INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.Tho sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pagc(s)". I f it was possible to obtain the missing pagc(s) or section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo* graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Micrdfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN AFjBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 7917704 CRAY* ELISHA DELBERT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ER SITY, P H . D . , University M icrofilm s Intenvtftorwd j o o n iu b r o a d @ . an* Anson, mi 4Bioo 1979 ELISHA DELBERT GRAY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1978 A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Elisha Delbert Gray A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1978 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Elisha Delbert Gray The purpose o f th is study was to Id e n tify and c la s s ify secon­ dary a lte rn a tiv e programs operating In Michigan public schools. A secondary objective was to provide documentation o f both the growth and the widespread d iv e rs ity o f such programs. I t was hoped that both objectives would b e n e fit those seeking to In s titu te altern a­ tives at the secondary le v e l. This study u tiliz e d the descriptive method to c o lle c t the pertinent data. A telephone survey determined th at 96 secondary alte rn ative s existed w ith in Michigan schools. A 35-1tem questionnaire developed fo r purposes o f th is study was mailed to a contact person In each program. F ifty -s ix questionnaires were returned and the data generated from them were tabulated and analyzed employing a conceptual framework developed by A llan G latthornJ Conclusions 1. The secondary a lte rn a tiv e education movement 1n Michigan started a f te r C a lifo rn ia , New York, I l l i n o i s , Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. E lisha D e lb e rt Gray 2. School superintendents had d if f ic u ltie s 1n cla ss ify in g nontraditional secondary programs w ith in th e ir systems as a lte rn a tlv e s . 3. Three dominant secondary a lte rn a tiv e program designs found were those: a. Within the e x istin g tra d itio n a l high school, I . e . , a lte rn a tiv e high school programs w ithin public systems. b. Outside o f the existin g tra d itio n a l high school, I . e . , neighborhood education centers and special programs (pregnant persons). c. U tiliz in g community resources and s ite s , I . e . , work study programs. 4. Data from the questionnaires would give evidence th at the development o f secondary a lte rn a tiv e programs was even across a ll d is tr ic ts regardless o f s iz e , although most programs were located 1n the highly populated urban areas. 5. From the data collected 1 t can be concluded th at most o f the programs were begun In 1973. 6. The respondents indicated th a t the funding fo r th e ir programs came p rim arily from state and local co ffers. 7. The data Indicated th at the m ajority of students were received through a re fe rra l process involving the parent/legal guardian and student. 8. I t can be concluded th a t the m ajority of the students were below grade level academically. Thus the curriculum had to be adapted. E lisha D e lb e rt Gray 9. From the questionnaires the description o f the populatio served indicated the follow ing: a. Sixty percent o f the 6,475 students were males, as opposed to 40 percent females. b. The average age o f the youngest student was 15 years o f age, whereas the average age o f the oldest student was 19. c. The ra c ia l d is trib u tio n o f the population served Indicated 36 percent were nonwhites, compared to a 64 percent m ajority representation. 10. I t can be concluded from the data that the m ajority o f the students attending these programs had been Id e n tifie d as: 11. a. Potential dropouts b. Nonmotivated by present tra d itio n a l system c. Attendance problems d. Lacking basic academic s k ills e. Needing individual attention A ll the respondents stressed the Importance o f providing "supportive services." (See unique and outstanding c h a ra c te ris tic s , Chapter IV .) 12. A conceptual framework developed by Glatthorn provided the basic foundation fo r analyzing and In terp retin g the resu lts asso­ ciated with th is research. In general, the 20 factors Id e n tifie d by Glatthorn were comprehensive. The a lte rn a tiv e program ch aracteris­ tic s o f respondents to the survey e a s ily f it t e d Into most o f the categories. In retrospect, i t might be possible e ith e r to combine Elisha D elbert Gray certain categories or even omit without extensive* sig n ifica n t loss 1n data or description. For planners the need to make decisions 1s usually based on the v a lid ity o f the Information received. With the clear* precise format the model o ffe rs , i t does have advantages with respect to Its u t i l i t y . ^All an A. Glatthorn, A lternatives In Education: Schools and Programs (New York: Harper and Row* 1975), p. 42. Dedicated with love to rny fath er and mother, Elisha Zack and Lavada Elizabeth. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation 1s the re s u lt o f the concentrated support, understanding, and encouragement o f many Individuals. Therefore, special recognition should be given to Individuals for th e ir assis­ tance and encouragement. To Dr. Charles Blackman, chairman o f the doctoral committee, a warm note o f thanks fo r his deep personal concern and fo r his many hours of guidance and assistance. To the other members o f the com­ m ittee, Dr. Ben Bonhorst, Dr. Thomas Gunnings, and Dr. John Suehr, a sincere expression of gratitude fo r th e ir advice and guidance. A special expression o f gratitude Is owed to the s ta ff mem­ bers of the Michigan Department o f Education, Neighborhood Education Authority: Dr. Joan C. May, Kathy W1nne, Sharon Lawrence, Thomas Parr, and Jack P. Moore, In addition, my dear friends, Dr. Daniel Schooley, Dr. John W. Dobbs, Dr. Calvin Moore, Mr, Percy Jones, and Mr. Earl Powell, my special thanks fo r th e ir encouragement and support. To my parents, Elisha Z. and Lavada E. Gray, my brother, Daniel, and my s is te r, Diane, my everlasting gratitude fo r th e ir understanding, support, and love during my educational endeavors. For the special encouragement o f my In-law s, Rev. and Mrs. F . K. Sims, n\y many thanks. F in a lly , to my wonderful w ife , S ylvia, I submit my love. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................................................................. vl LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. v11 Chapter I. II. III. IV . INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 Statement o f the Problem ..................................................... Purpose o f the S t u d y ............................................................. Need fo r the S t u d y ................................................................. Procedures ................................................................................. D e fin itio n o f Terms ................................................................. Significance o f the S tu d y ..................................................... Lim itations o f the S t u d y ..................................................... O v e r v ie w ...................................... ’ ........................................... 3 3 4 5 5 10 11 12 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................. 13 A B rie f History of Secondary A lternatives ..................... Common Types o f Secondary A lternatives ......................... Planning A lternatives ............................................................. Twenty Key Questions Planners o f A lte rn a tiv e Programs Should Ask ............................................................. Summation................................................................................. Evaluation o f A lternatives ................................................. Summary......................................................................................... 13 17 24 DESIGN OF THE STUDY..................................................................... 41 P o p u la t io n ................................................................................. Methodology Procedures ......................................................... Development o f Survey Questionnaire ................................. Analysis o f the D a t a ............................................................. Summary ..................................................................... . . . . . 42 42 43 46 46 ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS 28 34 35 40 ..................................................... 47 Introduction ............................................................................. Secondary A lte rn a tiv e Education Program Types . . . . 47 47 1v Chapter Page Other Findings o f the S tu d y ............................................ Demographic Information ......................................................... Accreditation o f Programs . . . Admission and E n r o llm e n t ..................................................... Funding......................................................................................... Unique and Outstanding C haracteristics ......................... Introduction to Taxonomy of Secondary A ltern a tiv e P ro g ra m s ..................................................................................... Summary................................ ................................................ ... V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNERS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.................................... Conclusions..................................................................................... Interp retation o f Results ......................................................... Major Program T y p e s ................................................................. Unexpected Findings ..................................................................... Funding......................................................................................... M o t iv a t io n ................................................................................. Supportive Services . ......................................................... E n r o llm e n t................................................................................. Recommendations fo r Planners .............................................. . Recommendations fo r Future Research ..................................... Summary............................................................................................. Lim itations o f Data Collection ............................................. Personal Reflections ................................................................. APPENDICES...................... .................................................................................. A. B. C. 52 52 53 53 53 53 54 55 59 59 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 64 66 67 68 69 72 SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS: A STATE DIRECTORY FOR M ICHIG AN............................................................. 73 HUMAN SERVICES NETWORK .......................................................... 135 COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 138 ..................................................................................................... 153 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. G latthorn's Taxonomy fo r A lternatives .................................. 26 2. C lassificatio n of Secondary A ltern a tiv e Education Programs 1n Michigan ............................................................. 48 Secondary A lternative Education Programs by Local School D is tr ic t S i z e ................................. . ........................ 51 A Sample Taxonomy fo r Four Michigan A lternatives 56 3. 4. v1 . . . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page D istribution o f Secondary A ltern a tiv e Education Programs by Counties ................................................................. v11 50 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There have always been alternatives to tra d itio n a l public schools, ranging from private schools, religious schools, and reform schools to the ultimate altern ative o f no school at a l l . In the 1960s, parent-controlled "free" schools p ro liferate d around the nation, providing alternatives fo r some middle-class dropouts. Store-front schools and street academies, supported by businesses and philan­ thropic organizations, provided alternatives fo r some in n e r-c ity youths who had given up on or been given up on by the public schools. Despite these alte rn ative s, the Idea of providing schooling options had low p rio rity among educational reformers u n til the early 1970s. Today the range o f secondary altern ative schools and programs 1s wide and diverse. Private academies lik e Harlem Prep, now a publicly supported New York school, u n iv e rs itie s . send 1nner-c1ty dropouts to major Within public systems, schools-wlthout-walls, lik e the Parkway Program 1n Philadelphia, use an e n tire c ity as a classroom. Publicly supported community schools, lik e the Morgan School in Washington, D.C., actively Involve parents in the education o f th e ir children. A lternative schools have taken many forms, as mini-schools, m ulticultural schools, ethnic schools, student-parent-directed schools, open schools, and units within trad itio n al schools. 