• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Converging and Diverging Service Delivery Systems in Alternative Education Programs for Disabled and Non-Disabled Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System

Posted on: Tuesday, 11 October 2005, 03:01 CDT

By Atkins, Trent; Bullis, Michael; Todis, Bonnie

Abstract

This study is part of a directed research project funded by the Office of Special Education Programs. Using qualitative research methods, consisting of interviews and participant observations, the policies and procedures of three alternative education programs in various settings were investigated. These programs served youth with and without disabilities who were and were not involved in the juvenile justice system. The programs and participants were purposefully selected to delineate converging and diverging activities. Through flexible policies and procedures, the programs assisted youth in being connected to nearly all social services they needed. This included unique relationships with juvenile justice officials. The authors suggest that in order to hold alternative education program accountable, more oversight and more outcomes- based research is needed.

Alternative education first appeared on the American landscape in the 1960s (Raywid, 1999). Despite the proliferation of these programs, historically a generic description of what constitutes an alternative education program has been elusive (Atkins, 2001, Lehr & Lange, 2003). Smith (1974) defined an alternative school as any school that (a) provides alternative learning experiences beyond those provided by the traditional schools within its community and (b) is available to all students at no additional cost. By Smith's definition, there are numerous examples of these programs throughout the United States (e.g. school district sponsored programs, private alternative programs, charter schools, juvenile detention educational programs, adult education). Although alternative education programs appear to be serving multiple populations of youth, research documenting the effectiveness of the programs is scant. In order for alternative education programs to serve differing populations appropriately, research is clearly needed to describe and examine these programs and their services.

The option of placing a student who is at-risk to fail in school or is violent (a more recent concern due to school shootings and an increase in concern over school violence) into a separate learning environment may be an appealing option for students and school systems. For students, an alternative school could be a unique way of obtaining an education (e.g. more one-on-one attention, more flexibility in the school day to receive work related experiences instead of traditional academic classroom activities, shorter school days). These features of alternative education programs may assist the youth in positively engaging and avoiding further anti-social and criminal behaviors.

Alternative education programs may benefit school districts in at least three ways. By providing an alternative learning environment to students who have a history of violent behaviors, these programs serve as a safety net to protect schools systems from violence. Also, by offering remedial education courses, alternative education programs could assist youth in meeting state proficiency standards. Alternative education programs may also help school districts recover lost revenue due to early school leavers. For example, a student that would typically "drop-out" of the traditional school may, due to the alternative school's unique structure, find an alternative program more appealing. If the student stays enrolled in an alternative program the district can continue to collect state and federal funds for the student's daily attendance.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention first implemented alternative education programs for juvenile delinquents in the 1980s. Known officially as the Alternative Education Initiative, this program was implemented on the belief that schools could play a distinct role in curbing juvenile delinquency (Cottfredson, 1987). Researchers believed alternative education programs could provide disruptive students with a more intimate school experience, reduce disruption in the traditional school, and prevent the youth from becoming further involved with juvenile corrections (Garrison, 1987).

Katsyannis & Williams (1998) point out recent strengths, barriers and trends of alternative education programs in their national survey of state directors of alternative education. In their sample (n = 38) it was found that many states (73.7%) enjoyed the freedom of implementation and development of alternative education programs that address local needs. Local funds were said to be the primary source of funding (89.5%). Moreover, inadequate funding was overwhelmingly cited (95%) as being a barrier for the success of alternative education programs. Funding issues that seem to plague many school districts were not foreign to district funded alternative education programs.

Fitzsimons-Lovett (2001) suggests that two acts of congress expanded the mission and the number of youth served in alternative education programs: (a) The Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 and (b) The 1997 amendments to the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Gun Free Schools Act stated that students who brought weapons to school could be expelled from the school or sent to an alternative setting for at least 1 year. Additionally, the 1997 amendments to IDEA expanded the potential role of alternative education programs by mandating that placement in an "appropriate interim alternative setting" for up to 45 school days could be part of a student's Individual Education Program (IEP). An IEP team must approve of the placement, and if a student on an IEP is placed in an alternative education program, specialized educational services are to be continued. These two legislative acts have expanded the role of alternative education programs but at this time the future implications of these acts are unclear.

In sum, the role of alternative education programs in the United States has expanded over the last four decades. These roles have expanded to include more students with more diverse educational needs. These facts suggest that the alternative education programs are going to continue to proliferate, yet there is little research that documents the varying policies and procedures of these programs. The need to better understand them is urgent. By answering the following research question, this study provides research-based evidence documenting the converging and diverging components and procedures of alternative education programs and lays a foundation for an ongoing line of inquiry: How do alternative education programs in urban, suburban, and rural settings differentially serve youth involved in the juvenile justice system?

Method

Design

As part of a directed research project through the U.S. Depart of Education's Office of Special Education Programs, this study took place throughout the 2002-2003 academic year (October 2002 to June 2003). In early September we began identifying three programs located in the state of Oregon to take part in the project. From these three programs we asked staff members to identify possible participants. In October we began collecting data and the data collection process continued until June of 2003. As is recommended with qualitative research, data analysis began simultaneously with data collection. We wrote the results of this study in May and June of 2003.

We conducted a cross-case analysis of three alternative education programs to obtain rich and detailed information that documented and described how alternative education programs serve youth on probation. One of these programs was private and was located in a suburban environment. The other two were public school programs. One of the public programs was located in a rural environment and the other was located in an urban environment. The participants for this study included (a) male and female youth with disabilities who were involved in the juvenile justice system, their family members, probation officers, and program staff members; and (b) male and female youth involved in the juvenile justice system who were not disabled, their parents, juvenile justice officials, and staff members of the programs. Next we describe the methodological procedures for this study.

