Alternative
School Counseling
by
Kenneth Abbott
A capstone project submitted in
partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science in Counseling
Winona State University
2008
© 2008 by Kenneth Abbott
Abstract
Alternative
school theory and research is reviewed to identify potential points of emphasis
for alternative school counselors who serve at-risk students. Published
information from successful alternative school programs and school counseling
outcome research suggests that effective alternative school counselors might
emphasize (a) student evaluation and referral, (b) school-wide skills
instruction, (c) individual and group counseling, (d) transition support, and
(e) data-based decision making and program evaluation. Implications for
alternative school counseling research and practice are discussed.
Table
of Contents
Introduction.………………………………..……………...…………………………….1
Literature
Review.……………………………………………………………………….2
Alternative School
Research....………………...………………………….…….2
Alternative School
Counseling....……………………………………………….6
Student Evaluation and
Referral....……………………………………...8
School-Wide Skills
Instruction....…………………………………….....8
Individual and Group
Counseling....………………………………...…10
Transition Support……………………………………………………..10
Data-Based Decision
Making and Program Evaluation……………….11
Discussion.……………………………………………………………………………..13
References…………………………………………………………………………......17
Appendix
A: Exemplary Alternative School Contact Information…………..……......21
Appendix
B: Minnesota Alternative School Organization Contact Information……...23
Appendix
C: Copyright Permission…………………………………………………....25
Introduction
Alternative schools have
historically served students whose academic, social, political, or religious values
differ from those of mainstream students (Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002).
They are designed to serve students who might not be optimally served by
traditional schools (Raywid, 1994). Many of these students are identified as at-risk, meaning that their educational
failure may be imminent; students are often referred to alternative schools for
poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, suspension, pregnancy, or other
similar factors that are associated with removal or early withdrawal from
school (Paglin & Fager, 1997). In the present paper, the phrase alternative school refers only to
schools that are specifically designed to serve at-risk students.
Research suggests that
alternative school programs may have some positive effects (Cox, Davidson,
& Bynum, 1995), but research has not addressed theories of effective
alternative school programs or program components (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006).
Findings of existing alternative school research as well as a lack of
alternative school counseling research underscore the need for research and
guidance on effective alternative school counseling practice; such information
may be useful to counselors, teachers, staff members, and administrators in
both alternative and mainstream school settings. The present paper reviews
alternative school research and theory in order to identify potential points of
emphasis for effective alternative school counselors who work within the
American School Counselor Association’s (2005) framework for comprehensive
school counseling programs.
Literature
Review
Alternative School Research
About 1.3 percent of public
school students are enrolled in public alternative programs for students at
risk of education failure; in 2000, this amounted to about 612,900 students
(Kleiner et al., 2002). Urban districts, districts that are at least moderate
in size (more than 2,500 students), districts with at least 6% minority
concentrations, and districts with at least 11% poverty concentrations are
especially likely to have alternative schools. About 12% of students in schools
and programs for at-risk students are special education students with
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)—this figure does not differ
significantly from overall public school enrollment of special education
students with IEPs. However, additional alternative school students may have
disabilities; some alternative schools may find it impossible to comply with
special education paperwork when dealing with sporadically attending students,
and other alternative schools refuse to label students with diagnostic language
(Gorney & Ysseldyke, 1993). Alternative school students are more likely
than their mainstream school counterparts to engage in high-risk behavior such
as unprotected sex, drunk driving, drug use, suicide attempts, and weapon use
(Grunbaum, Kann, Kinchen, & Ross, 2000).
At-risk students sometimes choose
to enroll in alternative school programs, but many students are involuntarily
referred (Lehr & Lange, 2003). Districts tend to be willing to refer a
student to an alternative school solely for (a) possession, distribution, or
use of alcohol or drugs; (b) physical attacks or fights; (c) chronic truancy;
(d) continual academic failure; (e) possession or use of a weapon; and (f)
disruptive verbal behavior. Districts may also refer students for teen
pregnancy or mental health needs (Kleiner et al., 2002). Demand for alternative
school placements tends to exceed capacity, meaning that many students are
placed on wait lists. State education officials report that recent reforms
(e.g., No Child Left Behind Act, 2002) have led to increased alternative school
enrollment as low-performing students are increasingly pushed out of
traditional schools (Lehr & Lange, 2003). Alternative school placements may
be regulated or mandated by governmental or organizational policy; for example,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) governs alternative
education placement of students with disabilities. Once placed in an
alternative school, many students remain for the duration of their education; efforts
to reintegrate alternative school students are sometimes met with resistance or
outright refusal by mainstream schools (Harrington-Lueker, 1995), and many
alternative school students who leave return to alternative schools or to even
more restrictive settings (Quinn & Rutherford, 1998).
