Introduction

Although alternative forms of education took root in the United States in the early 19th century, their widespread adoption and proliferation did not occur until the 1960s and 1970s (Miller 1995). Alternative education has historically served diverse populations of students, including those whose family's academic, social, political, or religious values diverged from the mainstream, as well as those who were unsuccessful within the regular public school system. Raywid (1994, p. 26) notes that despite the multiplicity of forms of alternative education, two characteristics have been present from the start: "They have been designed to respond to a group that appears not to be optimally served by the regular program, and consequently they have represented varying degrees of departure from standard school organization, programs, and environments."

Concern among the public, educators, and policymakers about violence, weapons, and drugs on elementary and secondary school campuses, balanced with concern about sending disruptive and potentially dangerous students "out on the streets," has spawned an increased interest in alternative schools and programs (U.S. Department of Education 1996). Many students who, for one reason or another, are not succeeding in regular public schools are being sent to alternative placements. In general, students are referred to alternative schools and programs if they are at risk of education failure, as indicated by poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, suspension, pregnancy, or similar factors associated with early withdrawal from school (Paglin and Fager 1997). With the passage of the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) (U.S. Public Law 103-882), districts are required to expel students for at least one year for bringing a firearm to school. However, the GFSA permits local districts to refer expelled students to alternative placements. During the 1998-99 school year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school, and 44 percent were referred to an alternative placement (Gray and Sinclair 2000).

Few existing national-level measures have focused on topics related to the availability of public alternative schools and programs, enrollment, staffing, and services for students at risk of education failure. The agencies that requested this survey (Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services) were especially interested in examining why students are transferred to alternative schools and programs (for example, weapon or drug possession), and whether special education students are overrepresented in the nation"s alternative schools and programs. The 2001 "District Survey of Alternative Schools and Programs," conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through its Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), is the first national study of public alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure in the United States to provide data on these topics. Although there is a great variety of types of alternative schools and programs (Mintz 1995), this survey included only public alternative schools and programs that were geared towards students at risk of education failure, that were administered by regular districts10, and where students spent at least 50 percent of their instructional time.

Previous Research

Little is known about the overall current state of public alternative education across the nation. Although estimates vary, data indicate that the number of alternative schools increased during the 1990s. For example, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD), in the school year 1993-94, there were 2,606 public alternative schools, compared to 3,850 public alternative schools in 1997-98 (Hoffman 2001). Note that these findings did not include alternative programs located within regular schools.11 The National Alternative High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Grunbaum et al. 1999) found that in 1998-99 there were 1,390 alternative high schools serving approximately 280,000 students at risk of education failure (2 percent of all high school students).

Individual states appear to be stepping up the provision of alternative education for students that are not meeting public school expectations. For instance, the state of Washington expanded its number of alternative schools from 44 in the mid- 1970s to more than 180 in 1995, and Oregon law now requires that districts provide alternative education to students who are not succeeding in regular schools (Boss 1998). In 2000, a Michigan statewide study revealed that 5 percent of all high school students were enrolled in the state's 360 alternative education programs, most of which serve at-risk students (Michigan Alternative Education Study Project 2000).

Although advocates have reported the successes of many at-risk students at alternative schools and programs, "there is still very little consistent, wide-ranging evidence of their effectiveness or even an understanding of their characteristics" (Lange and Sletten 2002, p. 2). This is due, in part, to there being as yet no clearly established, widely accepted definitional framework of alternative schools and programs. In addition, national-level studies on the characteristics of alternative schools and programs and rigorous evaluation research on the links between characteristics and outcomes are in short supply (Lange and Sletten 2002).