Cross-case Analysis

Cross-case analysis (Schwandt, 1997) is a research method used to examine a concept, theory, or a social process across multiple cases. Schwandt explained that cross-case analysis has historical roots in sociology and was used by the most predominant sociological theorists (e.g., Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber). Yin (1989) explained that this type of design subscribes to replication logic and is useful for identifying findings by comparing and contrasting multiple cases. Stake (1995) referred to cross-case analysis as a collective case study. Stake explained that single or multiple cases may be used to investigate an existing issue, concept, or problem. To answer the research question, we developed case studies and conducted a cross-case analysis of the programs based on participant observations and through semi-structures interviews, the perspectives of youth, his or her parents, juvenile justice o\fficials, and program staff.

Qualitative Research Methodology

Qualitative research, or naturalistic research, is defined by Bercovici (1981) as a method of understanding (a) the system or environment in which the participant is engaged, and (b) the unique perspective of the participant. A holistic ecocultural awareness is needed to fully understand youth involved with the juvenile justice system and to design interventions that are acceptable, sustainable, and effective (Keogh & Weisner, 1993). A major objective of this study was to obtain an emic or "insider's view" of educational services provided to youth on probation. When studying phenomena that are unfamiliar to researchers and policy makers, it is important to obtain an emic perspective (Spencer, 1993). Youth on probation have a unique perspective that is not clearly understood by policymakers and individuals developing alternative education programs. Qualitative research methods were the best way to obtain this type of rich and detailed information. Such information will help bridge the gap between research and practice which has historically been a barrier in the effectiveness of educational research (Carnine, 1997). To date, in the case of alternative education programs, practitioners have had a miniscule amount of research-based information to use when developing effective programs.

Settings

Purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990) was used to identify participating programs. This sampling technique allowed us to identify specific programs that have a positive reputation for serving youth on probation. By using purposeful sampling, we were confident that the programs were appropriate for answering the research question. An administrator from the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) assisted us in identifying programs that he knew served the needs of youth on probation. To meet the sampling criteria, one private alternative education program located in an urban setting was selected. This program, Creekside School and Career Center (CSCC), is located in a suburban setting in Western Oregon. Likewise, the ODE administrator assisted us in selecting two public alternative education programs-one in a rural and one in an urban setting-that served youth on probation. The Train Education Center (TEC, located in North Central Oregon) and Vision High School (VHS, located in Northwest Oregon) were selected. From these three programs, 16 youth were identified to take part in this study (see Tables 1, 2, and 3 for summaries of the programs).

Participants

We also used purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990) to recruit youth who were on probation and were enrolled in an alternative education program. Selection of participants was made by asking staff members of the alternative education programs to nominate youth on probation and that were disabled (n = 7) and nondisabled (n = 9), male (n = 10) and female (n = 6). To secure participants we asked a staff member to read a recruitment script to the nominated youth and his or her parents if he or she was under the age of 18 and to the youth only if the youth was older than 18 years of age. After the staff member received permission from the youth and his or her parents for us to make contact, we contacted the youth and/or his or her parents, asked them to participate, had them sign consent forms, and then proceeded with the data collection process. From this pool of nominees we selected 16 student participants, representing male and female youth that are disabled and nondisabled. Though current IEPs were not available for all of the students with disabilities, staff reported that each of the students had a label of learning disability (LD) or emotional behavior disorder (EBD). At the beginning of the study students ranged in age from 14 to 20. Other participants for this study included: (a) administrators, (b) staff, (c) parents, and (d) juvenile justice officials. Table 4 highlights the number of (a) participants from each program, (b) interviews with participants, and (c) observations that were conducted at the program, work sites, and at the homes of students and parents. In total, including the 16 students, there were 43 participants that took part in this study.

Table 1. Program Characteristics and Components of TEC

Table 2. Program Characteristics and Components of CSCC

Table 3. Program Characteristics and Components of VHS

A sample size of 43 is appropriate for qualitative research and ensured that sufficient data were collected to thoroughly understand how alternative education programs serve youth on probation (Goetz & Lecompte, 1984). These sampling procedures ensured that multiple perspectives were taken into account for the comparison of how alternative education programs served youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Sampling these sites and participants purposely allows for maximum variation (Cuba & Lincoln, 1989). Maximum variation ensured that the data represented the broadest possible range of variation found in private and public alternative education programs that are located in varied environments. Additionally, it ensured that the perspectives of male and female youth that were disabled and are not disabled were adequately sampled.

Table 4. Participants, Interviews, and Observations for each Program

Observations

Through participant observation we interacted in the natural environment of participants. To make observations as unobtrusive as possible, we took brief notes and no recording devices were used. After an observation we wrote extensive field notes of what we had observed and our interpretation of what had taken place. It was important that direct observations and interpretations were recognized as separate activities but both were essential to the data analysis process (Goetz & Lecompte, 1984).

Observations of the youth took place in the environment in which they are engaged. For example, if the youth was currently attending an alternative education program, participant observations took place there. For some participants who were engaged in employment activities, observations took place in that work environment. Generally, the rule for qualitative research is to observe until there is saturation of the data (Goetz & Lecompte, 1984). In this study, observations lasted for approximately 3 hours across the entire range of the school or workday. We observed each youth a maximum of three times over the course of the school year. There were a total of 21 observations conducted. We observed in each of these environments until it was unlikely we would observe new activities or operations that were pertinent to this study.

Interviews

Initial semi-structured interviews were conducted with the head administrator of each alternative education program. By interviewing the head administrator first, we obtained an overview of the program policies and a history of the programs. As the study progressed, less formal interviews were conducted with administrators to get more refined details and to check the accuracy of the preliminary findings. This type of interaction took place in brief conversations, over the telephone and via email. This type of informal interviews were recorded in the observational notes.