Most alternative schools are
located in separate facilities, but some are located in juvenile detention
centers, community centers, or charter schools (Kleiner et al., 2002). Alternative
schools usually serve high school students, but some alternative schools serve
junior high school students or elementary school students (Grunbaum, Kann,
Kinchen, & Ross, 2000). Alternative school officials often collaborate with
the juvenile justice system, community mental health agencies, police or
sheriff’s departments, and child protective services. Alternative schools tend
to feature (a) policies requiring curricula that lead toward a regular high
school diploma, (b) academic counseling, (c) a smaller class size than in
regular schools, (d) remedial instruction, (e) opportunity for self-paced
instruction, (f) crisis/behavioral intervention, and (g) career counseling
(Kleiner et al., 2002). Alternative schools often have difficulty staffing
programs with teachers who have appropriate licensure in subject areas or in
special education (Lehr & Lange, 2003), meaning that many teachers are
assigned to teach subject matter outside their specialty (Quinn &
Rutherford, 1998). Alternative school staff members may also be on call beyond
normal work hours in order to provide assistance to students who have
encounters with law enforcement (Arnove & Strout, 1980).
There is little evidence for the
effectiveness of alternative schools, and most alternative school literature
reviews have been narrative in nature. Some of these reviews (Barr, Colson,
& Parrett, 1977; Hughes et al., 2006; Garrison, 1987; Reilly & Reilly,
1983; Young, 1990) suggest that alternative education programs achieve positive
outcomes in student attitudes, academic achievement, self-esteem, and academic
behavior. Other reviews (Hawkins & Wall, 1980; Duke & Muzio, 1978),
however, have been unable to reach conclusions regarding the effectiveness of
alternative schools or factors that correlate with student success. The only
meta-analytic alternative school study to date found that alternative schools
have small positive effects on school performance, school attitude, and
self-esteem, but no effect on delinquent behavior (Cox, Davidson, & Bynum,
1995). The authors speculated that alternative schools effects may be large
enough to influence school performance and self esteem, but not large enough to
outweigh the effects of negative influences (e.g., family, peers) on delinquent
behavior. Consistent with the equivocal findings of earlier research (see Reilly,
Reilly, & West, 1982; Raywid, 1981; Raywid, 1994), the authors found that
the modest effects of alternative school placement disappeared when students
returned to traditional schools. Moreover, noted effects may have been
attributable to weak methodology; for example, studies featuring less rigorous
research designs consistently reported more positive effects than studies
featuring truly experimental designs. Alternative school research tends to
feature methodological weaknesses, such as (a) a lack of control group or
comparison group data, (b) failure to randomize when sampling, (c) tendency to
eliminate data on dropouts from aggregate statistics or final analyses, (d)
lack of follow-up data on students who leave early or graduate from alternative
schools, (e) poor record-keeping, and (f) a lack of data on per-pupil costs
(Duke & Muzio, 1978).
Despite
methodological limitations, researchers have examined exemplary alternative
school programs and hypothesized that effective alternative schools possess
several core characteristics, including (a) a comprehensive student evaluation
and referral system; (b) an educational program that is aligned with student
real-world expectations and that reflects various nontraditional teaching and
learning options; (c) programming that promotes social, emotional, and
behavioral change within a safe, positive and nonpunitive environment; (d)
ongoing staff training and development; (e) policies and practices that support
student transition from a more to a less restrictive environment (e.g.,
mainstream campus, job placement, alternative educational setting); and (f)
ongoing program evaluation and data-based decision making (Hughes et al., 2006; see also Lange & Sletten, 2002; Quinn, Rutherford, & Osher, 1999). Programs that target a specific population of at-risk
students also appear to be more effective than programs with open enrollment
(Cox, Davidson, & Bynum, 1995).
Alternative school ineffectiveness
may result in part from school officials’ improper use of alternative schools (see
Arnove & Strout, 1980). For example, alternative schools are sometimes used
as a form of punishment for difficult students with little regard for the
students’ academic programming; in this way, students with severe problems are
dumped into alternative schools that are unable to provide the necessary
services.
Alternative School Counseling
Alternative school officials
frequently report the provision of counseling services (see Kleiner et al.,
2002), but researchers have not rendered representative information about
alternative school counselor placements, programs, or interventions.