1 2 Some secondary altern ative programs are p art o f fed erally supported experiments— fo r example, the system o f 23 altern atives In Berkeley, C a lifo rn ia . The Massachusetts experimental school system 1s a state-supported e ffo r t to provide a model fo r a lte rn a tiv e edu­ cation. Many alternatives are tax-supported programs th at depart from tra d itio n a l educational methods while remaining part o f the pub­ l ic school system. Other alternatives are s t i l l p riv a te ly supported and barely survive by scrambling for corporate and foundation d o llars. The monolithic structure o f the American public schools has tended to deny communities the rig h t o f s ig n ific a n t choices. Without choices, children and youths are assigned to sp ecific schools and to specific classes w ithin those schools. Charles E. Silberman, in C risis in the Classroom, states, "There 1s, and can be, no one curricu­ lum suitable for a ll time, or fo r a ll students a t a given time. To in s is t that there 1s only one curriculum 1s to confuse the means of education with the end."^ In a democratic society, options should be available as 1n other aspects of society. Education 1s an Individual process, a dynamic and complex relationship between a developing Individual and his or her changing environment. According to Robert Barr, A p lu ra lis tic nation, having d iffe re n t kinds o f people with d iffe re n t personalities, values, b e lie fs , behaviors, ta le n ts , s k ills , and Iearn1ng-I1fe styles, must be provided with a variety o f d is tin c tly d iffe re n t learning environments, and give parents, students, teachers, and administrators the ^Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking o f American Education (New York*: Random House, 1970), p. 14. 3 opportunity to shop around 1n a d iv ersifie d educational , market place making decisions about th e ir own best in te re s t. Statement of the Problem Numbers o f educators are developing, organizing, and operat­ ing a variety o f a lte rn a tiv e programs to address the diverse needs o f dropouts, potential dropouts, juvenile delinquents, pregnant persons, and academically talented students. As y e t, they have not developed an adequate medium fo r exchanging information about th e ir adminis­ tr a tiv e , fin a n c ia l, or programmatic structures and th e ir demographic characteristics with one another or any other administrator, coun­ s e lo r, teacher, parent, or student who may be interested 1n developing or attending an a lte rn ative program. Before 1969, fewer than 23 alte rn ative schools were known to be in operation across the country. According to the International Consortium fo r Options in Public Education (ICOPE) Report, by 1976, 5.000 or more alte rn a tiv e schools would be operative w ithin the United States. I f the growth trend continues at the present ra te , i t 1s very possible that the number o f altern ative schools w ill be well over 10.000 by 1980. Purpose of the Study The purpose o f this study is to Id e n tify and c la s s ify secon­ dary alte rn a tiv e programs operating in Michigan public schools. As a d ire c t re su lt o f th is study, i t 1s anticipated that a Directory ^Robert D. Barr, "Whatever Happened to the Free School Move­ ment?" Phi Delta Kappan, March 1973, p. 456. 4 o f Secondary A lte rn a tiv e Educational Programs 1n Michigan w ill be created. (See Appendix A .) These materials can then be used by school systems which choose to o ffe r a lte rn a tiv e environments to b e tte r respond to the needs of students, parents, teachers, and adm inistrators. The study w ill also Include a capsule description o f the types o f alte rn a tiv e s 1n Michigan, with some emphasis placed on th e ir uniqueness and outstanding ch arac teris tic s. In addition, i t w ill provide documentation o f the strength and widespread d iv e rs ity o f public a lte rn a tiv e programs and o ffe r supportive e v i­ dence to help others In In s titu tin g such programs. Arrangements have been made to have the data collected for th is study Included as a new part o f the d a ta -re trle v a l system w ithin the State Department o f Social Services, Human Services Network, Information and R eferral Terminal. (See Appendix B.) Need fo r the Study Hopefully, th is study w ill serve as a basis for a needed networking to o l. Far too often the proverbial wheel has to be reinvented In every new a lte rn a tiv e program. As others have been made well aware through th e ir surveys and studies, hundreds o f pro­ grams struggle 1n Is o la tio n with s im ila r problems, and few are able to share th e ir successes. Educators have found th at when too much time and energy are spent tackling basic obstacles, even the most dedicated people 1n programs emerge exhausted, and often more f a r reaching concerns are neglected. A publication which would contain such p ertin en t program information as the proper contact person, 5 program descriptions* and population data could be a vehicle that might f a c ilit a t e the flow o f Information. Procedures This study w ill use as it s conceptual framework the altern a­ tiv e taxonomy developed by Allan Glatthorn.^ He suggests 20 factors which might be considered by planners and developers of altern atives. These factors are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. 9. Funding Control Students Board Dally governance Leadership Relationships with conventional school F a c ilitie s Full-tim e or part-tim e program 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. S ta ff S ta ff organization Student selection Exclusion Program evaluation Degree o f structure Nature o f program Grade organization Schedule Pupil grading Crediting A more detailed discussion of each factor w ill be presented 1n Chapter I I . D efin itio n o f Terms A lternative Education Programs: For purposes of this study, an a lte rn a tiv e education program 1s defined as a program which 1s a part of the public school system, uniquely d iffe re n t from the basic tra d itio n a l program, and available to students by choice. Traditional High School: For purposes of this study, a t r a ­ d itio n al high school 1s defined as a public high school o f grades 9-12 ^Allan A. Glatthorn, Alternatives in Education: Schools and Programs (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 28, 29. 