Likewise, by conducting semi-structured interviews with other participants, we collected a historical background of the participant. Since multiple interviews were conducted with students and some parents, the initial interview allowed us to establish rapport with the participant. Subsequent interviews were less structured to allow participants to elaborate about their experiences with the alternative education program. In the last interview session, participants were encouraged to expand on specific information that was needed to finalize the theory development about his or her experience with alternative education programs.

All interviews with the youth were conducted at their school or on the telephone.

Interviews with the parents or guardians of the youth took place at their homes and on the telephone. Interviews with the parents were also semistructured. The interview sessions with parents allowed us to collect field notes concerning the home environment of the family. Such environmental data was valuable when conducting data analysis and developing theories of progress for the youth.

Additional interviews were conducted with juvenile justice officials that worked directly with the programs and key staff members who worked with the youth. These interviews took place at the probation officer's or staff member's current place of employment. In total, youth were interviewed one to three times; parents or guardians, probation officers, and key staff members who agreed to take part in the projects were interviewed at least one time. Initial interviews with students took approximately 1 hour and subsequent interviews lasted 15 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes. There were a total of 61 interviews conducted. With the exception of four interviews, all formal interviews were audio taped, transcribed, and entered into NVIVO (see Fielding and Lee, 1998, for a detailed discussion of computer assisted qualitative data analysis). NVIVO was used to organize and analyze this large amount of data.

Data Analysis

Data analysis took place simultaneously with data collection (Ferguson, Ferguson, & Jones, 1988). As the project proceeded, data were coded to identify key variables or themes that emerged from interviews and observations. These initial codes were parallel with the topics that were covered in the interview guide and represented the converging and diverging procedures and policies of the program. Codes were refined into more specific categories that answered the research question. More specifically, we entered transcribed interviews and word-processed field notes into NVlVO. Throughout the course of the study we reviewed the data and coded specific quotations or observation\s with codes that characterized the quotation or observation. As the project progressed, we compared new data to previous codes, and tested the legitimacy of these codes and categories, and changed code names when necessary. Codes were arranged into categories to facilitate the detection of patterns in the data. These patterns highlighted similarities and differences between the programs and the participants in these environments.

Throughout the data collection process, by writing explanatory memos and discussing particular aspects of the project with research team members through e-mail and research meetings, we expanded on codes and categories as well as the emerging patterns and theories. These memos allowed us to process the data that we collected and guided future data collection activities. In essence, these explanatory memos were a method by which we documented how we reached certain conclusions about how alternative education programs serve youth involved in the juvenile justice system. By documenting the analytical process in this manner, we were able to "retrace" our analytical steps and identify flaws or inconsistencies in conclusions.

As the data collection was nearing an end, we wrote case studies of each of the programs. The case studies addressed both the structure of the program and the groups of participants involved in the program. By writing these case studies, we organized the program related data in similar formats in order to compare and contrast program components.

Accuracy of Conclusions

To ensure the accuracy of information that was generated and the subsequent theories, triangulation (Denzin, 1970) and member checks (Cuba a Lincoln, 1989) were used. Triangulation is a method of checking one source of information against multiple other sources. For example, if a youth stated in an interview that job coaching was a major factor in their success, that information was verified through interviews with key staff in the alternative program (did the student receive job coaching?) and through observations of the youth's behavior (is it evident that the student received job coaching?). Member checks were used to rule out misinterpretation of data. For example, after the case studies were completed, clarification of unclear statements was solicited from participants, and the participants had the opportunity to compare tentative conclusions to their personal observations. Triangulation and member checks increased the accuracy or "believability" of the findings.

The analytical activities that we conducted-progressively collecting more specific data, coding and collapsing data into categories, organizing the categories to explain reoccurring or contrasting patterns, writing explanatory memos including individual case studies of each program, and triangulating specific data with other data sources to ensure accuracy-we highlighted the differential components of these alternative education programs and how they served youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

Results

How do alternative education programs in urban, suburban, and rural settings differentially serve youth involved in the juvenile justice system?

Though the purpose of this article is to address the programmatic characteristics of the program, it is necessary to briefly address the characteristics of the students (an article examining the characteristics and perspectives of the student participants is in progress). Examination of the program context and of the overall student population in the programs revealed similarities and differences between the populations of students in the various settings. There were three categories between the student populations that highlight these similarities and differences: (a) cultural and social diversity, (b) gang involvement and awareness, and (c) drug use. These characteristics of the students in the three various settings were responsible for a large part of the unique student cultures of the program.

In addition to understanding the student populations, it is also important to understand each program's role within their respective communities and districts. Next, to make these roles more clear, the access to other alternative education programs available to students in the community and district is described. Please note Tables 1, 2 and 3 provide summaries of these three alternative education programs.

Access to Other Programs

Though the rural town had considerably fewer residents, the number of students enrolled at TEC (140 students) was comparable to the number of students enrolled at VHS (195 students). Since many of the students attended a half-day program, CSCC served twice as many students (399 students) as the other programs. Because the programs were located in more populated areas, and consequently more programs existed, the students that attended both VHS and CSCC had multiple programs to choose from when they were referred to alternative education.

This issue of access to other programs made the role of the programs different in each of their respective communities and cooperating school districts. More specifically, VHS and CSCC served only a fraction of students in their communities who wanted to attend an alternative education program, whereas, TEC served all students who wanted to attend such a program. That is, the students in the small rural town had no other alternative education options than TEC. Apparently TEC became a more popular and accessible option in this rural town indicated by an increase in student enrollment over the course of the school year (from 117 to 140 students).

