Summary and Conclusions

Few existing national-level measures have focused on public alternative education for students at risk of education failure. This report presented findings about a broad range of issues regarding public alternative education, including the availability of public alternative schools and programs, enrollment, entrance and exit procedures, staffing, and services. Although the original respondent sample contained 1,534 districts, most of the data presented in this report are based on questionnaire data for the 848 districts that reported having alternative schools and programs for at-risk students during the 2000-01 school year. The questionnaire responses were weighted to produce national estimates that represent all regular public school districts in the United States. This chapter provides a summary of findings as well as overall conclusions.

Availability and enrollment

Overall, 39 percent of districts had alternative schools or programs for at-risk students that enrolled a total of 612,900 students during the 2000-01 school year. It should be kept in mind, however, that this does not mean that no at-risk students from the remaining 61 percent of districts attended an alternative school or program during this period. Some students might have attended alternative schools or programs that fell outside of the scope of this study (e.g., private alternative schools or regional alternative schools).

Despite the fact that the majority of districts in the nation did not have any alternative schools or programs, it should not be concluded necessarily that these districts were inadequately serving their at-risk students. Many of the districts without any alternative schools or programs were those with small enrollment sizes in rural areas, and thus may not have had sufficient need for alternative education. In addition, 22 percent of the districts in the total sample were elementary districts, which presumably have less need for alternative education for students at risk of education failure. Further, some smaller districts may have contracted with private alternative schools, which would not have been included in the survey results.

Findings across survey questions revealed considerable variation by district characteristics, such as metropolitan status, enrollment size, region, percent of minority students, and poverty concentration. For instance, with respect to the presence of alternative schools and programs for at-risk students, large districts (ones with 10,000 or more students) were more likely than smaller districts to have alternative schools and programs. This finding is not surprising, however, since larger districts typically serve greater numbers of at-risk students and generally have more resources at their disposal to address the needs of these students.

Districts in the Southeast, districts with high minority enrollments, and districts with high poverty concentrations were more likely than their counterpart districts to have alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. This pattern was repeated across findings for many of the questions in the survey. It should be kept in mind, however, that this may be related to the fact that districts in the Southeast, districts with high percentages of minority students, and districts with high poverty levels tended to have higher enrollment levels (not shown in tables).

Of the 39 percent of districts that had alternative schools and programs for at-risk students, 65 percent had only 1 alternative school or program during the 2000-01 school year, and 18 percent had 2 schools and/or programs. This may indicate that some districts (i.e., most probably smaller ones) were able to address the needs of their at risk students with only one or two alternative schools and programs. On the other hand, it might indicate that districts are reluctant to expand their offerings of alternative education: Raywid (1994) asserts that "…alternatives have continued to lack ‘institutional legitimacy." Even districts that are pleased to have one or two alternatives remain cool to the prospect of multiplying them or converting the district entirely" .

The present study revealed that alternative schools and programs for at-risk students were not limited to secondary grade levels. Some districts were administering alternative schools and programs at the middle school level, and some even at the elementary level. These findings are in accord with the prediction of Paglin and Fager (1997): "It appears there will be a growing number of alternative middle schools and perhaps even elementary schools."

Altogether, 1.3 percent of all public school students attended public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students during the 2000-01 school year.30 Of the students who attended public alternative schools and programs, 12 percent were special education students with IEPs. According to the 2000-01 CCD, roughly the same proportion of special education students with IEPs existed within the entire population of public school students (13 percent).

Not all at-risk students in need of alternative education were able to be placed in alternative schools and programs during the 1999-2000 school year; 33 percent of districts with alternative schools and programs reported that at least one of their schools or programs was unable to enroll new students because of staffing or space limitations. In cases where demand for enrollment exceeded available capacity, most of these districts (83 percent) reported putting students on a waiting list.

Entrance and Exit Criteria

Students enter and exit public alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure for a variety of reasons and on an individual basis. Survey findings indicate that a variety of behaviors were sufficient reasons in themselves for transfer to alternative schools and programs among districts. Of the behaviors that might be considered disruptive to others (possession or use of a firearm or other weapon, possession or distribution of alcohol or drugs, physical attacks or fights, and disruptive verbal behavior), results show that large districts, districts in the Southeast, districts with a high minority enrollment, and districts with a high poverty concentration tended to be more likely than their counterparts to regard these reasons as sufficient in themselves for transfer to an alternative school or program.

Most districts (74 percent) have a policy allowing all students to return to regular schools, although some districts (25 percent) allow only some students, and a 1 percent of districts do not allow any students to return. The reasons most likely to be deemed "very important" by districts in determining whether students could return to regular schools were improved attitude and behavior (82 percent) and student motivation to return (81 percent).
 

Staffing, Curriculum and Services, and Collaboration

Although 86 percent of districts hired teachers specifically to teach in alternative schools and programs for at-risk students, and 49 percent of districts reported that teachers were transferred by choice from a regular school, 10 percent of districts assigned teachers involuntarily to teach in such schools and programs. Large districts, districts with a high minority enrollment, and districts with a high poverty concentration were more likely than their counterpart districts to report assigning teachers involuntarily.

With respect to curriculum and services, findings indicate that the nation's districts with public alternative schools and programs for at-risk students are making efforts to ensure that at-risk students are supported by a network of services and innovations in curriculum that help promote their success. For example, over 75 percent of the districts had policies requiring curricula leading toward a regular high school diploma, academic counseling, remedial instruction, smaller class size, opportunity for self-paced instruction, career counseling, and crisis/behavior intervention. Of the 16 services and practices listed in the survey, districts reported policies requiring a mean of 9.5. For the most part, large districts were more likely than small ones to require individual services and practices.

Many districts with public alternative schools and programs also appeared to be collaborating with a variety of agencies to provide services to students. Overall, districts collaborated with a mean of 6.9 agencies (out of 12 listed in the survey) in providing services. Again, for the most part, large districts were more likely than small ones to collaborate with various agencies.

This study has presented a snapshot of alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure during the 2000-01 school year. Since this is the first national survey of its kind, it is difficult to say in which direction districts are moving with respect to various facets of public alternative education. Future research will need to employ similar measures to determine whether public alternative education is becoming more or less established in the nation's public school system and whether it is progressing in its service to the nation's at-risk students.

Top