6 which has a primary purpose o f general academic education of Its students for advanced academic work and career preparation. A 11st o f a lte rn a tiv e education t i t l e s and d efin itio n s was compiled by the researcher to assist respondents In id en tifyin g the type of a lte rn a tiv e they operated. The following Is a l i s t of these t i t le s and th e ir operational d e fin itio n s : 1. Work Study Program—Designed to provide part-tim e employment fo r youths who need the earnings from such employment to continue th e ir vocational education programs on a fu ll-tim e basis. I t 1s a student-assistance program 1n which only public agencies are e lig ib le to p a rtic ip a te as employers. 2. G .E.P.—The General Education Development tests appraise the educational development o f adults, Including c iv ilia n s and m ilita ry personnel, who have not completed th e ir high school education. Through s a tisfac to ry achievement, testees may earn high school equivalency c e rtific a te s and q ualify fo r admission to college or other advanced educational oppor­ tu n itie s . 3. Secondary Level Examination Program (SLEP)--A series of examinations which would permit students to receive high school credits fo r courses before they actu ally entered secondary school courses. 4. College Level Examination Program (CLEPJ—A series o f exami­ nations Introduced 1n 1965 by the College Entrance Examina­ tio n Board which grants credits fo r college courses to secondary students before they actu a lly attend college. 5. A lte rn a tiv e High School Programs Within the Public System— Arise many times when students succeed in expressing th e ir desire fo r programs relevant to th e ir interests and l i f e styles to a sympathetic lis te n e r , often a teacher with simi­ la r Ideas. Together they develop a program which can be sold to the school administrators and school board. 6. Radio and Television—A proposed a lte rn a tiv e to raising achievement levels o f students which advocates allowing high school c re d it fo r the acquisition o f knowledge obtained 1n the environment through exposure to educational and commer­ c ia l te le v is io n and radio . 7 7. Academically Talented Student--Th1s population Includes any student who 1s defined by a school system on the basis of comparison, o f his past performance w ith past performance of peers, as being above average In achievement. 8. Mini Schools— Designed to provide students with sm aller and more intimate opportunities to pursue a more personally satisfyin g program. Mini schools are often a part o f a larger school. There may be several program variations within the same building th at o ffe r students Inter-program m o b ility. They may focus on special areas of in te re s t or styles of learning. 9. S a te llite Schools— "Spin-off" educational programs which malntaln a relationship with the home school or schools. At the s a t e llite school d iffe re n t approaches 1n providing educational and personal courses and services may be available 1n con­ junction with a program o f conventional study at the larg e r school. 10. Learning Centers or Educational Parks— Specialized and more sophisticated courses and resources are centralized to provide students with opportunities to pursue areas of special In te r ­ est or Individualized advanced study. These course offerings can be integrated with a p art-tim e course o f study a t the regular high school or u tiliz e d fo r fu ll-tim e study. 11. Community Schools, or Schools Without Walls—These schools set up a managerial system 1n which youngsters and often parents share policy-making prerogatives with professionals. The extent of student-parent power varies considerably from school to school— along with academic programs and other pro­ gram aspects. U tiliz a tio n o f community resources as prime sources fo r Information and as the basis fo r most Instruction generally constitutes the central thrust o f the communityoriented school. 12. Special Needs ( e .g ., pregnant persons).— Programs are designed fo r students needing sp ecific and often specialized services. Examples Include programs as a second language concentration and so on— in essence, schools designed to f i t the special needs o f a target population. 13. Open Schools—These schools pattern themselves a fte r the B ritish In fan t school. The design 1s d is tin c tiv e : space divided 1n subject areas, each one ric h ly supplied with learning resources. Open schools u t iliz e a nongraded approach and allow children and youths o f d iffe re n t ages 8 to work together. Accenting in fo rm a lity , independence and c re a tiv ity , they encourage students to find th e ir own pace and in te re s t le v e l.' 14. M ulti-C ultural Programs—Some d is tric ts have created altern a­ tives with a racial or m u lticultu ral emphasis. Emphasis may be on gaining appreciation fo r racial and ethnic differences. These programs may o ffe r supplemental programs to the main high school.2 15. Survival Programs— Emphasis 1s on gaining experience with an exposure to those s k ills necessary to meet the challenge of natural environments. Such s k ills acquisition can focus on meeting the challenge o f nature, or learning how to get along with one another, or how to brave the elements, or surviving in the midst of densely populated areas, and so on. 16. A u xiliary Services -C ity -w id e network of centers dedicated exclusively to those who have dropped out or been helped out o f every other school or program. Such programs usually feature a carefu lly structured Independent study approach that permits students v ir tu a lly to set th e ir own hours and th e ir own pace. A u xiliary services, which turn away almost no one because of past record, provides a straightforward d r illin g in the fundamentals. Students are prepared fo r the high school equivalency examination or fo r the job market, i f th at is th e ir desire. 17. Bilingual Bicultural Education—This format focuses on Instruction using the native language and culture as a basis for learning subjects u n til second language s k ills have been developed s u ffic ie n tly , using two languages fo r Instruction. 18. Voluntarism—Provides students with opportunities to become productively involved in a c tiv itie s th at have value fo r them­ selves and fo r other people. Through such programs, the secondary school can bring back that "best of teachers— experience" by providing action, service and experimental learning options fo r its students. ^"All About A lternatives," Nation's Schools 90 (November 1972): 36. 2Ib1d. 3 This 1s a term that 1s used In New York C ity. "Auxiliary services" as currently used In Michigan describes an array o f ser­ vices which local d is tric ts are obliged to provide to nonpublic school children. 