TEC and VHS were operated by county Education Service Districts, which are publicly funded organizations. In contrast, CSCC was operated by a private non-profit organization. Ongoing analyses revealed five categories that clarify the similarities and differences of the programs based in part on their public or private affiliation: (a) characteristics of the administrative structure and the staff members, (b) the funding mechanisms of the programs, (c) student access to support services, (d) student access to parenting services, and (e) the "connectedness" with the program and the local juvenile justice system. Each of these results is addressed.

Administrative Structures and Staff Members

Each of the programs had distinctive administrative structures. The similarities and differences, including the role of administrator and teacher certification of each are discussed.

For the most part, the administrative duties of TEC were the responsibility of Lance who also was the head, and only teacher. In some instances, such as when a student's behavior was creating a problem at the school, Lance could ask his supervisor to come and provide assistance. Four females who had the title of Vocational Trainers (VTs) assisted Lance. He spent a significant portion of his day fielding phone calls from SESD officials and outside agencies dealing with students who attended TEC. The VTs did a majority of one-on-one instruction with students and worked with students to prepare the school lunches. Not only was Lance in charge of both administration and teaching at TEC, he also did minor maintenance work on the building including cleaning the school restrooms.

Cate, the administrator of CSCC, also played a variety of roles. She was in charge of four supervisors, wrote grants, pursued other funding options, and substituted for teachers and the school cook. Staff members even mentioned that in times past, Gate would scrub walls and the restrooms. She was often seen going from one task to the next in a hurried yet focused manner. In the last few years, four supervisors had been added to the program to help Gate accomplish the variety of administrative tasks.

Along with a head administrator and the supervisors, there were more than 20 other staff members involved in the activities of CSCC. The supervisors, who also taught classes, and the other teachers were also case managers. Each staff member had a caseload of between 10 to 20 students and was responsible for assisting students in staying engaged in the school and overseeing their progress to completion. Therefore, the responsibilities of the teaching staff at CSCC went beyond the typical responsibilities of teachers.

Compared to the other administrators, Carla, the administrator of VHS, played the most typical role of a school principal. This role can best be explained not by what she did do, but what she did not do. More specifically, Carla did not do maintenance work at the school, and NESD supplied substitutes when they were needed so she did not have to substitute for teachers. Carla was, however, actively involved in activities of the school and on one occasion during observations, she responded to and helped break up a confrontation between two students, indicating her desire and willingness to work directly with students.

There were nine teachers and multiple other support staff at VHS. Each of the teachers had students in a homeroom where students checked in when they arrived at school and after lunch each day. Much like CSCC, the teachers, along with their teaching responsibilities, also did case management with the students in his or her homeroom. Though these additional responsibilities were far more than those of a teacher in a typical school, this arrangement of the teachers also serving as case managers was perceived as being a positive feature of these programs. It was clear that this system allowed staff and students to develop the positive relationships that were found to be so important to staff and students alike.

Certification. The state procedures and processes for the certification of education professionals are beyond the scope of this study, but the fact that Oregon law allows alternative education programs to hire teachers and administrators who are not certified explains in part how these programs serve \youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Except for public charter schools where only 50% of the teaching staff need to be certified, typical public schools must have all certified staff, highlighting a different standard for staff members working in alternative education programs. Carla was the only certified administrator in the three programs. As for teachers, it became clear that even at VHS where all teachers were certified in various subject areas, the teaching skills of the teachers were not always the most important skills to possess. The ability to build relationships with students was the highest priority.

CSCC, the private program, was the only program that hired teachers who were not certified. A noncertified teacher for CSCC who took part in this study believed she was "not missing anything" by not being certified. Other staff members and students believed she was a good science teacher, and during observations her lessons were creative and she sought to engage students in hands on activities.

Lance, from TEC, was certified as a social studies teacher but was not certified as a school administrator. At CSCC, though, Cate was highly respected as the program administrator, and she was not certified. Apparently, her more than 20 years of social work experience provided her with the skill and knowledge she needed to administrate the largest of the three programs. Once again, the effects of these certification issues are beyond the scope of this study, but the legality of having a noncertified administrator highlights a different standard for alternative education programs- especially for private programs.

Funding

As with the administrative units, each of the programs had slight variations on a funding mechanism that allowed them to serve students with various needs (the specific details about funding are located in Tables 1, 2, and 3). In short, each of the programs served these youth with fewer per student dollars than the home school district would have served them with if the student had attended a high school within the district. Both VHS and CSCC actively sought funding and had different arrangements with different districts and other funding agencies for students with various needs (e.g., OYA). TEC served students at one rate (80% of ADM) with no regard to the additional need of the students (e.g., special education or parenting teens). During interviews and observations it became apparent that there was an effort by the respective administrators from VHS and CSCC to recruit students (e.g., putting ads in local high school newspapers) indicating some degree of need or desire to generate funding.

These funding situations may have been tied to the number of staff members and the type of instruction the programs provided. That is, both VHS and CSCC had considerably more teachers with a wide range of skills who taught in a more traditional style. Conversely, TEC had only one teacher and all academic credits were earned through individual packet work. The degree to which the programs offered youth services beyond typical educational services may also have been influenced by the funding mechanisms. The access to support and parenting services is discussed next.

Access to Support Services

VHS and CSCC offered a multitude of support services connected directly to the program. These two programs offered students (a) drug and alcohol counseling, (b) anger management classes, (c) parenting groups, (d) homeless services, (e) job placement, and (f) formal job training. Students and staff from the respective programs believed sufficient services were offered. Gate and Carla both pointed out they would like to offer more services for youth who were homeless. In essence, within the school day, students at both VHS and CSCC could receive nearly any service they needed.

