Availability and Enrollment in Public Alternative Schools and Programs for Student at Risk of Education Failure

The 1998 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey cited 1,390 alternative high schools serving approximately 280,000 at-risk students (2 percent of all high school students) across the nation (Grunbaum et al. 1999). However, that study was limited to high school populations in alternative schools located on separate campuses, and further, included both public and private alternative schools. The current survey presents findings on all grades offered in public (and not private) alternative schools or programs that may be located in separate facilities or within regular schools.

Few national level measures are available with respect to features of enrollment in public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. The FRSS District Survey of Alternative Schools and Programs asked districts a variety of questions related to availability and enrollment. Presented below are findings regarding overall availability and locations of alternative schools and programs, grades offered, and a set of findings related to enrollment, including overall numbers of students enrolled in alternative schools and programs, as well as the existence of capacity limitations and how districts treat such problems.

Availability of Public Alternative Schools and Programs for At-Risk Students

Districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. Districts were first asked whether they administered alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure during the 2000-01 school year, and if so, how many. Table 1 shows the level of district administrated alternative schools and programs, by district characteristics. Overall, 39 percent of public school districts administered at least one alternative school or program for at-risk students during the 2000-01 school year.16

The presence of alternative schools and programs for at-risk students varied by district characteristics. For example, urban districts (66 percent) were more likely than suburban (41 percent) and rural ones (35 percent) to have alternative schools and programs. Large districts (those with 10,000 or more students) were more likely than moderate-size ones (2,500 to 9,999 students), which in turn were more likely than small districts (less than 2,500 students) to have alternative schools and programs for at-risk students (95 percent vs. 69 percent vs. 26 percent).

Districts in the Southeast were more likely than those in the Northeast, Central, and Western regions to have alternative schools and programs for at-risk students (80 percent vs. 28 to 44 percent). Also, districts in the West were more likely than those in the Northeast and Central regions to have them (44 percent vs. 31 and 28 percent). With respect to minority enrollment, districts with 5 percent or less of minority students were less likely to have alternative schools and programs for at-risk students than those with 6 to 20 percent, 21 to 50 percent, and more than 50 percent minority enrollments (26 percent vs. 43 to 62 percent). As for poverty concentration, districts with a low poverty concentration (10 percent or less of students at or below the poverty level) were less likely than those with moderate (11 to 20 percent of students in poverty) and high (more than 20 percent in poverty) poverty concentrations to have alternative schools or programs for at-risk students (31 percent vs. 43 and 45 percent).17 Table A-2 in appendix A presents the number and percentage distribution of districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students across district characteristics. See (Table 1)

Number and sites of alternative schools and programs for at-risk students within districts. Districts indicating that they administered alternative schools or programs for at-risk students during the 2000-01 school year were then asked how many they administered. Overall, there were 10,900 public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students in the nation (table 2).18 Many public alternative schools had sites in separate facilities (i.e., not within a regular school), sometimes specifically within juvenile detention centers or community centers. In addition, some districts operated charter schools that serve at-risk students. Districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students were asked how many were: a) housed within a separate facility (i.e., not within a regular school), b) charter schools, c) in juvenile detention centers, and d) in community-based schools. See (Table 2).

Table 2 shows that 6,400 (59 percent) of the 10,900 public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students were housed in separate facilities (i.e., not within a regular school) during the 2000- 01 school year. Results also indicate that districts administered few alternative schools and programs for at-risk students that were in juvenile detention centers (450, or 4 percent of all public alternative schools and programs), that were in community centers (350, or 3 percent), or that were charter schools (150, or 1 percent).

The distribution of districts that had one, two, or three or more alternative schools or programs for at-risk students is presented in table 3. Overall, these districts were most likely to have just one such school or program (65 percent). Of those that had three or more alternative schools or programs, results varied by metropolitan status, district size, and minority enrollment.20 Urban districts (52 percent) were more likely than suburban ones (18 percent), which were more likely than rural ones (8 percent), to have three or more schools or programs. Similarly, large districts (56 percent) were more likely than moderate-size districts (16 percent), which in turn were more likely than small districts (7 percent), to have three or more alternative schools or programs. With respect to minority enrollment, districts with more than 20 percent minority enrollment were more likely than those with 5 percent or less of minority students to have three or more (22 percent vs. 10 percent).

Of those districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students during the 2000-01 school year, alternative schools and programs were offered at the secondary level (grades 9 through 12) by 88 to 92 percent of districts, at the middle school level (grades 6 through 8) by 46 to 67 percent of districts, and at the elementary school level (grades 1 through 5) by 10 to 21 percent of districts. (Figure 1)

Enrollment in Public Alternative Schools and Programs for At-Risk Students

Overall enrollment as of October 1, 2000. As of October 1, 2000, 612,900 students, or 1.3 percent of all public school students, were enrolled in public alternative schools or programs for students at risk of education failure (table 2).21 Overall, 43 percent of districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students had less than 1 percent of their student population enrolled in such schools or programs (table 4). Of the 16 percent of districts with 3 percent or more of total students enrolled, there was little variation by district characteristics.22 One exception was variation by region; districts in the West were more likely than those in the Northeast and Southeast to enroll 3 percent or more of their students in alternative schools and programs as of October 1, 2000 (23 percent vs. 8 and 5 percent). Also, districts in the Central region were more likely than those in the Southeast to do so (20 percent vs. 5 percent). These differences show that whereas districts in the Southeast were more likely than districts in other regions to have alternative schools and programs (see table 1), smaller proportions of their students were actually enrolled in them (at least compared to districts in the West and Central regions).

