Social & Economic Factors Education Employment Income Family & Social Support Community Safety Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Alternative middle and high schools/programs

Health Factors: Education
Decision Makers: Community Organizations, Government - State, Schools
Evidence Rating: Insufficient Evidence
Population Reach: 1-9% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Alternative schools/programs provide an alternative option to traditional school models and are aimed at better meeting the needs of students who may be struggling in a traditional school model.  Such schools are generally described as maintaining a small size, emphasizing one-on-one interaction between teachers and students, allowing opportunities for student success relevant to future careers, allowing flexibility in structure and an emphasis on student decision-making, and creating a supportive environment. There are at least three types of alternative schools: Type I are alternative schools of choice, sometimes similar to magnet schools; Type II schools are ‘last chance' stops for students before being expelled, emphasizing behavior modification and remediation; and Type III have a remedial focus on academic and social skills (NASDSE-Lange 2002).  Examples of such schools include: Griffin-Spalding Middle School Academy in Atlanta; Accelerated Academics Academy in Flint, MI; and Project ACCEL in Newark, NJ.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased barriers to learning
Improved employment and wages
Improved high school graduation

Evidence of Effectiveness

Mathematica-Dynarski 1998 finds mixed evidence of effectiveness for alternative schools, with more promising results for high-intensity middle school programs (e.g., Griffin-Spalding Middle School Academy in Atlanta; Accelerated Academics Academy in Flint, MI; and Project ACCEL in Newark, NJ) than high school programs. 

Intensive middle school dropout-prevention programs had positive effects whereas less intensive programs generally did not. More intensive programs generally helped students stay in school but did not noticeably improve student grades and test scores. Alternative high school programs did not noticeably reduce dropping out or improve other outcomes when compared with existing programs to encourage high school completion. These alternative high schools also failed to reduce pregnancy, drug use, or arrest rates (Mathematica-Dynarski 1998).

Over the course of a school year, NASDSE-Lange 2002 finds nominal change or a decline on standardized tests among alternative education students in high/middle school.  This review also suggests a possible future stigma on students who attend alternative schools.

Bloom 2010 notes a gap in this area between the strongly held views of practitioners who believe they know what constitutes “best practice” in youth programming and the knowledge base researchers have built from rigorous evaluations.

Implementation Examples

United States

In the 2000-2001 school year, 39% of public school districts had at least one alternative school or program.

Wisconsin

A variety of alternative education programs exist in many school districts across Wisconsin. WI Alternative Education Program legislation (1999) provides funds for grants to school districts and consortia of districts to develop new or expand existing programs or schools. More than 82 school districts also offer WI's GED Option #2 (GEDO #2) Program. This allows authorized school districts to use GED test battery to measure proficiency in lieu of high school credit for students enrolled in an alternative education program. Students who pass GED tests & complete other requirements for graduation are entitled to earn traditional high school diploma. Programs must achieve 80% success rate to continue. Also, several community-based organization partnerships serve as alternative education programs, e.g., Operation Fresh Start in Madison, Wisconsin Fresh Start, and Milwaukee Public Schools' Partnership schools.

Citations - Description

NASDSE-Lange 2002 - Lange CM, Sletten SJ. Alternative education: A brief history and research synthesis. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE); 2002. Accessed on March 23, 2013
Webpage: http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/Documents/Download Publications/DFR-0264.pdf

Citations - Evidence

Bloom 2010 - Bloom D. Programs and policies to assist high school dropouts in the transition to adulthood. Future of Children. 2010;20(1):89-108. Accessed on June 18, 2012
Webpage: http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/20_01_05.pdf
Mathematica-Dynarski 1998 - Dynarski M, Gleason P, Rangarajan A, Wood R. Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research; 1998. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/dod-fr.pdf
NASDSE-Lange 2002 - Lange CM, Sletten SJ. Alternative education: A brief history and research synthesis. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE); 2002. Accessed on March 23, 2013
Webpage: http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/Documents/Download Publications/DFR-0264.pdf

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities