1

4700 Mueller Blvd. Austin, TX 78723 | 800-476-6861 | www.sedl.org | txcc.sedl.org

Brie�ng Paper

Alternative High Schools in Rural AreasBackground“Alternative schools and programs are designed to address the needs of students that typically cannot be met in regular schools.” (Carver, Lewis, & Tice, 2010, p. 1). Many of these students are at risk of dropping out or being “pushed out” of school for a variety of reasons (Cable, Plucker, & Spradlin, 2009). For those who have already dropped out, the alternative educational programs (AEPs) can be a means of reconnecting and completing their education (Aron, 2006).

In their survey for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Carver et al. (2010) reported that during the 2007–2008 school year, 64% of U.S. school districts had at least one AEP in operation, administered either by the district or another entity. This is up from 39% reported by NCES for the 2000–2001 school year (Gilson, 2006). The 2010 report indicated that 10,300 district-administered schools or programs enrolled approximately 86% of the 646,500 students served by AEPs during 2007–2008. The remaining 14% attended programs administered by another public entity (such as a regional program or cooperative), a postsecondary institution, or a private entity.

The same report revealed that 56% of rural districts had at least one AEP in operation, with 2,900 district-administered programs serving 81% of the 101,400 students enrolled in AEPs. Between 57% and 74% of the placements in AEPs were influenced by recommendations from a district-level administrator; regular school staff; or a committee or teachers, counselors, and administrators. Other placements were requested by a student or parent, were referred by the criminal justice system, or resulted from a functional behavioral assessment.

Over half of the rural districts with AEPs cited the following as reasons for which they could refer students to district-administered programs:

Disruptive verbal behavior (65% of districts)Physical attacks or fights (64%)Possession, distribution, or use of alcohol or drugs (57%)Continual academic failure (56%)Possession or use of a weapon other than a firearm (52%)Chronic truancy (52%)

QUESTION:What research or promising practices should an indi-vidual district or a cooperative among several districts consider with regard to the establishment of an alter-native high school in a rural area?.

Key Points

Successful alternative high schools, whether rural or urban, have many characteristics in common, including

• small class size, with strong individual supports, both academic and social;

• self-paced curriculum, with flexible scheduling;

• parental involvement; and

• more autonomous management.

SummaryRigorous research on alternative high schools for at-risk students is extremely limited, especially for rural areas. There are case studies and descriptive reports of successful programs for rural students whose needs are not met in traditional schools. In general, these programs share the same characteristics as those found in urban areas. Some programs and schools are profiled in two appendices included in this report.

2

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Fewer than half of the districts listed the following reasons:

Arrest or involvement with the criminal justice system (44%)Possession or use of a firearm (42%)Pregnancy/teen parenthood (30%)Mental health needs (26%)

Carver et al. (2010) reported that virtually all of the rural district policies allow some or all of the students to return to regular school, based on improved grades or behavior, approval of the regular school, or other factors. However, only a third of the districts have databases to track students after they leave the AEP. Overall, while actual statistics may vary, the findings reported by Carver et al. for rural districts reflect trends similar to those observed in town, suburban, and urban districts.

Research on Alternative Education Programs

Although AEPs have been in operation for several decades and continue to expand in scope and numbers, limited empirical research is available on developing or implementing effective intervention approaches for at-risk students (Aron, 2006; Carswell, Hanlon, O’Grady, Watts, & Pothong, 2009; Gilson, 2006). Research on alternative education in rural areas is even more limited. However, based on her case study, Bates (1993) stated that “the four characteristics of successful urban schools for at-risk students can also be found in rural communities as well.” The factors she listed were size, a caring staff, school as a community, and flexibility.

The similarity between urban and rural programs can also be seen in Hosley, Hosley, and Thein’s (2009) survey of school administrators and teachers from alternative education programs. As part of a project sponsored by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, the researchers asked whether participants agreed or disagreed with 16 statements related to differences between alternative and regular education classrooms; they presented their findings in a chart disaggregated by rural versus urban respondents. The responses are graphed in the chart below, which is followed by a list of the 16 factors. While the values are higher for rural on several factors, the percentages shown are not so important as is the overall shape of the two lines—they show the similarities between rural and urban responses.

Percent responding affirmatively on the 16 factors

3

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Factors:1. Minimal differences between regular education and alternative education curriculum.2. Curriculum is adapted individually in alternative education3. Age and grade differences in alternative education make it necessary to implement varied curriculum within the same classroom4. There is more latitude in the alternative education classroom to change, adapt, or create curriculum5. Alternative education has the same or more curriculum resources available as the regular education classroom6. Alternative education has fewer curriculum resources available than the regular education classroom7. There is more emphasis on social skills training in the alternative education classroom8. There is more emphasis on discussion or working on personal issues in the alternative education classroom9. There is more emphasis on discipline in the alternative education classroom

10. Students in alternative education have curriculum options available that are not ordinarily available in regular education11. Students in alternative education are excluded from participation in some parts of the curriculum that are ordinarily available to regular

education students12. Every alternative education student participates in transition programming13. The teacher-to-student ratio is smaller in the alternative education classroom14. In general, students seem to maintain current academic levels or make academic gains after participation in alternative education15. In general students seem to lose ground academically after participation in alternative education16. Entry and exit academic levels are assessed in the alternative education program

(Hosley, Hosley, & Thein, 2009, p. 14)

Characteristics of Alternative Education Programs in General

Raywid (1994) identified three categories of programs that have been widely cited in the literature on AEPs:

Type I—schools of choice, such as magnet schools, schools-within-a-school, experiential schools, and other models that offer flexibility, autonomy, small classes, and personalized instruction

Type II—programs for students who have been disruptive in traditional schools, with a focus on discipline and segregation from general classrooms

Type III—programs with rehabilitation or remediation emphasis for students with social and emotional problems that impede learning

(Aron, 2006; Foley & Pang, 2006)

Aron’s overview of alternative education, however, reported that the distinctions between Raywid’s types are beginning to blur as Types II and III have blended into a category focused on “changing the student” and Type I is characterized as “changing the school”; a new third group is focused on “changing the system.”