9 19. Neighborhood Education Centers— "The purposes o f Neighborhood Education Centers are to provide public high school students or dropouts educational, cultural and social programs and services sim ilar to programs and services made available as part o f a public high school course of Instruction; to increase student performance 1n terms of high school equiva­ lency; and to develop s k ills necessary fo r achieving success­ ful educational experiences beyond high school level" {R 388.601, 388.602, Michigan School Code) . Neighborhood education centers stress tne acquisition o f the basic s k ills while o fferin g an array o f supportive services designed to assist the student in reaching his academic goals. Commu­ n ity particip atio n and the u tiliz a tio n o f community resources are both elements 1n the neighborhood education centers' programs. 20. Street Academy—A street academy program 1s usually divided In to three stages: street academy, academy o f tra n s itio n , and prep school. Stage 1— Street Academy: Usually a sto re-fro nt school, conveniently located, dedicated to motivating and stimulating the dropout to revive his In te re st 1n and need for education. Individualized study program permits the student to stay u n til he reaches the eighth grade reading le v e l. This prepares him/her fo r Stage 2. Stage 2 --Academy o f Transition: the bridge between the street academy and Stage 3. The stu­ dent begins to work with the tra d itio n a l courses, with empha­ sis placed on basic subjects that were covered 1n Stage 1, and depending on his/her a b ility to handle these subjects, prepares fo r entry to Stage 3. Stage 3--Prep School: The springboard to college entry. Students are assisted in developing new and more e ffe c tiv e work and study habits. Self-d1sc1pl1ne, enhancement o f s k ills and talents are stressed through special techniques that Include group inquiry. Self-determination and pride 1n achievement 1s the key to the success o f this program, and no e ffo r t is too great to keep that motivation at Its highest peak.' 21. Schools o f Choice—Schools of choice (SOC) philosophy presents a d e fin ite contrast to the conventional program of ^National Urban League, B rie f on the Street Academy Program, October 1968. 10 public education. The program provides high schools from which a student* with his parents' consent* may choose one o f the options which offers him an educational environment th at most accurately re fle cts his Individual learning s ty le . The SOC are not new models fo r a ll schools. Rather, th e ir in te n t 1s to o ffe r students, parents, teachers and other educational personnel an a lte rn ative within the school system. Most see education In the broadest sense—as the f u ll develop­ ment o f a human being, as a way fo r man to reach his p o te n tial. The schools of choice are designed fo r students who feel th at they might b etter f u l f i l l th e ir potential fo r in te lle c ­ tu a l, creative and social growth 1n a school which provides broader educational opportunities and greater f l e x ib i li t y . Significance o f the Study The study has significance to several groups: state agencies, local educational conmunitles, Interested individuals, and students. These significances are lis te d below. State Agencies: 1. to provide Information regarding educational alternatives w ithin Michigan 2. to provide Information regarding the various types of altern atives 3. to provide Information regarding services available through a lte rn ative programs Local Education Communities: 1. to provide a directory o f educational alternatives 2. to reinforce the development o f alternatives 3. to provide a basis fo r arranging gatherings/conferences w ithin sim ilar communities Interested Individuals: 1. To provide a lis tin g of local alternatives addressing s im ila r id e n tifie d student needs 11 2. to provide a lis tin g o f alternatives w ithin th e ir county 3. to provide arecorrmended l i s t of guidelines Students: 1. to provide a lis tin g of the alternatives within th e ir d is tr ic t and county 2. to 3. to provide a lis tin g of alternatives fo r high school completion 4. to reinforce the notion o f choice 5. to provide a resource fo r gathering Information about the various types o f alternatives provide knowledge of various learning environments Lim itations of the Study 1. This study w ill only address those public altern ative programs at the secondary level in Michigan. ‘ 2. This study is not designed to evaluate any alte rn ative program. 3. This study w ill not id e n tify a ll o f the unique character­ is tic s o f each a lte rn a tiv e program. 4. A ll offerings at the secondary level are considered a lte rn a tiv e s , such as the " tra d itio n a l" high school, which has three major options: and general. college preparatory, vocational, This study w ill only co llect information on those altern atives that are not a common part of the "tra d itio n a l" high school. 12 Overview This chapter has Included the In trod uctio n , statement o f the problem, purpose o f the study, need fo r the study, procedures, d e fi­ nitions of terms, significance o f the study, and f in a lly the lim ita ­ tions associated with the study. In Chapter I I , a review o f p ertin en t lite r a tu r e w ill be given. The design o f the study w ill be given in Chapter I I I . Analysis o f the results w ill be covered 1n Chapter IV , and Chapter V w ill present a summary, some conclusions, in terp retatio n s of re s u lts , recommenda­ tions fo r planners, and recommendations fo r future research. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In this chapter the review o f pertinent lite ra tu r e related to this study w ill be presented 1n the following sequence: (1) a b rie f history o f secondary alte rn ative s, (2) common types of a lt e r ­ natives 1n the public schools, (3) planning a lte rn a tiv e s , (A) 20 key questions planners of a lte rn ative programs should ask, and (5 ) evalua­ tions of secondary altern atives. A B rief History o f Secondary Alternatives During the 1960s, parent-controlled "free" schools rapidly developed 1n the nonpublic sector. These schools were methods used by middle-class parents to voice th e ir dissatisfaction with the public system which they claimed fa ile d to meet th e ir children's needs. These schools were generally small 1n s ize , usually serving less than 30 students, parent-governed, parent-staffed, and charged a tu itio n fe e J Private businesses and foundations also provided support to street academies and sto re-fro nt schools fo r dropouts In the Innerc ity during this same period. Alternatives 1npublic schools were p not to emerge, however, u n til the early 1970s. * Vernon Smith, Robert Barr, and Daniel Burke, Alternatives 1n Education (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Founda­ tio n , 1976), p. 3. 