Examination of exemplary alternative school programs (see Hughes et al., 2006)
and school counselor activity (see American School Counselor Association, 2005)
suggests that, compared to mainstream school counselors, effective alternative
school counselors might give added emphasis to (a) student evaluation and
referral, (b) school-wide skills instruction, (c) individual and group counseling,
(d) transition support, and (e) data-based decision-making and program
evaluation. These activities would not, by themselves, constitute an entire
alternative school counseling program; they might, however, receive added
emphasis in a program structured according to the American School Counselor
Association’s (2005) model for comprehensive school counseling programs (see
Figure).
Figure. Model for school counseling program structure. From
The ASCA national model: A framework for
comprehensive school counseling programs (2nd ed.) by the
American School Counselor Association, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Author. © 2005 by
the American School Counselor Association. Reprinted with permission (see
Appendix C).
Student
evaluation and referral. An
alternative school counselor may be involved with evaluation and referral
processes that address a student’s need and potential for success in an
alternative school environment. For example, in the Challenge Program (see
Appendix A), a counselor (a) receives a referral packet completed by a
multidisciplinary team and the student’s home campus; (b) contacts student’s
parent(s) and secures written permission to visit the student’s home campus for
at least 5 hours of on-site observation; (c) interviews the student’s teachers
and parent(s) as well as the student to obtain individual perceptions of
problems to be addressed; (d) uses behavioral checklists to identify, clarify,
and quantify any perceived problem behaviors; (e) completes an analysis of the
student’s office referrals for the current school year (see “School Wide
Information System,” n.d.); (f) generates a summary report; and (g) schedules a
meeting with program staff to review the student’s information and generate
appropriate programming recommendations (Hughes et al., 2006). Referral and
consultation lie within the scope of the American School Counselor
Association’s (2005) conceptualization of school counselor responsive services.
School-wide
skills instruction. Hughes
et al. (2006) suggest that effective alternative schools provide direct
instruction in social skills, anger management strategies, and conflict
resolution as a means of fostering students’ social competence. For students
with emotional or behavioral disorders, the authors recommend that extra
attention be given to the use of effective instruction strategies; one such
strategy involves (a) breaking the skill into small steps, (b) demonstrating
and modeling the skill, (c) having the student practice the skill using
role-plays, (d) providing feedback and reinforcement, and (e) systematically
planning for generalization of the skill (Rutherford, Quinn, & Mathur,
1996). The authors further recommend that alternative school social skills
lessons be fun and relevant; instruction should involve events and situations
that students deal with in their everyday lives—not contrived situations.
The Centennial School (see Appendix
A) provides an example of school-wide social skills instruction (Hughes et al.,
2006). Students at Centennial receive daily social skills instruction.
Centennial uses the Second Step
violence prevention curriculum (see Committee for Children, 2007) as well as a
modified version of the High Five positive
behavior support system (Taylor-Greene & Kartub, 2000) which includes the five
expectations: (a) be there, be ready; (b) be responsible; (c) be respectful;
(d) keep hands and feet to self/personal space; and (e) follow directions. Each
of these expectations is defined and incorporated into a token economy of
reinforcement.
Though some lessons may be delivered
by a school counselor, school-wide skill instruction programs might require time
for staff training. For example, the Centennial School (see Appendix A)
dismisses early one day per week to provide time for training and support activity
(Hughes et al., 2006). Skills instruction falls within the American School
Counselor Association’s (2005) conceptualization of school counselor guidance
curriculum, and in-service training falls within the scope of the American School
Counselor Association’s conceptualization of system support. Research shows
that skills instruction can be effective; for a summary of school counseling
curriculum outcome research, see Dimmitt, Carey, and Hatch (2007).
Individual
and group counseling. Hughes
et al. (2006) also suggest that effective alternative schools provide
individual and group counseling. Individual and group counseling fall within
the scope of the American School Counselor Association’s (2005)
conceptualization of school counselor responsive services. Research shows that
individual and group counseling can be effective; for a summary of relevant
individual and group counseling research, see Dimmitt, Carey, and Hatch (2007).
Transition
support. In
order to achieve successful integration of students into mainstream schools and
workplaces, Hughes et al. (2006) recommend provision of transition support
services. For example, in the Challenge Program (see Appendix A), students
begin departure planning upon arrival; most students stay for 1-2 years before
being transitioned back to their home campus or to less restrictive settings.