Aron (2006) also referenced a typology that focuses on the educational problems or challenges presented rather than demographic or risk factors. In this paradigm, students sort into four groups: 1) those who have fallen “off track” because they have gotten into trouble and need short-term intervention to get them back into regular schools; 2) those who have “prematurely transitioned into adulthood” because of existing or imminent parenthood or personal situations that prevent regular school attendance; 3) those who are older but need only a few credits to graduate; and 4) those who are substantially behind educationally because of low-reading levels or other learning challenges. Aron reasons that because of the wide range of issues to be addressed, alternative programs are often characterized by flexible schedules, smaller student-teacher ratios, and modified curricula.

The research that does exist on AEPs shows some additional characteristics of successful programs:

• Academic instruction based on high standards and engaging, creative instruction• High expectations for all students, in terms of performance, attendance, and behavior• Personalized, self-paced academic programs• Instructors who choose to be part of the program, are committed, receive ongoing professional development, and have a

role in governance• Site-based, autonomous management• Student voice in school operations• Safe learning environment and a sense of community

4

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

• Meaningful, caring relationships between students and teachers• Student supports to meet social and emotional needs, as well as academic needs• Clear rules of behavior that are fairly and consistently enforced• Links to community organizations• Work readiness • Parent involvement

(Aron, 2006; Bates, 1993; Cable et al., 2009; Foley & Pang, 2006; Gilson, 2006; Johnston, Cooch, & Pollard, 2004; Pollard & Thorne, 2003)

For additional characterization of alternative programs, Aron (2006) provides an appendix charting AEP attributes mentioned in nine published studies. A second appendix describes 10 promising models of AEPs: Career Academies, Job Corps, YouthBuild USA, Gateway to College, ISUS (Improved Solutions for Urban Systems), Open Meadow Alternative School, Center for Employment and Training, Youth Service and Conservation Corps, Early and Middle College High Schools, and Twilight Academies. The majority of these programs are targeted to students who have already dropped out of school. None are specifically targeted to rural areas.

Rural Alternative Education ProgramsFor some time, rural areas were not faced with the same challenges as urban and suburban districts, but the problems causing students to be at risk of dropping out are now becoming increasingly common among rural communities (Hernandez, 2002; Linton, 2000). Eugene Linton, superintendent of Mercer County Educational Service Center in Ohio, expressed his opinion on a program implemented in Mercer County. He indicated that the program has brought the dropout rate at the alternative school down from nearly 100% to less than 30%. Focal points of the program include individualized instruction, a safe school environment, parent and agency support, mandatory drug testing, and flexibility.

Hernandez (2002) cited the erosion of tribal culture and growing exposure to urban environments as factors in increased gang activity on Native American reservations. His case study of “Lorenzo,” a member of the Pima-Maricopa tribe, reveals successful strategies by the tribe to deal with at-risk youth. The tribe built a high school, an alternative school for students with a history of delinquency, and a juvenile detention facility with a special education program. The tribal school principal, school counselor, and directors of the alternative and detention programs met with “Lorenzo” and his parents to establish a plan for his academic and personal development after two expulsions and probation from off-reservation schools by the ninth grade. After an incident caused Lorenzo to be sent to the detention facility for a period of time, administrators and his parents planned for him to enroll in the alternative school upon his release. Because of his gang involvement, opposing gang members were present at his entry meeting at the school. “(They) were invited in order to get written and verbal understandings that there would be no conflict when Lorenzo returned to campus. Because several gangs are represented and study together in the alternative school, transitional meetings address this issue openly and firmly” (Hernandez, p. 5). The case study ended at this point, but while in the school, Lorenzo’s parents were to be called every day to check on his progress and discuss any problems, and he was to receive regular counseling and attention to learning and emotional disabilities.

The chart in Appendix A provides information gleaned from case studies of rural AEPs. The name of the school/program (if available), source of information, program’s reported evidence of effectiveness, and characteristics of the program are listed for each.

The National Dropout Prevention Center maintains a database of model programs at http://ndpc-web.clemson.edu/modelprograms/get_programs.php?effstrat=10. Profiles of the programs include name, address, and contact information; description; emphasis (dropout prevention, intervention, or recovery/retrieval); rating (based on number of years in existence, evaluation design, and empirical evidence demonstrating success); number of students served; cost for one year; staff, materials used, and partners; risk factors addressed; and protective factors the program promotes (in the categories of relationships, independence, competence, creativity, and optimism). Appendix B is a chart with descriptions of the programs targeted to rural populations; also included is a list of names of the programs targeting both rural and at least one other population.

5

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Additional StudiesA search for literature on the topic of alternative high schools in rural areas produced some additional articles that address rural at-risk students, though not in alternative schools. Brief descriptions of these studies are provided here for the reader to pursue if so desired. Pauline Hodges (1994) described her strategy for teaching writing to at-risk students in a rural high school—she focused on reading and writing topics that were relevant to the students’ lives and communities. Bursuck, Robbins, and Lazaroff (2010) used focus groups and a statewide survey to explore what schools in an unnamed southeastern state were doing to help students struggling with reading in rural high schools. While over 60% of the rural schools had no reading program designed to assist these students, the schools that did reported that their programs included separate reading classes or a combination of reading classes plus reading instruction embedded within content-area instruction.

Linda Thurston (2002) described a study of a life-skills management program, Survival Skills for Youth, that was implemented with groups of youths in rural Tennessee and Missouri. The program in each setting was carried out with the assistance of at least two organizations, such as universities, school districts, juvenile justice programs, and state human services or workforce agencies. The study indicated that interagency partnerships could provide an effective means for changing attitudes and behaviors of rural at-risk students.