2Ib id . 13 14 Many c re d it these early e ffo rts with providing the stimulus needed to develop alternatives w ithin the tra d itio n a l school. It should be noted, also, that in te re s t in altern atives by school dis­ tr ic ts was enhanced by money provided from private sources such as the Ford FoundationJ Schools began to use these experiments as testing laboratories fo r new Instructional approaches and structures, cu rricu la, and par­ ent and student involvement. The development of alternatives 1s considered to be the only major movement occurring in public education in the 1970's, according to Mario Fantlni. He cited a 1971 Gallup Poll which reported that 60 percent of the American people were completely s a tis fie d with th e ir schools compared to 40 percent who were d is s a tis fie d . The m ajority of the remaining 40 percent lend th e ir support to altern atives in education. 2 In order to create reforms 1n education, Fantini advocates offering a wide choice o f alternatives w ithin the Individual school system u n it. These programs flow along a continuum from the tra d i­ tional to the learner-directed. Learning experiences might occur in the school building I t s e l f , 1n the community, or 1n the private sector. In addition, alternatives would guarantee a comprehensive V ord Foundation, Matters o f Choice. A Ford Foundation Report on A lternative Schools (New York: Ford Foundation, 1974), p. 35. 2Mar1o 0. F an tin i, “Alternatives Within Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan 54 (March 1973): 444. 15 set o f educational objectives to Include (1) no e x c lu s iv ity , (2) no substantial increase 1n per pupil cost, and (3) a valid plan fo r evaluation.^ In a more recent Gallup Poll o f Attitudes Toward Education, the results showed that over 60 percent o f the respondents, including 60 percent parents and 80 percent professional educators, endorsed the establishment of alternatives w ithin public schools fo r those students who lacked In te re s t or were bored with the conventional type 2 o f education. The negative labels attached to altern atives 1n former years are subsiding, as Indicated by the supporters o f this movement. No longer 1s i t synonymous with disruptive students or dropouts. Acceptance 1s fin a lly surfacing fo r th is new concept 1n education. The Report from the Commission on the Reform o f Secondary Education urged secondary educators to provide a broad range o f a lte rn a tiv e programs so that a ll students w ill have a meaningful educational 3 option available to them. Several states have gone on record recommending the develop­ ment o f alte rn ative s. In 1972, a New York c itiz e n s ' commission recom­ mended alternatives fo r Its public system as much as possible, and 1n Illin o is the State Department o f Education was Involved 1n starting tyarlo D. F a n tin i, "Alternatives 1n the Public School," Today's Education 63 (September-October 1974): 65. 2 Smith, Barr, and Burke, A lternatives in Education, p. 134. 3 Commission on the Reform o f Secondary Education, The Reform o f Secondary Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), p. 16 altern atives. C a lifo rn ia , however, was the f i r s t state to mandate altern atives fo r its residents. Legislation under the Dunlap B i l l , passed In June 1975, allows any parent or guardian to request a local school d is tr ic t to establish an a lte rn ative school program. Furthermore, the b i l l defines a lte rn a tiv e s , and authorizes local school boards to establish and maintain such programs. Another major endorsement came from the New York State Education Department when I t acknowledged alternatives In education and recommended development of alternatives in every communityJ The movement that began In the store fronts of Inner c itie s has grown into a viable e n tity w ithin the school system. In the Ford Foundation report, Hatters o f Choice. 1t is stated: "The point has been made that alternatives are necessary and can work educa­ tio n a lly . Whether they continue and m ultiply now depends more on school systems' own In itia tiv e s than on external assistance." This placed a challenge before public schools which many were not yet prepared to accept. As in the past, change and credence were to be gained through the te s t of time. One major boost to the phe­ nomenon o f alternatives occurred in 1972 when the North Central Association o f Colleges and Schools appointed a task force to develop accreditation standards and procedures fo r a lte rn a tiv e schools. As a result of th e ir work, the new Policies and Standards fo r the Appro­ val o f Optional Schools and Special Function Schools evolved, and ^Smith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 136. 2 Ford Foundation, Hatters of Choice, p. 35. 17 1n 1975 the f i r s t three a lte rn ative public schools were approved fo r membership 1n the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.* Comnon Types o f Secondary Alternatives A frequent question asked 1s: "What makes secondary alterna­ tives d iffe re n t from other types of school programs?" Perhaps the best manner 1n which to approach the answer would be to give some detailed descriptions o f such programs, recalling th a t, In this study, a secondary a lte rn a tiv e program is defined as: a program which 1s a part of the public school system, s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t from the basic conventional program, and available to students by choice. Glatthorn Id e n tifie d two basic types o f organizational forms o f alte rn a tiv e programs, when viewed from the perspective o f the con­ ventional larger school building: comprehensive. the lim ited a lte rn a tiv e and the An example o f a "lim ited alte rn a tiv e program" 1s one In which one large school offers one or two altern atives to a small number o f Its students. The term "comprehensive a lte rn a tiv e program" 1s used to describe a situation 1n which the e n tire school 1s divided into several programs with a ll students enrolled in one or more of 2 the altern atives. *Sm1th, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 136. 2 Allan A. Glatthorn, Alternatives In Education: Schools and Programs (New York: Harper & kow, 1975), p. 42. 18 Vernon Smith and his associates suggested that public a lte r ­ natives be c la s s ifie d according to: (1 ) emphasis on In stru ction , (2) emphasis on curriculum, and (3) emphasis on resources.