With the exception of receiving support for special education services from the local school district, TEC had virtually no support services connected directly to the program. Staff pointed out that if the youth needed some type of service, the service could be arranged for them within the community. Staff mentioned the proximity of the services and how most services were easy for students to access. However, as will be pointed out in the next section, if a student from TEC had significant issues, they would have to go to a large city to receive the services (approximately 80 miles).

Access to Parenting Services

Access to childcare and parenting services was perceived as a necessary feature for many of the youth. Nearly half of the youth at VHS had children and the program had an attached childcare center. The children who attended this program had an influence on the overall culture of the school. Students with children were often seen interacting with their children during the school day. Teaching staff were also observed helping the young parents with his or her children. VHS also offered a father's group to help male youth learn about fatherhood.

CSCC also offered parenting services at a separate location. The parenting youth could attend CSCC but generally did not. There had only been one male youth to ever attend the parenting program. Staff at TEC did see parenting services as a need of the program. Unfortunately, unlike many of the other services needed by many of the students (drug and alcohol, health related issues), accessible childcare for young mothers was a service that was not available at the program or in this rural community.

Next, the (a) curriculum and instructional approaches and (b) flexible program policies and the relative subcategories are presented.

Curriculum and Instruction

Three major categories regarding approaches to curriculum and instruction, (a) small group or one to one instruction, (b) packet work, and (c) creative instructional strategies including a focus on careers, typified how the programs served these youth. The results from each of these categories are presented. Small Group or One-to- One Instruction. Each of the programs offered students a lower staff to student ratio than is found in typical high schools. The programs provided this lower staff to student ratio in various ways. This low staff to student ratio was beneficial for all students-not just students with disabilities. CSCC was the only program that offered specific instructional services for youth with disabilities. CSCC provided youth with additional reading instruction and one-to-one tutoring when it was needed. TEC also provided one-to-one assistance but this was generally provided by the VTs and not by a certified teacher. TEC also received some support from the local school district to provide special education services to students on IEPs. For example, Ed periodically accessed speech and language by either going to the high school or by the speech and language pathologist coming to TEC. VHS employed the homeroom model to support students with one to one and small group instruction and had support staff to provide tutoring.

Packets. Another instructional approach that was used to help students obtain credits and move towards completion was the use of "packets." Predetermined packets of work, which consisted of photocopied readings, questions, and tests from textbooks were an option for students in each of the programs. These packets were the sole form of instruction at TEC. This single approach to learning was perceived as an insufficient form of instruction to the education supervisor at CSCC. In previous years, CSCC had used packet work as their instructional method but the teaching staff provided the impetus for a transition to offering traditional classes in conjunction with packet work. Gate saw this transition as crucial and had recently set a limit of one packet course per student. Packets were used to some degree at VHS but only to supplement other forms of instruction and help students obtain credits outside of the school day.

Creative Instructional Strategies. At all three programs there was an emphasis to engage students in creative, hands-on learning activities, often with a focus on career skills and knowledge. This instructional approach was done in various ways. By far, CSCC offered the widest range of options for students to be involved in vocational classes. VHS had a clear goal of offering students employment skills but had fewer options than CSCC. Two options for obtaining employment skills at VHS included working in the school cafeteria and taking part in Habitats for Humanity. TEC provided employment skills and credits for working in the school kitchen-a popular option with staff and students.

In combination with students being engaged in career related courses, teachers at VHS and CSCC also used other creative approaches for getting students involved in learning. Some approaches included building miniature volcanoes in the classroom, designing alternative housing structures, and projects based on developing cosmetology skills. The sole option of completing packets, a complete lack of traditional instruction, and a lack of this type of creativity in the program were noticeable differences at TEC.

Next, the role of the IEP for youth with disabilities is discussed followed by a description of a temporary self-contained classroom at VHS. Then, a theme addressing the shortage of curricular options for some youth is presented.

Finally, the flexible policies of the programs and how they addressed the needs of disabled and nondisabled youth are presented.

Role of the IEP

Though staff assumed the youth who were nominated had LD or ED, only CSCC had IEPs on hand for all of the students and could provide documentation of a specific, identified disability. CSCC had a special education supervisor who organized IEPs and kept track of student progress toward meeting specific IEP goals. This detailed attention was not evident at either TEC or VHS.

Most of the teachers who were interviewedbelieved the IEP did little to help them educate the youth with disabilities. No teachers, besides the supervisor from CSCC, discussed how he or she used IEPs. Some teachers pointed out that many of the goals on the IEPs were extremely vague and at times not applicable to the students for which they were written. Interestingly, both VHS and CSCC had forms similar to an IEP that specifically addressed the transition goals of all students. The implementation of these plans was the responsibility of the homeroom teacher at VHS and the case manager at CSCC.

The Temporary Self-Contained Classroom at VHS

VHS was the only program that specifically served youth with ED. The program had obtained a contract to serve 20 youth with this particular special education disability. Shortly after the holiday break, and after an escalation in behavior problems in the program, Carla decided to pull 15 students into a selfcontained classroom. Interestingly, the 15 students were not all identified as having ED, nor were all of the students at VHS identified as having ED served in this classroom. More precisely, some youth had the ED label, but their behavior was not extreme enough to warrant placement in the self-contained class. Jill, a teacher who had an elementary teaching background and was described as an "elementary type teacher," was assigned to teach in this class. During observations in this classroom there were multiple confrontations and student outbursts. A generous description of the classroom would be "chaotic." To maintain order, an attempt was made to establish a token economy within the classroom. The token economy and the self-contained classroom were unsuccessful (note that VHS did have a schoolwide token economy) and after a short period the self-contained classroom was disbanded. Most of the students who were in the self-contained classroom were integrated back into their homeroom.