Laible and Harrington (1998) reported on values and beliefs of leaders serving two rural schools with extremely poor student populations. The students in these schools, one in Texas and one in Alabama, performed better and had lower dropout rates than many more affluent, suburban students. The researchers concluded that leadership skills played an important role in student achievement at the two schools. Maintaining high expectations for all students; having courage to do the right thing, regardless of political consequences; developing a collaborative, responsible school community focused on student learning; and showing a personal interest in students, including family background and problems they may be facing, were major components of leadership at both schools.

Finally, a study by Marrs, Hemmert, and Jansen (2007) examined the concept of school engagement in a rural school in the Midwest. The researchers interviewed students identified for an intervention plan to determine the level of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement of each student. They concluded, “Effective interventions are likely holistic, offering not only academic support to increase cognitive engagement, but also assistance in developing positive relationships and encouragement to become involved in positive activities” (Marrs et al., p. 34).

6

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Appendix A

This chart provides information from case studies of rural alternative education programs. The name of the school/program (if available), source of information, program’s reported evidence of effectiveness, and characteristics of the program are listed for each.

Bear Lodge High SchoolSundance, WY

Johnston, C., Cooch, G., & Pollard, C. (2004). A rural alternative school and its effectiveness for preventing dropouts. Rural Educator, 25(3), 25–29.

83% graduation rate • Voluntary enrollment, for a minimum of one semester• Transportation is provided for all students• Students earn privileges using a four-level Phase System based on behavior and attendance.• Characterized by small student/teacher ratio; committed school staff; high expectations and

standards for behavior, attendance, and performance; flexible schedule; students work at their own pace; caring relationships between students and staff; safe environment

Westwood High SchoolGillette, WY

Pollard, C. J., & Thorne, T. (2003). Student centered policies and practices help students “at risk” earn high school diploma. Rural Educator, 24(3), 27–33.

85% graduation rate (state rate is 81%)

Significantly lowered rate of teenage pregnancies

• Personal attention from teachers—teachers learn about each student’s personal life and design a “person-fit” plan for his/her high school completion

• Innovation and flexibility in program planning; students can carry over partial course credit from one year to the next

• Tutoring and study hall time available before and after school• Community partnerships and school-based business enterprises• Remedial education, work-study, and special interest programs such as community service• Counseling and guidance programs, support groups for students with relationship, parent

communication, substance abuse problems • Services for teenage parents, including cost-free day care and training in child development,

parenting skills, prenatal care, and childbirth classes• Parental involvement• Schoolwide celebration of graduation, including Senior Celebration Dinner for students and

their families, teachers, and staff• Announcement over intercom when a student completes graduation requirement, followed by

the graduate “walking the hall”—staff and students line the hallways and cheer as the student walks through

Cooperative Alternative Program (CAP)

Coleman, TX

Rossi, R. J., Vergun, P. B., & Weise, L. J. (1997). Serving rural youth at risk: A portrait of collaboration and community. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(3), 213–227.

Has kept at-risk students in school longer than area sites with similar students

Raised grades of studentsDesignated as a model at-risk and

drop-out recovery program by TEA

Strategies have been replicated in other rural areas

• Pooled material resources from several jurisdictions• Ambition vision• Site-based decision-making opportunity and authority• Strong sense of community among administrators, teachers, and students; teachers and

principal care about students on a personal and academic level• Innovation and risk-taking in planning and delivering program activities• Serves students from eight districts in four counties; superintendents of the districts make up

governing board• Principal has authority for day-to-day planning and implementation of program; door always

open to students, staff• Transportation provided for all students• Staff came with open minds and understood the challenge and the opportunity of working at

the school; hiring decisions shared by entire staff; all teachers certified in their fields• State-licensed day care center• Seclusion of campus maintains safe, supportive environment for learning• Small classes, individualized instruction, school-to-work link, flexible scheduling, individual and

group counseling, vocational training, paid work experience, innovative educational practices

7

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Central Kansas Dropout Recovery Centers

Counties of Barton, Rice, Harvey, Marion, Reno, and McPherson

Bland, P., Church, E., Neill, S., & Terry, P. (2008). Lessons from successful alternative education: A guide for secondary school reform. Eastern Education Journal, 37(1), 29–42.

Students surveyed had all been former dropouts from regular schools who had since graduated from one of the centers

• Caring atmosphere• Mutual respect, teamwork, responsibility for learning• Lack of competition• Individual student support, small class size• New start in neutral environment• Independent learning, self-paced; self-motivation• Flexible, expanded hours• Study one subject for extended period of time• Technology allowed accommodation of different learning rates, immediate feedback

Mat-Su Alternative SchoolWasilla, AK

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students at risk. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.

80% graduation rate90% are employed one year after

graduation

• Students attend by choice• School operates year-round, from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 P.M. to accommodate work schedules• Services include day care, good bank, clothing bank, AA support group• Networks with more than 59 local, state, and federal agencies• Students must attend at least 3 hours a day on campus; any time missed must be made up• Small classes, self-directed studies, tutor always available• Online tutorial program for remote and homebound students• Heavy school-to-work emphasis; high school students must work at least 15 hours a week;

middle school students must do community service• Teen parents must take life skills and parenting classes• All teachers serve as advisors and call students who do not show up for class

Black Canyon Alternative SchoolEmmett, ID

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students at risk. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.

Most students do not want to return to the mainstream high school

• Hire teachers who are patient, tolerant, consistent, humane• Students have a voice in school policies• Located separately from the regular high school• Students study one subject at a time for 70 class hours and work at their own pace• Small classes, flexible scheduling, closed campus• Junior high students do not mix with older students• Parents involved in some of the disciplinary strategies

Eastern High SchoolBeaver, OH

Schomburg, G., & Rippeth, M. (2009). Rethinking virtual school. Principal Leadership, 10(4), 32–36.