^ I t would be v ir tu a lly Impossible to Include a ll the d iffe re n t types of alte rn a tiv e programs, using any single c la s s ific a tio n system, 1n th is b rie f discussion. Therefore, only the most common v a rie tie s w ill be discussed, giving descriptions o f s ig n ific a n t aspects, and c itin g some examples. Schools Without Walls: The Parkway Program in Philadelphia opened 1n 1969, and became the symbol o f alternatives 1n the public school movement. Nationwide media reports about the program appeared 1n major newspapers, professional journals, and on tele visio n . It was the f i r s t secondary alte rn a tiv e designed to be made available to any high school student 1n Its community, and the c ity o f Philadelphia. Parkway also was the f i r s t program designed to use the community as a learning environment. Students eagerly rushed to enroll 1n this new program, creating some admissions problems fo r the school admin­ is tra to rs who were not prepared to expand the program to accommodate a ll those students Interested In attending. Parkway 1s based on the premise that students do not need classrooms to learn. I t uses the resources of the e n tire community, thus elim inating new construction costs. Students attend classes 1n hospitals, museums, social agencies, and local businesses. Many * Smith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 33. 2Ib 1d ., p. 22. 19 courses are taught by professionals—stockbrokers, bankers, doctors, arch itects, e tc J Conventional classes are often taught by school s ta ff. 2 These courses sometimes are tra d itio n a l in both content and learning objec­ tiv e s , but the wide d iv ersity o f locations and opportunities for new experiences have a strong appeal fo r students. Chicago's Metro High School is another example of a "school without w alls," and I t too is designed to use the community as a classroom. I t 1s not unusual fo r students to take a course 1n marine biology at Shedd Aquarium, animal and human behavior at the Lincoln a Park Zoo, and creative w riting at Playboy. Mini-Schools or Schools Within Schools: These secondary alternatives usually function in a wing o f a building, or occupy a separate flo o r in the tra d itio n a l school building. A more recent development in the mini-school movement Is the emergence of en tire 5 buildings housing such programs. Lawrence Goldfarb, Peter Brown, and Thomas Gallagher, "Inno­ vation in the Philadelphia School System," in A lternative Learning Environments, ed. Gary Coates (Stroudsburg, PaTl Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, In c ., 1974), p. 171. 2 Leonard B. F1nkelste1n and L1sa W. S tick, "Learning in the C ity ," 1n A lternative Learning Environments, ed. Gary Coates (Strouds­ burg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, In c ., 1974), p. 253. 3 "All About A lternatives," Nation's Schools 90 (November 1972): 36. 4 Smith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 37. 5Ib1d., p. 38. 20 Mini-schools were an outgrowth o f educational reform e ffo rts within the New York public schools sought by community groupsJ The New York Urban C o alitio n , a private nonpublic corporation, developed this concept 1n cooperation with the local education system. It began as a p ilo t project In one f a c i li t y , Hughes High School. 1t has grown Into a cltywlde complex o f mini-schools. cites two special characteristics o f this program: Today The Coalition (1) the emphasis given to in-service s ta ff development to b e tte r enhance planning, management, and curriculum development c a p a b ilitie s ; and (2) the attention to students' nonacademic needs. As in other programs designed to be alte rn a tiv e s , 1t 1s small In size to promote community partnerships with businesses and s ta ff. Currently over 50 mini-schools are functioning within New York City high schools, eith er using single m1n1-un1ts or by to ta lly converting to a ll m ini-units. Other mini-schools are now functioning 1n Quincy, I l l i n o i s , and Cleveland Heights, Ohio.3 Learning Centers: These secondary altern atives have th e ir origins 1n the vocational or technical high school with its special programs and equipment. Learning centers specialize In subject areas, such as communication, urban studies, and performing a rts . c ^"Are Options Needed?" New York Urban Coalition Mini-School News 4 (November 1974): 8. 2Ib id ., p. 8. 3 Smith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 38. 4Ib id ., p. 37. 5|,A11 About A lternatives," Nation's Schools 90 (November 1972): p. 37. 21 With school d is tric ts struggling against dwindling tax bases and higher In fla tio n , these programs help to provide special resources which every school w ithin a school d is tr ic t could not make available to students. Such centers are now moving Into medical centers. For Instance, the program fo r students attending Houston High School fo r the Health Professions is located a t the Texas Medical Center in Houston. This f a c i li t y has the available resources, equipment, and s ta ff to help students learn a ll about health careers.^ St. Louis, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Chicago communities have established learning centers specializing In subject areas. Students leave th e ir neighborhood schools to attend such centers e ith e r on a fu ll-tim e basis fo r one semester, or on a part-tim e schedule during the day. In St. Paul, learning centers are located between the suburbs and the c ity to allow students from both areas the benefits of m1n12 courses offered 1n the site s . Educational Parks: This Innovation among secondary altern a­ tives closely resembles "schools without walls" and "learning cen­ ters" discussed e a r lie r . However, 1t too 1s an example o f a program s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t from the tra d itio n a l school program and other altern atives mentioned e a r lie r . I t is not uncommon fo r the program to be larger than the standard school, housing a variety of programs from preschool to senior c itize n s . This discussion, however, 1s lim ited to the secondary a lte rn a tiv e component. Jsmith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 37. 2"A11 About A ltern atives," Nation's Schools 90 (November 1972): 37. 3lb1d., p. 38. 