73 (2), 8992. Dynarski, M. and Gleason, P. (2002). How can we help? What we have learned from evaluation of federal dropout prevention programs. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 7(1), 43-69. Education Commission of the States. (n.d.). Last Access June 22, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issuesK12.asp [Select Alternative Education in the “Click here to select an issue” box, click on “What States Are Doing,” and then click on “Recent State Legislation.”] Education Week (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org/rc/glossary/alternative-schools.html, Last Access June 22, 2005 [registration required] Educational Council. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2004, from http://www.edcouncil.org/programs/magellan.htm, Last Access June 22, 2005 Educational Resources Information Center. (n.d.). Thesaurus. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.eric.ed.gov—click “Thesaurus” tab, then browse for alternative education, Last Access June 22, 2005 ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management. (n.d.). Alternative schools. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/choice/alternative_schools.html, Last Access June 22, 2005, from http://eric.uoregon.edu—click “Trends & Issues” tab, click on “school choice” in Trends and Issues box, scroll to alternative schools EXCEL Campus. (n.d.). Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://pps.k12.va.us/schools/excel/Excel%20Campus.htm as indicated Fairfax County Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DSSSE/AltSchools/mission.htm, Last Access June 22, 2005 Farkas, S., Johnson, J., and Duffett, A. (2002). A lot easier said than done: Parents talk about raising children in today’s America. Washington, DC: Public Agenda. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/parents/parents.htm, Last Access August 4, 2003 Ferguson, R. (1998). Learning What Works: Evaluating complex social interventions. In Mann, T. E., and Schorr, L. B. (Eds.), Report on the symposium conducted at the Brookings Institution. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, p. 16. Frymier, J. (1989). A study of students at risk: Collaborating to do research. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Frymier, J., with Barber, L., Carriedo, R., Denton, W., Gansneder, B., Johnoson-Lewis, S., and Robertson, N. (1992). Assessing and predicting risk among students in school, Final Report Phi Delta Kappa Study of Students At Risk, Volume II. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: HarperCollins. Gilliam, W. S. (2005, May). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Child Study Center. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://fcd-us.org/PDFs/NationalPreKExpulsionPaper03.02_new.pdf Gregory, T. 2000. School reform and the no-man’s land of high school size. Bloomington, Ind.: Author and Indiana University. Greenwood, P. W., Model, K. E., Rydell, C. P., and Chiesa, J. (1998). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Harris County Juvenile Probation Department. (n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2004, from http://www.hcjpd.org/educational_services.asp at paragraph 2 Haveman, R. H. and Wolfe, B. L. (1984). Schooling and economic well-being: the role of nonmarket effects. The Journal of Human Resources, 19(3), 377-407. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Morrison, D. M., O’Donnell, J., Abbott, R. D., and Day, L. E. 1992. The 47

Foundation for Alternative Education Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors. In J. McCord and R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing Adolescent Antisocial Behavior: Interventions From Birth Through Adolescence (pp. 139-161). New York: Guilford Press. Heilbrunn, J. Z. (2002, September). The costs and benefits of three intensive interventions with Colorado truants. Denver: Colorado Foundation for Families and Children. Hoff, D.J. (2005, January). The bottom line. Education Week 24(17, January 6), 29-30, 32, 35-36. Houseman, A. (2003, July). Introduction. In J. Levin-Epstein and M. Greenberg (Eds.), Leave no youth behind: Opportunities for Congress to reach disconnected youth (pp. 3-16). Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Also available via download from http://www.clasp.org/publications/Disconnected_Youth.pdf, Last Access July 29, 2005 Howell, J. (Ed.). 1995. Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, cited in Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1997). 1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as Amended in 1992 (PL 93-415; 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.). Washington, DC: Author. Indiana Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved December 27, 2004, from http://www.doe.state.in.us/alted/altedlinkpg.html, Last Access June 22, 2005 International Association for Learning Alternatives. (2004, May 8). State alternative associations. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.iaae.net/Articles/State_Associations_rev.pdf, Last Access July 29, 2005 Iowa Department of Education. (1998, April). Retrieved December 20, 2004, from http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/is/alted/alted.pdf at page 2, paragraph 1, Last Access June 22, 2005 Iowa Legislative Services Agency. (2004, November). High school dropouts. Des Moines, IA: Author. Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., and Peske, H. G. (2002, March). “Lost at sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record 104(2), 273300. Kleiner, B., Porch, R., and Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure: 2000-01 (NCES 2002-004). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Also available as of June 22, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002004.pdf Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Collins. Lange, C. M. and Sletten, S. J. (1995). Characteristics of alternative schools and programs serving atrisk students (Research Report 16). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Enrollment Options for Students with Disabilities Project. Lange, C. M. and Sletten, S. J. (2002, February). Alternative education: A brief history and research synthesis (Project FORUM). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Laszlo, E. (1996). A systems view of the world. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Lehr, C. A., Moreau, R. A., Lange, C. M., and Lanners, E. J. (2004, September). Alternative schools: Findings from a national survey of the states, Research Report 2. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from http://ici.umn.edu/alternativeschools/publications/alt_schools_report2.pdf, Last Access June 22, 2005 Lerman, R. I. (1996). Building hope, skills, and careers: Creating a youth apprenticeship system. In Garfinkel, I., Hochschild, and McLanahan, S. S. (Eds.), Social policies for children (pp. 136-172). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Levin-Epstein, J. and Greenberg, M. (Eds.). (2003). Leave no youth behind: Opportunities for Congress 48