All virtual lab students earned credits toward graduation, compared to 30% of students who attempted to earn credits working from home or the library

Student rating of the virtual lab was 93% positive

• Time provided within the school schedule to work in the virtual lab• Counselor and aide in the room provided motivation and support• Subject-area specialists (regular education teachers) available throughout the day• Intervention teachers available to help with IEP students• Provided seniors with a last chance to make up credits for graduation• Students work at their own pace

8

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Tonasket Alternative High SchoolTonasket, WA

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students at risk. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.

Attendance is goodProgram grew from 9 students first

year to 34 the second yearStudents have matured, gained

social skills, and have better self-image and self-confidence

• Located in separate building• Students choose to attend; a student with a behavior problem must maintain 4–6 weeks of

acceptable behavior to demonstrate motivation to attend the school• Active, hands-on approach; reliance on community resources; credit may be earned through

independent study program• Feeling of family identity and community• Group discussions and individual counseling• High expectations• Hire staff who love working with teenagers

(Undisclosed school)South Carolina

Bates, J. T. (1993). Portrait of a successful rural alternative school. Rural Educator, 14(3), 20–24.

Improved attendance and performance

• Usually fewer than 15 students per class• Focal point is on academic achievement• Counselor calls or goes to home of students who are absent; parents required to come in if

there is any kind of problem• Students have access to counselor at all times; immediate and long range plans developed to

ameliorate difficulties• Principal is pivotal force; has had training in counseling and administration; maintains open

channels of communication with parents, students, and staff• Ongoing assessment of students and program• Professional development for staff based on individual/group needs• Discipline and respect integral part of the program; dress code enforced• Parents required to accompany student to entry interview and must agree to remain involved• Representative from business, industry, and community serve as mentors (includes mayor,

college faculty, school board members, industry executives, others)• Diagnostic program helps individualize student reading plans• School board, superintendant show support through funding and mentoring; many businesses

support financially• On Fridays, school ends after lunch for students who have been productive during the week• Field trips to museums, zoo, cultural and historic sites• “Gotcha Cards” for outstanding performance; recipients are taken to lunch at school’s expense

9

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

AP

PE

ND

IX B

Model

Alt

ernat

ive

Sch

ool

Pro

gra

ms

Tar

get

ing R

ura

l S

etti

ngs

(fro

m N

atio

nal

Dro

pout

Pre

ven

tion C

ente

r)

‡ N

DP

C R

atin

g f

or

Pro

gra

m E

ffec

tiv

enes

s: *

Lim

ited

Ev

iden

ce;

**

Mo

der

ate

Ev

iden

ce;

**

* S

tro

ng

Ev

iden

ce

Nam

e N

DP

C

Rat

ing

C

on

tact

In

form

atio

n

Des

crip

tio

n

Eag

le R

ock

Sch

oo

l &

Pro

fess

ion

al

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Cen

ter

**

*

27

50

No

taia

h R

oad

Est

es P

ark

, C

O 8

05

17

97

0.5

86

.06

00

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

agle

rock

sch

oo

l.o

rg

An

in

itia

tiv

e o

f th

e A

mer

ican

Ho

nd

a E

du

cati

on

Co

rpo

rati

on

, a

50

1(c

)3,

a n

on

pro

fit

sub

sid

iary

of

the

Am

eric

an H

on

da

Mo

tor

Co

mp

any

. A

fu

ll-

sch

ola

rsh

ip h

igh

sch

oo

l fo

r st

ud

ents

an

d a

lo

w-c

ost

pro

fess

ion

al

dev

elo

pm

ent

cen

ter

for

adu

lts.

Lo

cate

d i

n t

he

mo

un

tain

res

ort

com

mu

nit

y o

f E

stes

Par

k,

Co

lora

do

, g

atew

ay t

o R

ock

y M

ou

nta

in

Nat

ion

al P

ark

. O

pen

ed i

n t

he

fall

of

19

93

. A

dm

its

and

gra

du

ates

stu

den

ts t

hre

e ti

mes

a y

ear.

Yea

r-ro

un

d (

thre

e tr

imes

ters

) an

d r

esid

enti

al.

Pu

rpo

sefu

lly

sm

all

, ca

pac

ity

of

96

stu

den

ts,

wh

o h

ave

no

t ex

per

ien

ced

succ

ess

in t

rad

itio

nal

aca

dem

ic p

rog

ram

s, d

id n

ot

exp

ect

to g

rad

uat

e

fro

m h

igh

sch

oo

l, a

re p

assi

on

ate

abo

ut

chan

gin

g t

hei

r li

ves

. S

tud

ents

are

adm

itte

d b

etw

een

th

e ag

es o

f 1

5 a

nd

17

; g

rad

uat

e w

hen

th

ey c

an

dem

on

stra

te m

aste

ry o

f E

agle

Ro

ck's

req

uir

emen

ts;

cho

ose

to

en

roll

an

d

cho

ose

to

sta

y;

com

e fr

om

Co

lora

do

(5

0 p

erce

nt)

an

d t

he

nat

ion

(5

0

per

cen

t);

are

equ

ally

rep

rese

nte

d,

mal

e an

d f

emal

e; a

nd

co

mp

rise

a

pu

rpo

sefu

lly

div

erse

co

mm

un

ity

.

Fo

xfi

re H

igh

Sch

oo

l *

**

2

80

5 P

ink

erto

n R

oad

Zan

esv

ille

, O

H 4

37

01

74

0.4

53

.45

09

htt

p:/

/ww

w.f

ox

fire

.sch

oo

lwir

es.c

om

We

are

a d

rop

ou

t re

cov

ery

sch

oo

l th

at s

erv

es a

t-ri

sk y

ou

th f

or

5

surr

ou

nd

ing

co

un

ties

. W

e se

rve

ages

16

-22

in

a n

on

tra

dit

ion

al s

etti

ng

.