Examples of early transition support activity include (a) mailing of progress
reports to the home campus administrator, informing the administrator of
progress and reminding them that a student is temporarily being served in an
alternative school; (b) inviting of home campus administrators and teachers to
every IEP meeting; and (c) having the student identify a home campus
administrator or teacher who worked well with them—this person is subsequently
invited to stop by for lunch with the student or check in with the student
periodically via email.
The Challenge Program uses meetings
to determine when a student begins the transition process, and each student has
an individualized transition plan that meets their identified needs (Hughes et
al., 2006). When staff members have determined that a student is academically,
emotionally, socially, and behaviorally prepared for transition back to their
home campus, transitioning proceeds through several steps: (a) an alternative
school staff member visits the student’s home campus to identify school
expectations, rules, routines, and procedures; (b) the staff member then meets
with other alternative school staff to help them mimic the home campus
environment; (c) the student begins touring the home campus building, sitting
in on scheduled classes, meeting with school administrators, and gaining
familiarity with practicalities such as lockers and lunch procedures; (d) the
student enters a 6-week period in which they split their time evenly between
the alternative school and the home campus—staff may identify potential areas
of concern and develop plans to address those areas; and (e) at the conclusion
of the 6-week period, alternative school staff and home campus staff meet to
discuss whether the student is prepared to return to the home campus or whether
partial, half-day transitioning needs to continue. The Positive Education
Program (see Appendix A) uses a similarly intensive transition planning
structure (Quinn & Rutherford, 1998). Individual student planning forms
part of the American School Counselor Association’s (2005) conceptualization of
a school counselor delivery system.
Data-based
decision making and program evaluation. The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) provides
financial incentives for schools that maintain educational accountability and
employ proven educational methods and strategies for student learning,
teaching, and management. In the interest of maintaining accountability and
developing alternative school research, Hughes et al. (2006) recommend that
alternative schools examine many outcome variables such as (a) students’
academic performance on curriculum-based measures (see Harcourt Assessment, 2008)
and progress reports; (b) students’ progress toward mastery of IEP objectives;
(c) growth in students’ emotional, social, and behavioral functioning as
measured by direct observations or behavioral incidents (see University of
Oregon, n.d.); (d) in-school and out-of-school suspension rates; (e) results on
state testing and standardized academic tests; and (f) growth in emotional,
behavioral, and social functioning. On a higher level, outcome measures might
include (a) transition rates to less restrictive settings, (b) school graduation
rates, (c) school drop-out rates, (d) incarceration rates, (e) employment
rates, and (f) mental health hospitalization rates.
Management and accountability
systems comprise major portions of the American School Counselor Association’s
(2005) school counseling program structure. See Dimmitt, Carey, and Hatch
(2007) for an extensive discussion of evidence-based school counseling,
including outcome research, selection of interventions, and measurement of
student learning and behavior change.
Discussion
Because of a lack of experimental
evidence, inferences about the effectiveness of alternative school programs and
interventions must be regarded tentatively. By identifying and exploring
commonalities in alternative school theory and school counseling theory, the
present paper suggests promising alternative school counseling points of
emphasis which may be tested as research hypotheses. Effective alternative
school counselors might emphasize (a) student evaluation and referral, (b)
school-wide skills instruction, (c) individual and group counseling, (d)
transition support, and (e) data-based decision making and program evaluation.
Effective alternative school
counselors may be involved with student evaluation for referral and school-wide
skills instruction. In order to perform these activities, alternative school
counselors may need to develop professional contacts and relationships with a
variety of individuals and organizations. For example, alternative school
administrators, teachers, and academic support staff may help to address
problems with student discipline and academic performance. Mainstream school
administrators and teachers may help students transition to and from
alternative schools. Community mental health organizations may help to address
the needs of students in distress. Medical health organizations may help to
ensure that the needs of pregnant students are met. Police departments,
sheriff’s departments, and juvenile justice systems may help to address student
truancy problems. Child protective services may help to ensure student safety.
While evaluating students for
referral and supporting students’ transitions to less restrictive environments,
alternative school counselors can emphasize appropriate use of alternative
schools. With detailed plans and procedures for evaluation and transition,
counselors may help to avoid the educational failure that is associated with
dumping-ground alternative schools (see Arnove & Strout, 1980); mainstream
school officials might also offer less resistance to alternative school student
reintegration (see Harrington-Lueker, 1995). Mainstream school personnel may
learn about the management of problematic students, increasing the odds that
reintegrated students will sustain positive changes made in alternative school
placements (see Arnove & Strout, 1980; Quinn & Rutherford, 1998).