Apparently, no reintegration strategies were successful for three male students who were in the self-contained classroom. In later observations these three young men roamed the halls, virtually at will, with Jill and the hall monitor responsible for monitoring their behavior. Carla willingly admitted that the self-contained classroom was a failure. Yet she pointed out that as an autonomous alternative program, she had the flexibility to create the self- contained classroom and provided the staff time to brainstorm for more effective options for addressing the inappropriate behaviors of some of the students.

Shortage of Curricular Options

Another theme that emerged during interviews with youth and their parents was a lack of curricular options. Justin from TEC, Martha from VHS, and Trevor and Skye from CSCC mentioned a lack of either (a) mathematics and/or (b) science courses at the respective programs. Some of these same students described their respective programs as being "easy' and not challenging. Some had taken all of the available math and science options and were told simply there were no other options.

Interestingly, Lance helped Justin get enrolled in the local community college where he took math and science courses that were not offered at TEC. Justin received As and Bs in each of the courses he attended. At the end of the school year, Justin graduated from TEC and had obtained college credits. Presumably, this linkage to local community colleges was an option at VHS and CSCC but was not accessed by any of the target youth in this study.

Policies

If the unique curricular and instructional flexibility of the programs was how the youth were served, the flexible policies were how the programs attracted the youth to the program in order to serve them. More precisely, the target youth had either been forced to leave his or her home school or had made the decision to leave. For various reasons and through various pathways, these youth entered one of these three programs. Therefore, these programs must have been more appealing to students than other options including dropping out, or for those students who were court ordered to attend the program, being incarcerated. It became clear that the policies of these programs were what attracted many of the youth. These policies included (a) flexible attendance options (b) smoking policies (c) school completion options, and (d) a "no expulsion" policy at VHS. These policies are presented as individual subsections.

Attendance. Each of the programs had attendance schedules that were different from those of a typical school. Most pronounced was the reduced number of hours the youth attended school (see program tables for specific details). Also evident at each of the programs was the option for students to attend school at various times of the day ranging from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. It should also be mentioned that some of the teachers also stated that these flexible attendance policies were a benefit of working at the program.

Smoking. As compared to what is commonplace in typical schools, these programs had smoking policies that allowed students-whether formally or not-to leave the classroom, smoke a cigarette, and return to the class without consequence. A quote from the education supervisor at CSCC captures the mutual philosophies of the programs regarding the cigarette smoking habits of many of the youth:

These are alternative school students, 70% of them smoke cigarettes. We tell them no, they're going to leave. That lack of conflict, power conflict over smoking, which is such a problem in the teen culture-especially these teens-allows them to feel safe. Okay, 1 will leave campus, I will go smoke a cigarette, I will come back.' Rather than, 'I will leave campus and be chased all around the community and not come back.' Their behaviors, I find, are a little bit better at this institution because of the off-campus relationship we have. We trust them to go off campus and come back and 90% of the time that's the case. The other campus we tried to confine them downstairs in a parking lot. It felt like we were probably grounding them like pre-schoolers more than trusting them to do the right thing. I think that trust has been returned. They do come in on time now for class. It's amazing, they go further off campus and come back on time for class. In our old building they just went downstairs but it was harder to get them to go back upstairs to class. There's the change in behavior.

Completion Options. Across the three settings there were three completion options for students. These options varied based on the amount of time a youth needed to be involved in the program and the amount of work they needed to complete in order to be finished.

The option that required the most time and effort was the typical diploma that was awarded by each of the programs. This option required students to complete all of the credit requirements set forth by the State of Oregon for a school district or other entity to award a high school diploma. Though the requirements were the same (obtaining 23 credits in various subjects), the curricular and instructional flexibility of the programs allowed the student to obtain credits faster while being in attendance less often.

The CED was another option for youth who were 16 or older. This was an option for students at all of the programs and was attractive to many students because it required only that the student pass a series of tests. Therefore, youth who are 16 or older could pass the tests and be finished with high school and not be required by compulsory attendance laws to attend school any longer.

An intriguing finding about the CED and how it related to youth with disabilities emerged during this study. For example, Cina had been attending CSCC with the goal of obtaining the GED. Over the course of the year she took classes and the GED practice tests until she passed them successfully. She admitted her inability to spell well (she was identified as having LD), and in order to pass the GED, she had to write an essay that was graded with a specific rubric (correct spelling was part of the rubric). It was never clear how Gina was scored by staff on the essay component of the GED to account for her poor spelling skills. Without doubt, accommodations that are commonly used in special education (e.g., additional time to take the test or the use of a dictionary or spelling device) would have been appropriate for Cina.

Surprisingly, the process for a student with a disability to receive accommodations in order to take the GED was both time consuming and costly. That is, the youth with a disability must pay a private psychologist to show, above and beyond the special education assessment process and identification, that he or she had a disability that warrants accommodations. Gina pointed out that one of the reasons she liked CSCC was because they paid for her to take the GED, but as the special education supervisor pointed out, CSCC was not able financially to pay for the additional assessments. As her teacher highlighted, Gina was not a good test taker, could not spell, and had to complete an essay to pass the GED. At the end of the year, Gina had not taken the GED test.

The Adult Basic Education Diploma (ABED) was an option only at CSCC. The ABED was awarded to students who complete the requirements of the 10th grade-11.5 credits of state determined courses (approximately the first half of the 23 credits for a typical diploma). Staff at CSCC had mixed opinions about the ABED. The education supervisor believed the ABED should not exist because too many students were setting this as their goal, and having an ABED did not indicate a youth was prepared for adult life. On the contrary, another teacher believed the ABED was a good option for some youth, and, due to the academic difficulties many experience it was an appropriate option for youth with disabilities. Another interesting perception of the ABED espoused by the special educationsupervisor at CSCC was that "it is better than nothing." She clarified that if the completion of the ABED assisted a youth in staying engaged in school until the completion of the 10th grade, it is better than the youth not attending at all between 9th and 10th grades.