We

hav

e se

ver

al e

mb

edd

ed w

rap

aro

un

d s

erv

ices

in

clu

din

g:

soci

al

wo

rker

, d

rug

/alc

oh

ol

cou

nse

lor,

nu

rse.

sro

, o

utr

each

co

ord

inat

or,

wel

lnes

s co

ord

inat

or,

men

tal

hea

lth

co

un

selo

r, 2

1st

Cen

tury

Dir

ecto

r

Gat

eway

Aca

dem

y

Hig

h S

cho

ol

**

1

00

Eas

t L

ock

rid

ge

St.

May

fiel

d,

KY

42

06

6

27

0.3

28

.49

79

htt

p:/

/ww

w.g

rav

es.k

ysc

ho

ols

.us/

sch

oo

ls/g

atew

ay

Gat

eway

Aca

dem

y i

s a

vo

lun

tary

alt

ern

ativ

e sc

ho

ol

that

pro

vid

es

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

tow

ard

aca

dem

ic c

om

ple

tio

n o

f a

hig

h s

cho

ol

dip

lom

a.

GA

HS

ser

ves

stu

den

ts o

f th

e M

ayfi

eld

Cit

y a

nd

Gra

ves

Co

un

ty S

cho

ol

Dis

tric

ts a

nd

qu

alif

ied

can

did

ates

of

Wes

tern

Ken

tuck

y.

Ou

r g

oal

is

to

wo

rk w

ith

stu

den

ts a

nd

th

eir

fam

ilie

s to

cre

ate

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

succ

ess,

wh

ich

in

tu

rn w

ill

incr

ease

th

e n

um

ber

of

gra

du

ates

an

d l

ead

to

com

mu

nit

y i

mp

rov

emen

t. G

atew

ay h

as a

Wo

rkfo

rce

Inv

estm

ent

Act

gra

nt

that

all

ow

s u

s to

hel

p s

tud

ents

fin

d p

aid

an

d u

np

aid

wo

rk

exp

erie

nce

s as

wel

l as

tra

inin

g i

n o

ccu

pat

ion

al s

kil

ls,

bas

ic s

kil

ls,

char

acte

r b

uil

din

g s

kil

ls a

nd

lea

der

ship

dev

elo

pm

ent;

men

tori

ng

;

cou

nse

lin

g;

and

co

mm

un

ity

in

vo

lvem

ent.

Appendix B

10

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Do

ug

las

Hig

h S

cho

ol

D-P

AS

S (

Dro

po

ut

Pre

ven

tio

n,

AIM

S a

nd

Sch

oo

l S

ucc

ess)

**

1

50

0 1

5th

Str

eet

Do

ug

las,

AZ

85

60

7

52

0.3

64

.34

62

htt

ps:

//w

ww

10

.ad

e.az

.go

v/A

IMS

DP

To

olk

it/E

xem

pla

ryP

rog

ram

s/2

00

9/D

ou

gla

sHig

h2

00

9.a

spx

Hav

ing

beg

un

as

alte

rnat

ive

sch

oo

l an

d c

red

it r

eco

ver

y p

rog

ram

s in

th

e

Fal

l o

f 2

00

7,

ou

r in

itia

tiv

e h

as e

xp

and

ed t

o a

sch

oo

l-w

ide

refo

rm e

ffo

rt.

Ou

r sc

ho

ol-

wid

e ef

fort

s in

clu

de

Inte

rven

tio

n e

mb

edd

ed w

ith

in t

he

sch

oo

l d

ay f

or

all

stu

den

ts w

ho

are

str

ug

gli

ng

wit

h l

ow

gra

des

in

cu

rren

t

clas

ses

or

hav

e fa

iled

to

dem

on

stra

te m

aste

ry o

f th

e A

rizo

na

stan

dar

ds

on

Ari

zon

a's

Inst

rum

ent

to M

easu

re S

tan

dar

ds.

PA

CE

Per

son

al

Alt

ern

ativ

e C

ho

ices

in

Ed

uca

tio

n

**

6

06

4 S

lab

Lan

din

g R

d

Co

pe,

SC

29

03

8

80

3.5

33

.17

83

Th

e P

AC

E p

rog

ram

is

des

ign

ed t

o m

eet

the

nee

ds

of

stu

den

ts w

ho

are

no

t fi

nd

ing

su

cces

s in

th

e re

gu

lar

clas

sro

om

by

off

erin

g a

lter

nat

ive

pat

hw

ays

for

gra

du

atio

n.

It t

arg

ets

tho

se s

tud

ents

wh

o a

re a

t a

hig

h r

isk

of

dro

pp

ing

ou

t o

f re

gu

lar

sch

oo

l d

ue

to s

uch

th

ing

s as

atte

nd

ance

,

pre

gn

ancy

, p

oo

r p

erfo

rman

ce,

pro

ble

ms

at h

om

e, t

he

nee

d t

o w

ork

, an

d

loss

of

cred

its

du

e to

tra

nsf

ers.

Th

e p

rog

ram

giv

es h

op

e to

stu

den

ts a

nd

par

ents

wh

o h

ave

bee

n s

tru

gg

lin

g w

ith

"th

e sc

ho

ol

issu

e".

It g

ives

stu

den

ts,

adm

inis

trat

ors

, p

aren

ts,

and

tea

cher

s an

oth

er s

afet

y n

et t

o c

atch

stu

den

ts b

efo

re t

hey

bec

om

e a

stat

isti

c. I

t h

as p

rov

en r

esu

lts

to p

ush

stu

den

ts f

orw

ard

an

d g

ives

th

em a

n o

bta

inab

le g

oal

wh

ich

mo

st a

t-ri

sk

stu

den

ts h

ave

lost

.

Ale

e A

cad

emy

Alt

ern

ativ

e C

har

ter

Sch

oo

l

*

17

05

Co

un

ty R

oad

44

Eu

stis

, F

L 3

27

26

35

2.3

57

.94

26

htt

p:/

/ww

w.a

leea

cad

emy

.org

n.a

.