Foundation for Alternative Education to reach disconnected youth. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy. Also available via download from http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Documents/1057083505.88/Disconnected_Youth.pdf, Last Access June 22, 2005 Library of Congress. (2003). Library of Congress Subject Headings, 26th Ed. Washington, DC: Author. Loeber, R. and Farrington, D. P. (eds.). (2001). Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., in G. A. Wasserman, K. Keenan, R. E. Tremblay, J. D. Coie, T. I. Herrenkohl, R. Loeber, and D. Petechuk, (2003, April), Risk and protective factors of child delinquency, Child Delinquency Bulletin Series, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Last access June 22, 2005, from http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/193409/page1.html as indicated Mann, T. E., and Schorr, L. B. (Eds.), Report on the symposium conducted at The Brookings Institution. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, p. 16. Mercury News. (Retrieved June 29, 2004, from http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/9031794.ht m [Note: To read this article, registration is required.] Michigan Alternative Education Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.maeo.org/toppage1.htm at “Definition,” Last Access June 22, 2005 Milwaukee County. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2003, from http://www.milwaukeecounty.org/Service/organizationDetail.asp?org=6450&audience=5, Last Access June 22, 2005 Mintz, J., Solomon, S., and Solomon, R. (Eds.) (1995). The almanac of education choices. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Morley, R. E. (1991). Alternative education, dropout prevention research reports. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED349652) Morley, R. E. (2004, May). Personal communication with the authors. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2004, from NCES Handbooks Online, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/showeleminstdetail.asp?nocrumbs=1&elinid=1948, Last Access June 22, 2005 National Youth Employment Coalition. (2004). NYEC Education Development Network: Transforming educational options for youth through effective teaching and learning, youth development and quality management (NYEC EDNet) (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. National League of Cities (NLC) Institute for Youth, Education, and Families, and Center for Youth Development and Policy Research (AED). (n.d.). Connecting vulnerable youth: A municipal leader’s guide. Washington, DC: Authors. New Directions Center. (n.d.). Retrieved December 23, 2004, from http://pps.k12.va.us/schools/ndc/ as indicated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.§ 6301 (2002). Public Law 107-110, January 8, 2002. Parks, Greg. (2000, October). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, October 2000. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004). Alternative education for disruptive youth: Recommended parameters and best practices for effective programs. Harrisburg, PA: forthcoming. Available at http://www.pde.state.pa.us/alt_disruptive/site/default.asp, Last Access June 22, 2005 Prince William County Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2004, from http://www.pwcs.edu/departments/osmap as indicated, Last Access June 22, 2005 Promising Practices Network. (2003). Carolina Abecedarian Project. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=132, Last Access June 22, 2005 Ragan, M. (2003, June). Building better human service systems: Integrating services for income support 49