No Expulsion. VHS had a no expulsion policy which, in part, explains the more extreme behaviors (swearing, fighting, disrespect towards staff) that were observed there. Carla believed that VHS was the last educational option for many of the students. Basically, if a youth was expelled from VHS, it was highly unlikely he or she would attend any other typical school or another alternative program. The staff at VHS was more accepting of extreme behaviors, and the no expulsion policy forced the staff to find ways to contend with these inappropriate behaviors. Carla admitted that the policy had been breeched on occasion, and during the 2002-2003 school year one target youth was expelled from VHS for the remainder of the year. Jim, a youth with academic and behavior related disabilities, was expelled from VHS for several violent outbursts and ultimately for being involved in the theft of a staff member's keys and then threatening another youth for exposing his involvement in the theft. Since there were no other educational options for him, Carla stated that Jim would probably be admitted back into VHS for the 2003-2004 school year.

The curricular and instructional options and the flexible policies assisted the programs in serving youth with varying academic abilities and behavioral challenges. These policies differed slightly across settings. Also, there was variance in the way the programs collaborated with the juvenile justice system.

Connectedness with the Juvenile Justice System and the Programs

At the beginning of this study it was clear that, to some degree, all three alternative education programs and the juvenile justice system worked cooperatively. The purpose of this study was not to explain the degree of cooperation but how the two entities cooperated. During the initial stages of the project, it became apparent that the administration and the staff knew many of their students were involved with the juvenile justice system, but in most cases, they did not know to what specific degree the youth were involved. For example, only one of the programs, the rural program, TEC, was able to provide specific numbers of how many students were involved with the juvenile justice system at any given time. The lack of clarity in the other programs was evident by several of the students being nominated who were not actually on probation but in various stages of the juvenile justice system ranging from diversion to parole. In the case of Macio from VHS, he was on parole, and four of the six nominees from CSCC had never formally been placed on probation but had been on diversion or had signed a Formal Accountability Agreement. Pointing out that administrators and staff did not know the different stages of involvement is not meant to be criticism. On the contrary, as this project progressed it was evident that the programs were structured in such a flexible manner, that the stage of involvement of the student was of little importance. In short, if a probation officer (PO or court counselor as they were officially called) wanted to be involved with the youth's education, each of the programs facilitated and encouraged those interactions.

VHS and the Juvenile Justice System. VHS was the only program that had an in-house staff person whose specific duties pertained to students on probation and parole. She was hired for VHS as part of a contract to serve youth who had left OYA correctional facilities. Even with this specific staff person, one teacher believed that interaction between the VHS and OYA was reserved for when there were problems with a student. Yet, a PO from Nashington County discussed how it was easier to deal with the staff from alternative education programs and especially VHS. This PO also highlighted how important it was to maintain a positive relationship with the local school and alternative programs, and she made it clear that alternative education programs were more accepting of her interactions with youth on probation during the school day. She also pointed out that during this school year, due to a budget shortfall, she was not permitted to file a probation violation against a youth unless it was a major offense. Since these restrictions changed the way in which she could deal with youth on her caseload, including youth involved in this project, this finding was particularly relevant.

TEC and the Juvenile Justice System. SESD (which operated TEC) also operated corrections-based education programs, but there was no formal relationship between TEC and the local juvenile justice system. The close proximity of TEC and the juvenile justice office building, along with the relationships that Lance, the head teacher, had built with the local POs, both played a role in how students on probation were served in this rural community. A PO from this town had witnessed the development and the first two years of operation of TEC. He believed the program was a much-needed addition to the local community and felt that Lance did an excellent job with the students. While the relationship between TEC and the juvenile justice system was not formal, it could be described as "close- knit." This PO had worked with adults in the Seatown, Oregon area and was asked to discuss the differences between working in an urban and a rural setting. He believed by having TEC in town, youth were less likely to be sent to more restrictive residential programs:

Well, it was the adult system so it was different than our system here. The caseloads in my office were higher but again, they were adults. caseloads over there were 80 to 100 adults. caseloads here with juveniles are 40 to 60. The difference is in the rural areas we are sending out lots of referrals to the urban areas for programs for youth. If you live or you work in Seatown, a lot of the resources are there for you already. We have some resources here but a lot of the referrals we send out on kids for residential programs are for treatment.

CSCC and the Juvenile Justice System. An administrator at Link County DYS pointed out how some students also do well in typical schools while they are on probation and that alternative education programs were not the only option for these youth. He also pointed out that students are often mandated to attend school by the juvenile court, and at times youth were mandated to a specific alternative program instead of the youth being incarcerated.

POs from Link County had closer relationships to some alternative education programs than others and one of these was CSCC. Staff members at CSCC discussed how the involvement of POs varied by each individual PO. More specifically, one PO may set up a meeting with the youth at the school and ask the youth's teachers, parents, and counselors to attend, whereas another PO may never come to the program to see youth on his or her caseload. A teacher at CSCC had found that the involvement of POs was inconsistent, and he had seen that a lack of involvement and consistency by one particular PO was harmful to one of his students. He believed if this PO had been more involved with this youth, the youth would have changed his inappropriate behaviors that were getting him in trouble at school. One PO from Link County admitted he did not work with schools as much as he could but appreciated the options that were available to youth on his caseload.