Bat

h C

ou

nty

Gra

du

atio

n

Su

cces

s A

cad

emy

*

64

5 C

hen

ault

Dri

ve

Ow

ing

svil

le,

KY

40

36

0

60

6.6

74

.27

88

Th

e B

ath

Co

un

ty G

rad

uat

ion

Su

cces

s A

cad

emy

, G

SA

, is

a p

rog

ram

dev

elo

ped

by

Su

per

inte

nd

ent,

DP

P,

and

th

e B

ath

Co

un

ty B

oar

d o

f

Ed

uca

tio

n.

Th

e p

rog

ram

was

dev

elo

ped

to

tar

get

at-

risk

stu

den

ts i

n t

he

Bat

h C

ou

nty

Sch

oo

l D

istr

ict

in g

rad

es 7

-12

. In

th

e 2

00

7-0

8 s

cho

ol

yea

r

Bat

h C

ou

nty

had

up

war

ds

of

30

stu

den

ts t

hat

dro

pp

ed o

ut

of

hig

h

sch

oo

l. T

o c

om

bat

th

is p

rob

lem

, th

e G

SA

was

im

ple

men

ted

wit

h t

he

har

d w

ork

of

the

staf

f, a

nd

has

had

a s

ucc

essf

ul

yea

r. T

he

pro

gra

m i

s

des

ign

ed t

o s

erv

ice

30

stu

den

ts;

15

fro

m t

he

mid

dle

sch

oo

l le

vel

an

d 1

5

fro

m t

he

hig

h s

cho

ol

lev

el.

Th

ere

is a

n a

pp

lica

tio

n p

roce

ss t

hat

is

pre

sen

ted

to

th

e A

dm

issi

on

s C

om

mit

tee.

Th

rou

gh

th

e G

SA

, 9

stu

den

ts

gra

du

ated

fro

m h

igh

sch

oo

l th

is y

ear.

All

th

e st

ud

ents

wh

o w

ere

able

to

gra

du

ate

wer

e fa

ced

wit

h s

erio

us

per

son

al o

bst

acle

s. T

han

ks

to t

hei

r

har

d w

ork

an

d t

he

har

d w

ork

of

the

facu

lty

of

the

GS

A,

they

wer

e ab

le

to o

ver

com

e th

ose

ch

alle

ng

es t

o b

eco

me

succ

essf

ul.

Th

e sc

ho

ol

is

staf

fed

wit

h o

ne

ded

icat

ed p

rin

cip

al a

nd

2 w

on

der

ful

clas

sro

om

tea

cher

s.

Nam

eN

DPC

Rat

ing

Con

tact

Info

rmat

ion

Des

crip

tion

11

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Cla

rke

Lea

rnin

g C

ente

r *

8

02

N.

Jack

son

Osc

eola

, IA

50

21

3

64

1.3

42

.28

04

Th

is i

s an

alt

ern

ativ

e h

igh

sch

oo

l se

par

ate

fro

m t

he

trad

itio

nal

hig

h

sch

oo

l, b

ut

on

th

e h

igh

sch

oo

l/m

idd

le s

cho

ol

cam

pu

s. I

t se

rves

pre

do

min

atel

y s

tud

ents

fro

m C

lark

e C

om

mu

nit

y (

95

% +

) w

hic

h h

as a

tota

l en

roll

men

t o

f ab

ou

t 3

50

at-

risk

stu

den

ts i

n g

rad

es 9

-12

. T

her

e ar

e

the

equ

ival

ent

of

two

fu

ll-t

ime

staf

f (1

fu

ll,

2 h

alf)

, w

ho

ser

ve

a to

tal

of

36

stu

den

ts a

t an

y o

ne

tim

e. I

nst

ruct

ion

is

giv

en i

n a

ll s

ub

ject

are

as i

n a

n

ind

epen

den

t, w

ork

at

yo

ur

ow

n p

ace

env

iro

nm

ent.

Th

e p

rog

ram

off

ers

a

sep

arat

e, l

ow

er c

red

it d

iplo

ma

op

tio

n,

in a

dd

itio

n t

o t

he

trad

itio

nal

ho

me-

sch

oo

l d

iplo

ma.

Stu

den

ts a

tten

d a

th

ree

ho

ur

shif

t in

eit

her

th

e

AM

or

PM

wit

h s

om

e ex

cep

tio

ns

(a f

ew s

tud

ents

att

end

all

day

, at

ten

d

on

ly d

uri

ng

op

en p

erio

ds

in t

hei

r H

S s

ched

ule

, o

r at

ten

d a

s d

rop

-in

).

Stu

den

ts m

ust

att

end

80

% o

f th

e ti

me,

mai

nta

in m

inim

um

pro

du

ctiv

ity

,

and

ad

her

e to

beh

avio

r p

oli

cies

to

rem

ain

in

th

e p

rog

ram

. S

tud

ents

may

tak

e cl

asse

s at

bo

th t

he

CL

C a

nd

th

e tr

adit

ion

al H

S,

and

may

be

inv

olv

ed i

n e

xtr

a-cu

rric

ula

r ac

tiv

itie

s as

wel

l as

ev

ents

su

ch a

s p

rom

an

d

com

men

cem

ent

cere

mo

nie

s.

Ch

amb

erla

in H

igh

Sch

oo

l

*

PO

Bo

x 1

19

Ch

amb

erla

in,

SD

57

32

5

60

5.2

34

.44

67

htt

p:/

/ww

w.c

ham

ber

lain

.k1

2.s

d.u

s/c

hs

Th

e st

ud

y a

ssis

t p

rog

ram

all

ow

s st

ud

ents

wh

o h

ave

dem

on

stra

ted

th

e

nee

d f

or

add

itio

nal

aca

dem

ic h

elp

bas

ed o

n l

ack

of

cred

its,

lo

w G

PA

,

his

tory

of

atte

nd

ance

iss

ues

, et

c to

be

pla

ced

in

a o

ne

per

iod

per

day

clas

s th

at p

rov

ides

su

pp

ort

fo

r th

eir

acad

emic

nee

ds.