Foundation for Alternative Education and related programs. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://www.rockinst.org/publications/federalism/Ragan_Casey_Report_0603.pdf, Last Access June 22, 2005 RAND Corporation. (2003, August). Carolina Abecedarian Project. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=132 as indicated Raywid, M A. (1990, September). Alternative education: The definition problem. Changing Schools, September 1990, 25-33. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., and Mann, E. A. (2001, May 9). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest. Journal of the American Medical Association 285(18), 2339-2346. Santa Monica Alternative School House. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://www.smash.smmusd.org, Last Access June 22, 2005 Schweinhart, L. J. (1996). Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of the High/Scope Perry preschool program. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press, p. 19. Semel, S. F. and Sadnovik, A. R. (Eds.). (1999). Schools of tomorrow, schools of today: What happened to progressive education? New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Storm, M. and Storm, R. (2004, October). Evaluation of the Oklahoma alternative education program. In Proceedings of persistently safe schools, 349-365. Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute, The George Washington University, p. 352. Also available at http://www.hamfish.org/conference/2004/proceedings/25Storm.pdf Thurow, Lester C. 1977. Youth unemployment: A conference at the Rockefeller Foundation. With Bernard E. Anderson, John Dunlop, Beatrice Reubens, James Tobin, et al. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation. Tobin, T. J., and Sprague, J. R. (1999). Alternative educational programs for at-risk youth: Issues, best practices, and recommendations. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin 42(4), 1-19. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, College of Education, p. 16. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 2001-02, NCES 2003-411. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/overview03/index.asp#a U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A nation at risk. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1971, November). Evaluation study of the Postal Academy program (Report No. DSE-Rep-18). Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED066567) U.S. Department of Justice. (2003, April). Risk and protective factors of child delinquency (Child Delinquency Bulletin Series). Washington, DC: Author. Veale, J. R. (2002). The costs of dropping out of school in Iowa. Des Moines: Iowa Association of Alternative Education. Washington Association for Learning Alternatives. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.walakids.com at paragraph 1, Last Access June 22, 2005 Washington Office of Superintendent of Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2004, from http://www.k12.wa.us/programs/default.aspx#alted at “alternative education,” Last Access June 22, 2005 Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2004, July). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Author. Retrieved August 31, 2004, from 50

Foundation for Alternative Education http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf, Last Access June 22, 2005 West Virginia Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2002, from http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2418.html as indicated, Last Access June 22, 2005 White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. (2003, October). Final Report. Washington, DC: The White House. Wilson, William J. 1996. When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Knopf. Young, T. (1990). Public alternative education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Zweig, J. M. (2003, June). Vulnerable youth: Identifying their need for alternative educational settings. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2003, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410828_vulnerable_youth.pdf, Last Access June 22, 2005

51


APPENDIX Table 3. Areas of impacts of schooling on the student and society Technological change Charitable giving Child quality through home activities Consumer choice efficiency Crime reduction Entertainment Fertility (family size) Income distribution Individual productivity in knowledge production Individual market productivity

Intra-family productivity Labor market search efficiency (including migration) Leisure Marital choice efficiency Nonmarket individual productivity (i.e., do-ityourself) Nonwage labor market remuneration Own health Savings (financial) Social cohesion Spouse and family health

Source: Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall, 2002.

Table 4. Economic and character effects of schooling Individual market productivity Non-wage labor market remuneration Leisure time Individual productivity in knowledge production Non-market individual productivity (e.g., doit-yourself) Intra-family productivity Child quality through home activities Own health Spouse and family health Fertility (viz., attainment of desired family size)

Fertility (viz., changed tastes for children) Entertainment Consumer choice efficiency Labor market search efficiency (including migration Marital choice efficiency Crime reduction Social cohesion Technological change Income distribution Savings Charitable giving

Source: Haveman and W olfe, 1984.