A quote by the DYS administrator from Link County pointed out the difference in the communities his department had to serve and how different POs addressed youth and their involvement in school differently:

Eighty percent of these kids [involved in the juvenile justice system] aren't enrolled in any school anywhere. When we look at risk factors, school performance is one of the major risk factors to predict future delinquency and repeat offenses, chronic school problems, and expulsions. Suspensions are indicative of someone that's likely to get in trouble with the law or re-offend again. So we know school is a huge issue. Now keep in mind we're a county agency and there's a lot of difference between Mapleridge, Joiner, Midtown, Hunter, Pineville each community has a different culture. We have POs that serve just Mapleridge and the Mapleridge PO is everything with all people and they carry intake cases, they carry probation cases, if they have parolees that are back in their community they'll see them and they network very closely with the school. Same thing in Joiner, same thing Midtown and Forest is it's kind of one castle of the community and so the school works closely with them. So a kid on probation acts out in first period they're calling the parole officer or probation officer in many instances, so it isn't unitorm an arouna tne county necessarily...So counselors, POs, and parole officers are closely knit with the schools and it's something we monitor and track.

Summary of Results

In summary, these results show that each of the programs served a diverse population of youth and that VHS had a wider range of demographic diversity than the other programs. VHS also had to deal with gang issues on a regular basis. All of the programs had to address drug and alcohol use and abuse, but only VHS and CSCC offered counseling for this specific need. Also, do to be located in more populated areas, VHS and CSCC were part of a larger network of alternative programs, and youth could choose from several options. Conversely, TEC was the only option for students in the rural setting. The administrative structure and the funding mechanisms were unique to each program. Since they served youth for the least amount of money of the three programs, the funding mechanisms resulted in fewerteachers and fewer services at TEC. A lack of services resulted in students having to go to other areas to receive services, and parenting services were seen as a need for some female youth. Also, each program had unique systems for offering curricular and instructional options to serve students involved in special education and those in general education. The completion options between the programs were not uniform. This, in some instances, created unique challenges for youth in special education.

Finally, the relationship or "connectedness" between the programs and the juvenile justice system was apparent in each of the programs. These relationships varied across sites from an on site OYA staff person to a very personal relationship between Lance and the POs of his students at TEC. This relationship was facilitated in part by the close proximity of the school and the POs office. The direct relationships were less pronounced at the two larger programs, and some staff were critical of the lack of involvement of some POs. It was pointed out that in the suburban community, since the juvenile justice system served youth from a wide range of settings (very rural to urban), there was a need to address a wide range of cultural issues.

Discussion

Limitations

The results of this study provided a description of alternative education for youth involved in the juvenile justices system, but these findings are limited in two specific ways. In the introduction of this paper we presented evidence that alternative education programs and a portion of the procedures that guide these programs are mandated by laws in many states (Katsyannis & Williams, 1998). Different interpretations of these laws may result in drastically different programs and procedures for serving youth on probation than were found in Oregon. Therefore, these results may not accurately describe all programs and how they serve youth on probation in other states.

Second, the scope of this project, spanning three programs, 16 target youth, their parents, guardians, multiple school administrators, teachers, school staff, and juvenile justice officials, culminated in more "broad" findings than "depth" findings (Rossman 9 Rallis, 1998). More precisely, a depth approach, focusing on one program and one target youth, would have permitted more time and resources for investigating one youth's progress through the school year and resulted in more in-depth findings about how one alternative education program served the needs of that youth. From a qualitative perspective, either approach would have provided worthwhile and informative results. The broad approach that we used resulted in converging and diverging findings among three programs and across the lives of 16 youth and provides a wide-range of perspectives of how these programs served youth on probation. In retrospect, as is the case with all research, if the focus would have been slightly different, or if the methods and analyses would have been conducted differently, this study would have been better. As Kenneth Burk (1935) pointed out, "A way of seeing is always a way of not seeing" (p.70). Stated differently, we cannot investigate every facet of every social phenomenon, and in essence by choosing to investigate one facet we sacrifice learning about another. Given the current agenda of educational research-ensuring that practices that have been proven effective are implemented in our schools- and since they provide the first description of how alternative education programs serve youth on probation, these findings should be welcomed. This study fills a large gap in the education and special education research bases and will be a catalyst for more in- depth research about alternative education programs from both qualitative and quantitative points of view.

Implications for Research

As we have pointed out in the study, there is a pronounced gap in the educational research regarding alternative education programs. This study provided a descriptive glimpse of the activities in these programs, but there is great need for more quality research. These initial stages of describing alternative education programs provides the stepping stones for further research that can assess the effectiveness of these programs. Optimally, this first wave of research will spawn projects that investigate each component of these programs and through experimental and quasi-experimental designs, accurately assess the effectiveness of these components.

Since in recent years alternative education programs are serving more students (Katsiyannis and Williams, 1998), the need is even greater for these programs to be researched and student outcomes to be measured. It is unfair to hold typical schools accountable for the outcomes of their students and not do the same for students attending alternative education programs. As we have discussed elsewhere (Atkins, 2001), operationalizing an alternative education program as a single construct is impossible. To circumvent this issue, the individual aspects of the programs could be evaluated. For example, the construct of "connectedness" could be measured by investigating what type and how many services the program is connected to, and if the services address all the needs of all of the students. More specifically, asking questions such as: Do the flexible options appropriately address the needs of students who are disabled and nondisabled?; Do the flexible options meet all the differing needs of male and female youth?; and Do the flexible options meet the needs of youth involved in various stages of the juvenile justice system?, would ensure that the programs are serving the needs of all students who may be in attendance.

Finally, and most importantly, is the need for a longitudinal study that follows youth who attended various educational programs (typical school, special education program, and alternative education programs). This type of study would show how the community adjustment outcomes of youth graduating from alternative education programs compares to youth graduating from

Source: Journal of Correctional Education

More News in this Category