Stu

den

ts e

arn

a h

alf

cred

it e

ach

sem

este

r fo

r th

eir

wo

rk a

nd

are

gra

ded

dai

ly u

sin

g a

ru

bri

c

gra

din

g s

yst

em.

‡ T

he

ND

PC

rat

ing

is

bas

ed o

n t

hre

e fa

cto

rs:

•

Th

e n

um

ber

of

yea

rs p

rog

ram

in

ex

iste

nce

•

Th

e ev

alu

atio

n d

esig

n

•

Th

e em

pir

ical

ev

iden

ce d

emo

nst

rati

ng

th

e p

rev

enti

on

or

red

uct

ion

of

dro

po

uts

or

the

imp

rov

emen

t in

gra

du

atio

n r

ates

an

d/o

r si

gn

ific

ant

imp

act

on

dro

po

ut-

rela

ted

ris

k f

acto

rs.

Nam

eN

DPC

Rat

ing

Con

tact

Info

rmat

ion

Des

crip

tion

12

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Mo

del

pro

gra

ms

targ

etin

g r

ura

l an

d a

t le

ast

on

e ad

dit

ion

al s

etti

ng

:

Rat

ing

N

ame

Lo

cati

on

**

*

A+

An

yw

her

e L

earn

ing

Sy

stem

O

kla

ho

ma

Cit

y,

OK

*

Aca

dem

ic A

lter

nat

ives

P

alat

ka,

FL

**

A

cell

us

Lea

rnin

g S

yst

em

Ind

epen

den

ce,

MO

*

Alt

ern

ativ

e D

iplo

ma

Par

tner

ship

A

rlin

gto

n,

VA

*

Alt

ern

ativ

es U

nli

mit

ed -

Pal

m B

each

Dro

p B

ack

in

Aca

dem

y

W.

Pal

m B

each

, F

L

*

Ap

ex L

earn

ing

S

eatt

le,

WA

**

B

ig P

ictu

re L

earn

ing

P

rov

iden

ce,

RI

**

B

uen

a A

lter

nat

ive

Lea

rnin

g C

ente

r S

ierr

a V

ista

, A

Z

**

C

hu

gac

h V

oy

age

To

Ex

cell

ence

Pro

gra

m

An

cho

rag

e, A

K

**

*

Co

mm

un

itie

s an

d S

cho

ols

Fo

r S

ucc

ess

(CS

-Sq

uar

ed)

Bo

sto

n,

MA

**

*

Co

mm

un

itie

s In

Sch

oo

ls o

f G

eorg

ia -

Per

form

ance

Lea

rnin

g C

ente

rs

Atl

anta

, G

A

**

C

om

pu

ter

Bas

ed I

nst

ruct

ion

A

rlin

gto

n,

VA

**

*

Co

pin

g a

nd

Su

pp

ort

Tra

inin

g (

CA

ST

) R

edm

on

d,

WA

**

E

du

cati

on

20

20

S

cott

sdal

e, A

Z

**

E

nte

rpri

seP

rep

H

arv

ey C

edar

s, N

J

*

Inte

rnsh

ip Q

ues

t C

ente

rvil

le,

MA

**

*

Job

Co

rps

Was

hin

gto

n,

DC

**

Jo

bs

for

Am

eric

a’s

Gra

du

ates

(JA

G)

Ale

xan

dri

a, V

A

*

Kan

awh

a C

ou

nty

Sch

oo

ls

Ch

arle

sto

n,

WV

**

K

ane

Co

un

ty R

egio

nal

Offi

ce o

f E

du

cati

on

G

enev

a, I

L

*

Lo

ng

evit

y o

f S

ucc

ess

Co

lora

do

Sp

rin

gs,

CO

**

M

igra

nt

Ed

uca

tio

n A

dv

iso

r P

rog

ram

(M

EA

P)

Ro

hn

ert

Par

k,

CA

**

M

ou

nta

in E

du

cati

on

Cen

ter

Hig

h S

cho

ol

To

cco

a, G

A

*

Mo

un

tain

eer

Ch

alle

NG

e A

cad

emy

A

rlin

gto

n,

VA

**

N

ov

aNE

T

Sco

ttsd

ale,

AZ

**

*

Od

yss

ey

Au

stin

, T

X

**

*

Ok

lah

om

a S

tate

wid

e A

lter

nat

ive

Aca

dem

y P

rog

ram

O

kla

ho

ma

Cit

y,

OK

**

*

Ok

lah

om

a T

ech

nic

al A

ssis

tan

ce C

ente

r C

ush

ing

, O

K

**

O

pp

ort

un

ity

Sch

oo

l W

oo

ster

, O

H

*

Pac

e L

earn

ing

Sy

stem

s T

usc

alo

osa

, A

L

**

P

AS

S (

Po

rtab

le A

ssis

ted

Stu

dy

Seq

uen

ce)

Mt.

Mo

rris

, N

Y

**

*

PH

AS

E 4

Lea

rnin

g C

ente

r, I

nc.

W

est

Mif

flin

, P

A

**

P

LA

TO

Lea

rnin

g,

Inc.

B

loo

min

gto

n,

MN

**

*

Po

siti

ve

Act

ion

T

win

Fal

ls,

ID

**

P

osi

tiv

e B

ehav

ior

Fac

ilit

atio

n

Sil

ver

Sp

rin

g,

MD

13

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

*

Pri

mav

era

On

lin

e H

igh

Sch

oo

l C

han

dle

r, A

Z

**

P

rin

ce W

illi

am R

egio

nal

Tec

hn

olo

gy

Aca

dem

y

Man

assa

s, V

A

**

*

Pro

cess

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

s, I

nc.