52

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 5. Benefit and cost categories for the High/Scope Perry preschool program Costs Costs of preschool program – Taxpayers’ costs of providing program; Participants’ out-ofpocket costs–transportation, school supplies, school clothes; Parents’ opportunity costs–time required for transportation, home visits, and parent meetings; Children’s opportunity costs–activities missed while in the preschool program Costs of later education and related services – Taxpayers’ costs of providing programs; Participants’ out-of-pocket costs (e.g., college tuition); Participants’ opportunity costs (e.g., foregone earnings and leisure of those who continue education longer)

Benefits (to the children who attended the preschool program) From increased human capital (investment benefits) – Educational success and satisfaction; Earnings and fringe benefits in the labor force; Earnings in the underground economy; Productivity in household activities; Nonlabor income; Accumulation of capital goods and wealth; Occupational and social status; Value of leisure; Quality of social, especially family, relationships; Control over timing and frequency of childbearing; Benefits to their children from improved parenting and greater family resources From immediate preschool program experience – Enjoyment and enrichment of program; Results of services child was referred to by the preschool program

Benefits (to parents of children who attended the preschool program) Child care provision; Home visits and social activities; Satisfaction derived from preschool program experiences and results for their children

Benefits (to siblings of children who attended the preschool program) Direct effects of preschool program on parenting skills and parents’ interactions with their children; Effects on sibling interaction (e.g., older siblings teaching younger what they have learned); Indirect effects of preschool program on parents who may seek tom compensate the child who did not receive the benefit of the program

Benefits (to taxpayers) Decreased costs of government expenditures – Education; Social services; Criminal justice system Increased tax revenues paid by program participants Increased societal equity Decreased social problems – Crime and delinquency; Teenage pregnancy Increased citizen competence and participation Source: Table 2, pp. 9-10, Schweinhart, L. J. (1996). Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.

53

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 7. Risk factors for failing at school or failing at life Family factors – 10 • • • • • • • • • •

Mother or father unskilled laborer or unemployed Mother or father did not graduate from high school Student does not live with real mother and real father, or parents got divorced English not the language spoken in the home Student changed residence or changed schools last year Parent had major change of health status or died last year Parent lost his or her job last year Brother, sister, or close friend died last year Student had serious illness or accident last year Parent’s attitude toward education is basically negative

Personal pain factor – 8 • • • • • • • •

Student attempted suicide during the past year Student involved in a pregnancy during past year Evidence that the student has been using drugs or selling drugs during past year Evidence that the student has been drinking alcohol during past year Evidence student was arrested or convicted of illegal activity Student was suspended from school during past year Evidence student was physically or sexually abused Other in the family use drugs or drink alcohol excessively

Academic failure factor – 6 • • • • • •

Student’s scores on reading tests below 20 th percentile Student failed courses or had grades of D or lower last year Student has been retained in grade or is overage in grade Student missed more than 20 days of school last year Student has a negative sense of self-esteem Student was diagnosed as eligible for special education

Source: Figure 3, p. 24, Frymier, J., with Barber, L., Carriedo, R., Denton, W ., Gansneder, B., Johnoson-Lewis, S., and Robertson, N. (1992). Assessing and predicting risk among students in school, Final Report Phi Delta Kappa Study of Students At Risk, Volume II. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

54

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 8. Communities That Care ® (Channing Bete Company) Adolescent Problem Behaviors Risk Factors A+

B‡

C*

D +*

E ‡*

Community !

Availability of drugs

! !

Availability of firearms

!

!

!

Transitions and mobility

!

!

Low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization

!

!

Extreme economic deprivation

!

!

!

!

!

Family history of the problem behavior

!

!

!

!

!

Family management problems

!

!

!

!

!

Family conflict

!

!

!

!

!

Favorable parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behavior

!

!

Community laws and norms favorable toward drug use, firearms, and crime

! !

Media portrayals of violence !

!

Family

!

School Academic failure beginning in late elementary school

!

!

!

!

!

Lack of commitment to school

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Peer and Individual Early and persistent antisocial behavior Rebelliousness

!

!

Friends who engage in the problem behavior

!

!

Gang involvement

!

!

! ! !

Favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior

!

!

!

!

Early initiation of the problem behavior

!

!

!

!

Constitutional factors

!

!

! !