Appropriate use of alternative schools may need additional emphasis as
mainstream schools increasingly push out low-performing students (see Lehr
& Lange, 2003).
Alternative school counselors must
be sensitive to the needs of alternative school student populations.
Alternative schools tend to be smaller than mainstream schools, and they may
contain disproportionately large numbers of urban students, poor students,
minority students (see Kleiner et al., 2002), and students with disabilities
(see Gorney & Ysseldyke, 1993) who are often referred involuntarily (see
Lehr & Lange, 2003), sometimes after being wait-listed (see Kleiner et al.,
2002). Alternative school counselors may expect to be on call beyond normal
work hours to assist students who have encounters with law enforcement (see
Arnove & Strout, 1980). When planning interventions, counselors may recall
that certain risk behaviors (e.g., unprotected sex, drunk driving, drug use,
suicide attempts, weapon carriage) are more salient in alternative school
populations (see Grunbaum et al., 2000). Alternative school counselors may need
to give added attention to detail in student planning, since many alternative
school staff members work or teach outside of their specialty area (see Lehr
& Lange, 2003). Alternative school counselors may also give extra attention
to the development of a positive and supportive school environment, which seems
to benefit alternative school students (see Hughes et al., 2006). Because
student evaluation, staff training, and transition planning are time-intensive,
alternative school counselors may be able to serve fewer students at a time
than mainstream school counselors—perhaps only a fraction of the 250:1
student:counselor ratio recommended by the American School Counselor
Association (n.d.), and much less than the 2005-2006 nationwide average
student:counselor ratio of 476:1.
Because extant research provides
limited information on effective alternative schools and effective alternative
school counseling, alternative school counselors may need to give additional
attention to identification and implementation of effective interventions. When
experimental research on a topic is unavailable, alternative school counselors
may need to examine anecdotal information from exemplary programs; Appendix A
features contact information for three alternative schools whose operations may
be of particular interest to alternative school counselors: the Centennial
School, the Challenge Program (see Hughes et al., 2006), and the Positive
Education Program (see Quinn & Rutherford, 1998). Alternative school
counselors can also conduct and share the results of methodologically sound
research, taking care to (a) use control groups, (b) use random assignment, (c)
include attrition data, (d) include follow-up data, (e) keep detailed records,
and (f) estimate per-pupil costs (see Duke & Muzio, 1978). See Dimmitt,
Carey, and Hatch (2007) for a detailed discussion of evidence-based practice as
well as a summary of school counseling outcome research. See American School
Counselor Association (2005) for discussion of school counseling program
development and implementation. Appendix B features contact information for
Minnesota alternative school organizations.
Future research might examine effectiveness
of alternative school programs and components as well as relationships between
alternative school services (including counseling), student characteristics
(e.g., race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status), specific risk factors
(e.g., poor grades, truancy, disruptive behavior, suspension, pregnancy), and
outcomes. Research might focus upon (a) student evaluation and referral, (b)
school-wide skills instruction, (c) individual and group counseling, (d)
transition support, and (e) data-based decision-making and program evaluation;
information on these activities may guide the development of alternative school
counseling theory and practice.
References
American School Counselor Association (2005). The ASCA national model: A
framework for comprehensive school
counseling programs (2nd
ed.).
Alexandria,
VA: Author.
American School Counselor Association (n.d.). Careers/roles. Retrieved May 15, 2008,
from
http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?pl=325&sl=133
&contentid=133
Arnove, R. F., & Strout, T. (1980). Alternative
schools for disruptive youth.
Educational Forum, 44, 453-471.
Barr,
R. D., Colston, B., & Parrett, W. H. (1977). The effectiveness of six
alternative
public schools. Viewpoints, 53, 1-30.
Committee for Children. (2007). Second step overview. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from
http://www.cfchildren.org/programs/ssp/overview/
Cox, S. M., Davidson, W. S., & Bynum, T. S.
(1995). A meta-analytic assessment of
delinquency-related
outcomes of alternative education programs. Crime
and
delinquency, 41, 219-234.
Dimmitt, C., Carey, J. C., & Hatch, T. A.
(2007). Evidence-based school counseling:
Making a difference with data-driven
practices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Duke,
D. L., & Muzio, I. (1978). How effective are alternative schools?—A review
of
recent evaluations and reports. Teachers College Record, 79, 461-483.