P

oto

mac

, M

D

*

Pro

cess

Tea

chin

g

Po

tom

ac,

MD

*

Pro

ject

Dis

cov

ery

L

ou

isv

ille

, K

Y

*

Pro

ject

Rec

on

nec

t W

arn

er R

ob

ins,

GA

**

*

Rea

d R

igh

t S

hel

ton

, W

A

**

*

Rec

on

nec

tin

g Y

ou

th

Sea

ttle

, W

A

*

RE

NE

W (

Reh

abil

itat

ion

fo

r E

mp

ow

erm

ent,

Nat

ura

l S

up

po

rts,

Ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

Wo

rk)

Co

nco

rd,

NH

**

*

Rip

ple

Eff

ects

Wh

ole

Sp

ectr

um

In

terv

enti

on

Sy

stem

S

an F

ran

cisc

o,

CA

**

*

Sim

on

Yo

uth

Fo

un

dat

ion

Ed

uca

tio

n R

eso

urc

e C

ente

rs

Ind

ian

apo

lis,

IN

**

*

Sta

r A

cad

emy

Pro

gra

m

Pit

tsb

urg

, K

S

**

*

Stu

den

ts A

gai

nst

Vio

len

ce E

ver

yw

her

e (S

AV

E)

Ral

eig

h,

NC

**

*

Su

cces

s H

igh

way

s D

env

er,

CO

*

Taw

an P

erry

Un

lim

ited

R

alei

gh

, N

C

So

urc

e:

Nat

ion

al D

rop

ou

t P

rev

enti

on

Cen

ter/

Net

wo

rk

Cle

mso

n U

niv

ersi

ty

20

9 M

arti

n S

tree

t

Cle

mso

n,

SC

29

63

1-1

55

5

86

4.6

56

.25

99

Fax

: 8

64

.65

6.0

13

6

E-m

ail:

nd

pc@

clem

son

.ed

u

14

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

References and Additional ResourcesListed below are references used in preparing this report and additional resources that can consulted for more information on this topic.

Aron, L. Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/411283.html

Bates, J. T. (1993). Portrait of a successful rural alternative school. Rural Educator, 14(3), 20–24.

Bland, P., Church, E., Neill, S., & Terry, P. (2008). Lessons from successful alternative education: A guide for secondary school reform. Eastern Education Journal, 37(1), 29–42.

Bursuck, W. D., Robbins, S., & Lazaroff, K. (2010). Meeting the needs of struggling readers in high school: What are rural schools doing? The Rural Educator, 31(2), 27–32. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_201001/ai_n52373062/

Cable, K. E., Plucker, J. A., & Spradlin, T. E. (2009). Alternative schools: What’s in a name? Education Policy Brief, 7(4). Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.

Carswell, S. B., Hanlon, T. E., O’Grady, K. E., Watts, A. M., & Pothong, P. (2009). A preventive intervention program for urban African American youth attending an alternative education program: Background, implementation, and feasibility. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(3), 445–469.

Carver, P. R., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2010). Alternative schools and programs for public school students at risk of educational failure: 2007–08. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Cortez, A., & Montecel, M. R. (1999). Disciplinary alternative education programs in Texas: What is known, what is needed. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association.

Foley, R. M., & Pang, L. S. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student characteristics. High School Journal, 89(3), 10–21.

Forbes, R. (2008). Additional learning opportunities in rural areas. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Gilson, T. (2006). Alternative high schools: What types of programs lead to the greatest level of effectiveness? Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6(1), 48–66.

Harris, A. (2008). Accelerating the agenda: Actions to improve America’s high schools. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

Helge, D. (1989). Rural at-risk students: Directions for policy and intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10(1), 1–17.

Hernandez, A. (2002). Can education play a role in the prevention of youth gangs in Indian country? One tribe’s approach (ERIC digest; ED471717). Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center.

Hodges, V. P. (1994). Teaching writing to at-risk students in a rural high school. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Rural Education Association, Salt Lake City, UT.

Hosley, N. S., Hosley, J., & Thein, M. (2009). Survey and analysis of alternative education programs II. Harrisburg, PA: Center for Rural Pennsylvania.

Johnston, C., Cooch, G., & Pollard, C. (2004). A rural alternative school and its effectiveness for preventing dropouts. Rural Educator, 25(3), 25–29.

Liable, J., & Harrington, S. (1998). The power and the possibility of leading with alternative values. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(2), 111–135.

15

Brie�ng Paper

800-476-6861 | txcc.sedl.org

Linton, E. P. (2000). Alternative schooling for troubled youth in rural communities. School Administrator, 57(2), 47.

Marrs, H., Hemmert, E., & Jansen, J. (2007). Trouble in a small school: Perceptions of at-risk students in a rural high school. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 13(2), 29–35.

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students at risk. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/456.

Pollard, C. J., & Thorne, T. (2003). Student centered policies and practices help students “at risk” earn high school diploma. Rural Educator, 24(3), 27–33.

Raywid, M. A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art. Educational Leadership, 52(1), 26–31.

Rossi, R. J., Vergun, P. B., & Weise, L. J. (1997). Serving rural youth at risk: A portrait of collaboration and community. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(3), 213–227.

Schomburg, G., & Rippeth, M. (2009). Rethinking virtual school. Principal Leadership, 10(4), 32–36.

Smith, B. (2010). The Texas virtual school network. Principal Leadership, 10(8), 72–74.

Thorbahn, K. R. (1995). Saturday school and ALEC: Alternative discipline programs (ERIC Document ED385929).

Thurston, L. P. (2002). Practical partnerships: Analysis and results of a cooperative life skills program for at-risk rural youth. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(3), 313–326.

The contents of this briefing paper were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (S283B050020). The contents do not, however, necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Copyright© 2010 by SEDL. All right reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from SEDL. Permission may be requested by submitting an copyright request form online at www.sedl.org/about/copyright_request.html. After obtaining permission as noted, users may need to secure additional permissions from copyright holders whose work SEDL included to reproduce or adapt for this document.