Legend: + A: Substance Abuse ‡ B: Delinquency * C: Teen Pregnancy + * D: School Drop-Out ‡ * E: Violence Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, W estern Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies. (n.d.). Risk factors. Retrieved June 29, 2004, Last access December 21, 2004 from http://casat.unr.edu/bestpractices/bprf.htm The W eb page was reprinted with permission from Channing Bete Company, South Deerfield, Massachusetts, owners of Communities That Care©. Developed by J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano, Communities That Care© is a community risk-focused prevention training system. All rights reserved. No reproduction or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, for any purpose without the express written permission of Channing Bete Company is allowed.

55

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 9. Childhood risk factors for child delinquency and later violent juvenile offending Individual factors • Early antisocial behavior • Emotional factors such as high behavioral activation and low behavioral inhibition • Poor cognitive development • Low intelligence • Hyperactivity

Family factors • • • • • • • • •

Parenting Maltreatment Family violence Divorce Parental psychopathology Familial antisocial behaviors Teenage parenthood Family structure Large family size

Peer factors • Association with deviant peers • Peer rejection

School and community factors • • • • • • • •

Failure to bond to school Poor academic performance Low academic aspirations Living in a poor family Neighborhood disadvantage Disorganized neighborhoods Concentration of delinquent peer groups Access to weapons

Source: This list is largely based on Loeber, R. and Farrington, D. P. (eds.). (2001). Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., in W asserman, G. A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R. E., Coie, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Loeber, R., and Petechuk, D., (2003, April), Risk and protective factors of child delinquency, Child Delinquency Bulletin Series, W ashington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Last access April 20, 2005, from http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/193409/page1.html as indicated

56

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 10. Risk factors for unhealthy adolescent behaviors Adolescent Problem Behaviors Risk Factors

Substance Abuse

Delinquency

Teenage Pregnancy

School Dropout

Violence

Community Availability of drugs

X

Availability of firearms Community laws and norms favorable toward drug use, firearms, and crime

X

X

X

X

X

Media portrayals of violence

X

Transitions and mobility

X

X

X

Low neighborhood attachment and community organization

X

X

Extreme economic deprivation

X

X

X

X

X X

Family Family history of the problem behavior

X

X

X

X

Family management problems

X

X

X

X

X

Family conflict

X

X

X

X

X

Favorable parental attitudes toward and involvement in the problem behavior

X

X

X

School Early and persistent antisocial behavior

X

X

X

X

X

Academic failure beginning in elementary school

X

X

X

X

X

Lack of commitment to school

X

X

X

X

Individual/Peer Rebelliousness

X

X

X

Friends who engage in the problem behavior

X

X

X

X

Favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior

X

X

X

X

Early initiation of the problem behavior

X

X

X

X

Constitutional factors

X

X

X

X X

Source: Howell, J. (Ed.). 1995. Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. W ashington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, cited in Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1997). 1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as Amended in 1992 (PL 93-415; 42 U.S.C. 5601 ET SEQ.). W ashington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 5, 2003 from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/titlev/97rpttocong/appendix.html

57

Foundation for Alternative Education Table 11. Factors leading to vulnerability Institutional Challenges

Personal Challenges

• • • •

• • • • • •

•

Schools with few resources Unsafe schools and conditions Unsafe neighborhoods Economically deprived neighborhoods Silos in development and delivery of youth services

Lack of self-efficacy and resiliency Legal problems Substance abuse Mental and physical health problems Low self-esteem Teenage pregnancy and parenthood

Educational Challenges

Social Challenges

• • •

• • •

• •

English language learners Special education needs Over age for grade by two or more years Low literacy skills Truancy, suspensions, and behavioral infractions

• • • •

Poverty and unemployment Racism and discrimination Recent immigration or migrant families Experience of abuse Juvenile justice/prison experiences Homelessness, unstable home life Gang influences

Source: Adapted from Table 1, p. 4, National League of Cities – Institute for Youth, Education, and Families, and Association for Educational Development, Center for Youth Development and Policy Research. (n.d.). Connecting vulnerable youth: A municipal leader’s guide. W ashington, DC: Authors. Last access June 28, 2004 from http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/files/reports/Vulnerable%20Youth.pdf

58


The authors invite and welcome your comments. Please address correspondence to Dennis L. White Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence The George Washington University 2121 K Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037-1830 202-496-8491 (v) 202-496-6244 (f) mailto:[email protected]