Garrison,
R. W. (1987). Alternative school for
disruptive youth: NSCC resource paper.
Los
Angeles: National School Safety Center, Pepperdine University.
Gorney,
D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1993). Students with disabilities use of various
options to access alternative
schools and area learning centers. Special
Services
in
the Schools, 7(1),
125-143.
Grunbaum,
J., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Ross, J. G., Gowda, V. R., Collins, et al.
(2000). Youth risk behavior
surveillance: National alternative high school youth
risk behavior survey, United States,
1998. Journal of School Health, 70(1),
5-
17.
Harcourt Assessment (2008). AIMSWeb. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from
http://www.aimsweb.com
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1995). Ideas for alternative
schools for troubled kids. American
School Board Journal, 181, 16-21.
Hawkins,
J. D., & Wall, J. S. (1980). Alternative
education: Exploring the delinquency
prevention
potential. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Hughes, A. F., Baker, B. Criste, A., Huffty, J.,
Link, C. P., Roberts, M., et al.
(2006).
Effective practices in meeting the needs
of students with emotional and
behavioral disorders in alternative
settings. Reston,
VA: Council for Children
with
Behavioral Disorders.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L.
No. 108-446, § 615(k), 118 Stat.
2726
(2004).
Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative schools and programs for
students at risk of education
failure: 2000–01.
U.S. Department of Education.
Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Lange, C.M. & Sletten, S.J. (2002). Alternative Education: A Brief History and
Research Synthesis. Alexandria, VA: National
Association of State Directors of
Special
Education.
Lehr, C. A., & Lange, C. M. (2003). Alternative
schools serving students with and
without
disabilities: What are the current issues and challenges? Preventing
School Failure, 47, 59-65.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.
107-110, § 115, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Alternative schools: Approaches for students
at risk.
Portland,
OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Quinn, M. M., & Rutherford, R. B. (1998). Alternative programs for students with
social, emotional, or behavioral
problems.
Reston, VA: Council for Children
with
Behavioral Disorders.
Quinn, M., Rutherford, R., & Osher, D. (1999). Special education in alternative
education programs. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Raywid, M. A. (1981). The first decade of public
school alternatives. Phi Delta
Kappan, 62, 551-554.
Raywid, M.A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state
of the art. Educational
Leadership, 52(1), 26–31.
Reilly,
D. H., & Reilly, J. L. (1983). Alternative schools: Issues and directions. Journal
of
Instructional Psychology,
10, 89-98.
Reilly, D. H., Reilly, J. L., & West, E. L.
(1982). An alternative learning school:
Student
results and system considerations. Journal
of Instructional Psychology,
9, 122-132.
Rutherford, R. B., Quinn, M. M., & Mathur, S. R.
(1996). Effective strategies for
teaching appropriate behavior to
children with emotional/behavioral disorders.
Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral
Disorders.
Taylor-Greene,
S. J., & Kartub, D. T. (2000). Durable implementation of school-wide
behavior support: The high five
program. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions,
2, 233-235.
University of Oregon (n.d.). School-wide information system. Retrieved May 15, 2008,
from
http://www.swis.org/
Young,
T. W. (1990). Public alternative
education: Options and choice for today’s
schools. New York: Columbia University Press.
Appendix
A
Exemplary
Alternative School Contact Information
Centennial
School of Lehigh University
2196
Avenue C, LVIP 1
Bethlehem,
PA 18017
610-266-6500
http://www.lehigh.edu/~insch/
Dr.
Michael George, Director
Challenge
Program
P.O. Box 1759
Sanger,
TX 76266
940-458-0351
Dr.
Ann Hughes, Principal
Positive
Education Program
17415
Northwood Avenue
Lakewood,
OH 44107
216-658-2620
James
Lucas, Program Coordinator
Appendix
B
Minnesota
Alternative School Organization Contact Information
Alternative
Schools Research Project
University
of Minnesota
College
of Education and Human Development
Institute
on Community Integration
111
Patee Hall
150 Pillsbury
Drive SE
Minneapolis,
MN 55455
612-624-0722
http://ici.umn.edu/alternativeschools/staff/default.html
Dr.
Cammy Lehr, Director
Minnesota
Association of Alternative Programs
http://www.maapmn.org/
Steve
Allen, President
Minnesota
Department of Education
1500
Highway 36 W
Roseville,
MN 55113-4266
651-582-8520
http://education.state.mn.us
Marceline
Dubose, Alternative Programs
Appendix
C
Copyright
Permission