Survey Background

The FRSS District Survey of Alternative Schools and Programs was conducted in early 2001. Questionnaires were sent to a nationally representative sample of 1,609 regular districts, along with a cover letter introducing the survey and requesting that the questionnaire be completed by the person(s) most knowledgeable about the alternative schools and programs (if any) in the sampled district. Of the 1,609 districts sampled, completed surveys were received from 1,540 districts (a response rate of 97 percent). Of the 1,540 districts that completed surveys, 6 were later excluded from the sample because they were not regular districts, but rather were "regional" districts that served multiple districts and special populations of students (i.e., at-risk or special education). Regular districts included in this survey were of three types: unified, secondary, and elementary. Unified districts serve students across all grade levels and comprised 83 percent of the total sample. Secondary districts comprised 2 percent, and elementary districts comprised 15 percent of the sample.13 Although alternative education is provided in the United States in a multitude of forms for varied populations by a wide range of agencies, this study's scope was limited to:
 

• public alternative schools or programs administered by districts, and
• public alternative schools or programs where the majority of students attend for at least half of their instructional time, included:
• charter schools (for at-risk students),
• alternative schools or programs (administered by districts) within juvenile detention centers,
• community-based schools or programs (administered by districts, but located within community organizations), and
• alternative schools or programs that operated during weekday evenings or weekends.

Excluded from the scope of the survey were:

• alternative schools or programs that were not for at-risk students (e.g., gifted and talented programs, magnet schools),

• alternative schools or programs not administered by districts (e.g., regional schools, private schools),

• alternative schools or programs where the majority of students attend for less than half of their instructional time,

• alternative schools or programs that exclusively serve special education students,

• vocational education programs (unless specifically designated for at-risk students),

• child care/day care centers,

• privately run sites contracted by districts, and short-term in-school suspension programs (lasting 2 weeks or less), detention, or in-home programs for ill or injured students.

For the purposes of the survey, "at-risk" was defined as involving the 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 were defined as being "usually housed in a separate facility where students are removed from regular schools," whereas alternative programs were defined as being "usually housed within regular schools." Providing districts with the list of inclusions and exclusions constituting the scope of the study meant that certain populations and forms of alternative education would not fall within the purview of the study (e.g., schools and programs for gifted and talented students, private schools, regional schools and other schools not administered by districts, and schools or programs where students spend a small portion of their school time).

Since public school districts are most knowledgeable about the schools and programs that they actually administer (whereas they might not be appropriate respondents with respect to alternative forms of education outside their own direction), limiting the scope of the survey in this way should lend greater credence to the validity of the findings. For instance, some alternative schools are administered by "regional districts." In such cases, students from more than one district typically attend the same regional alternative school, but none of the districts from which the students come actually administer the alternative school. Such districts would not be asked to report on those regional alternative schools since they might not be able to provide valid information.

The district characteristics used as analysis variables for this report are metropolitan status (urban, suburban, and rural), district enrollment size, geographic region, percent minority enrollment, and poverty concentration. These variables are defined in appendix A. It should be kept in mind that certain district characteristics may be related to each other. Also, particular district characteristics may be related to district types (unified, elementary, and secondary). Questionnaire responses were weighted to produce national estimates representing all regular public school districts in the United States. All comparative statements in this report were tested for statistical significance using t-tests adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment and are significant at the 0.05 level. Not all significant comparisons, however, are cited. Throughout this report, differences that appear large may not be statistically significant. This is due in part to the relatively large standard errors surrounding the estimates (because of the relatively small sample size), and the use of the Bonferroni adjustment to control for multiple comparisons. Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of the sample and survey methodology.

Organization of Report

The following pages present findings related to various facets of public alternative education in the United States during the 2000-01 school year (and for several survey items, the 1999-2000 school year). Chapter 2 provides results regarding the availability of and enrollment in alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. Information is also presented on procedures followed when available capacity for enrollment is exceeded. Chapter 3 presents findings on how students arrive at and exit from alternative schools and programs for at-risk students. Chapter 4 discusses staffing, services provided for students at alternative schools and programs, and collaboration with other agencies in the provision of services. The concluding chapter highlights findings from the study and draws some general conclusions. Technical information on the study"s methodology and tables of standard errors for all data presented in this report are included in appendices A and B. Appendix C presents the survey questionnaire.

Top