Enrollment of special education students. Districts were asked how many of the alternative education students who were enrolled as of October 1, 2000 were special education students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). An IEP is a special education program that is tailored to each student's needs according to his/her disability(s). Overall, 12 percent of all students in alternative schools and programs for at-risk students were special education students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) (not shown in tables). This percentage is not significantly different than the overall percentage of special education students with IEPs enrolled in all public schools during the 2000-01 school year (13 percent)23 (not shown in tables). Furthermore, linear regression analysis reveals that there is a statistical correlation between the overall enrollment of students in alternative schools and programs for at-risk students and the overall enrollment of special education students with IEPs (i.e., districts that have higher proportions of students in alternative schools and programs also have higher proportions of special education students with IEPs in alternative schools and programs).

Table 5 shows that 29 percent of districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students reported that less than 3 percent of their alternative education students had IEPs, while 34 percent of districts had alternative education enrollments composed of 20 percent or more of the special education students with IEPs. Twenty seven percent of districts that had students enrolled in alternative schools and programs as of October 1, 2000 reported having no special education students with IEPs (not shown in tables).

Results varied across district characteristics for districts with alternative school and program enrollments of 20 percent or more students with IEPs. For instance, small and moderate-size districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students were more likely than large ones 37 and 35 percent vs. 25 percent) to have 20 percent or more special education students with IEPs within alternative schools and programs. Districts in the Southeast were more likely than those in the Central region and West (45 percent vs. 30 and 26 percent), and districts in the Northeast were more likely than those in the West 47 percent vs. 26 percent) to have 20 percent or more special education students with IEPs within alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. Districts with 5 percent or less minority populations were more likely than those with more than 50 percent minority populations to have this characteristic (44 percent vs. 25 percent).(Table 4) (Table 5)

Exceeding enrollment capacity. Districts were asked to report whether, during any month of the 1999-2000 school year, any of their alternative schools or programs for at-risk students were unable to enroll new students because of staffing or space limitations.24 About one-third of districts with alternative schools and programs for at-risk students (33 percent) were unable to enroll new students in at least one alternative school or program during the 1999-2000 school year (table 6). This was more likely to be the case for large and moderate-size districts than for small ones (43 and 39 percent vs. 25 percent). Districts were least likely to name months at the beginning and end of the school year (August, September, and June) as months during which demand exceeded capacity (figure 2 ). (Table 6)

  Thus, it is evident that many districts were falling short with respect to available capacity and the ability to enroll new students in their alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. But what recourse do such districts have? In the survey questionnaire, all districts with alternative schools and programs were asked a series of questions regarding their procedures when, in the past 3 years, demand for enrollment exceeded capacity. Forty-six percent of districts reported that within the last 3 years there were no cases where demand for enrollment exceeded capacity (not shown in tables). The other 54 percent reported employing a variety of procedures to varying degrees (response categories not mutually exclusive). Table 7 shows that putting students on a waiting list was the most common response of districts to exceeded capacity (83 percent). Following that, 41 percent of districts responded that they increased capacity by adding staff or space, and 26 percent reported providing home-bound instruction. Smaller percentages of districts reported referring students to another district (14 percent), opening a new site (10 percent), and referring students to a private facility (9 percent). (Table 7)

  Districts with 6 to 20 percent minority enrollment or more than 50 percent minority enrollment were less likely to put students on a waiting list than districts with 5 percent or less minority students (77 and 75 percent vs. 92 percent). Urban districts were more likely than suburban and rural districts to increase capacity by adding staff or space (59 percent vs. 43 and 33 percent). Similarly, large districts were more likely than moderate-size districts, which were in turn more likely than small districts to add staff or space (62 percent vs. 42 percent vs. 30 percent). Also, districts in the West were more likely to add staff or space than districts in the Central region (50 percent vs. 29 percent).

Large districts were more likely than small and moderate-size districts to provide home-bound instruction for at-risk students when demand for alternative schools and programs exceeded capacity during the 3 years prior to the survey (40 percent vs. 24 and 23 percent). Similarly, large districts were more likely than both small and moderate-size districts to open a new site (24 percent vs. 7 and 6 percent), and urban districts were more likely than suburban and rural ones to do so (23 percent vs. 9 and 7 percent). Suburban districts were more likely than urban ones (17 percent vs. 5 percent), and districts in the Central region were more likely than those in the Northeast and the Southeast (20 percent vs. 6 and 5 percent) to refer students to another district when demand exceeded capacity.

Top