22 This program was established 1n 1968 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to o ffe r courses that could not be supported 1n neighborhood schools due to excessive costs associated with the need fo r expensive equip­ ment, specialized teachers, or because o f low enrollment. Ed Park, as 1t 1s called , 1s open to a ll c ity area students. I t 1s quite complex 1n Its design, using community f a c ilit ie s such as the ju n io r college, a rt g a lle ry , and c iv ic theater. Here students receive an opportunity fo r self-d irected learning through a high degree of Independence while sampling the 80 or more offerings 1n Its expanded curriculum. The enrollment reportedly has doubled 1n the la s t four years, and 1t now serves about 2,300 students 1n the to ta l program. Ed Park functions as an umbrella for several other alterna­ tives. High school students 1n Advancement Independent Study Pro­ grams develop in-depth learning contracts 1n cooperation with the In te rd is c ip lin a ry s ta ff in order to p articip ate 1n investigations o f p a rtic u la r issues. Sometimes these studies c a ll fo r students to go into community agencies. Another a lte rn ative 1s the Early College Enrollment Program, which appeals to twelfth-grade students who are not challenged or who are bored with the tra d itio n a l public school curriculum. They can choose to take ju n io r college classes and earn both high school and college credits -at the same time. For students who are highly motivated and talen ted , there is Art Studies. Students may choose to pursue th e ir studies 1n o ff- s ite community f a c ilit ie s and resources, such as the museum or media center. 23 Other students may choose the Center fo r World Studies, which is an o ff-s ite a lte rn a tiv e fo r students interested in international issues. ing. Emphasis is placed on Independent study and c r itic a l think­ High school c re d it can be earned in social science, science, humanities, and the arts. In summary, confusion often arises because no standard d e fi­ n itio n o f an a lte rn a tiv e secondary education program exists. What may be defined as an example o f an a lte rn a tiv e in one community may not be 1n another. The lite r a tu r e , however, does seem generally to support the notion that there are certain c r ite r ia or characteris­ tic s th at altern atives must meet to be designated as such. These c r ite r ia are choice, differen ce, and a representative enrollment.^ Thus, when making a determination about a secondary a lte rn a tiv e , three questions should be asked o f the program: (1) Is the program an available option fo r students, parents, and teachers? Id e a lly , the population should be made up o f volunteers who choose to p a r tic i­ pate. Where the school system provides altern atives to accommodate a ll students who seek them, then the tra d itio n a l school becomes an a lte rn a tiv e . (2) Is the program s ig n ific a n tly d iffe re n t in Its approaches to learning, 1n curriculum, or 1n resources or f a c i l i ­ ties? A lternatives ex is t because an educational need 1s perceived within Its community, and such programs must re fle c t a commitment to be more responsive than the conventional school programs. (3) Is ^ Ib id ., pp. 28, 34-35; F a n tin i, “Alternatives Within Public Schools," pp. 444-48; F a n tin i, “A lternatives 1n the Public School," pp. 63-65. 24 any group systematically or d elib erately excluded from attending the program? dents. Alternatives are not Intended to be fo r only selected stu­ The racial and socioeconomic dimensions o f the e n tire commu­ n ity should be represented 1n the population. This does have an exception, however, when the secondary alte rn a tiv e program was designed fo r a specific group th at 1s not representative of the community's to ta l population. Such programs Id e n tifie d sometimes as special needs programs are fo r pregnant persons or fo r dropoutsJ I t 1s probably too early to make predictions about the future o f alte rn a tiv e s . While more than 5,000 public alternatives are 1n operation today, th e ir to ta l enrollment. Including elementary pro­ grams, 1s estimated to be about 2 m illio n , or 2 percent o f the to tal student population. Only about 15,000 communities, 10 percent o f a ll communities, have altern atives operating in th e ir school systems. Even fewer dis­ tr ic ts have options fo r a ll students. Berkeley, Grand Rapids, and 2 Minneapolis are moving 1n this d irectio n . Planning Alternatives I t 1s apparent from the lite ra tu r e th at alternatives are not spontaneous Innovations. planning, and development. Their creation Involves much analysis, A commonality which prevails throughout 1s the fac t th at certain deliberate steps precede the Implementation o f programs. In th is section, the discussion w ill focus prim arily ^Glatthorn, Alternatives In Education: 5chools and Programs, p. 38. 2 Smith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, p. 23. 25 on the concerns and Issues which planners should be aware of before engaging in the r e a lity o f alte rn ative s. Perhaps then planners and developers could avoid the mistakes others have experienced and bene­ f i t from options and strategies mentioned. A framework which exemplifies the type of schema planners and developers might follow Is one suggested by Glatthorn (Table 1 ). He Id e n tifie d 20 s ig n ifica n t characteristics o f a lte rn a tiv e s , 1n this case at the secondary lev el. However, the schema 1s applicable to elementary-level programs as w e ll. Several d iffe re n t variations or options are given to permit the planners and developers an opportunity to see d iffe re n t combi­ nations 1n program design. These suggestions are only to serve as guidelines, and do not necessarily apply 1n a ll cases. In Table 1, the Glatthorn model 1s presented, complete with the 20 factors. Three optional program designs Illu s tr a te the various ways these factors can be arranged. In Chapter IV, the results o f the research w ill Illu s tr a te how the four most popular a lte rn ative programs 1n Michigan u t iliz e Glatthorn's 20 factors. Then 1n Chapter V, the researcher w ill give concluding statements pertinent to Michigan educators using the Glatthorn model. In this section, 20 s ig n ifica n t characteristics o f altern a­ tiv e programs w ill be discussed using a question-and-answer format. Again, 1t must be pointed out th at these 20 points are only guidelines and not exhaustive or necessarily essential to a ll a lte rn ative pro­ gram designs. Table l . — Glatthorn's taxononiy fo r alternatives. a n u a B a n fe a a B a a x a s K a e e s 3 S Factors B e a a « B 8 9 S K s « a s e i= Option 2 Option 1 Option 3 1. Funding Public tax funds Federal, state, foun­ dations Tuition & contributions 2. Control Public school system Church, university, or other institu tio n Parents, community 3. Students Heterogeneous Basically homogeneous by virtue o f interest Intentionally homogene­ ous on basis o f prede­ termined c rite ria 4. Board Inactive board Moderately active board Dominating board 5. Daily governance Teachers Teachers & students Students 6. Leadership Single strong leader Single democratic leader or team of leaders No single leader, deci­ sion by consensus 7. Relationships with conventional school Housed in same building Annex Completely separate 8. F a c ilitie s School building Nonschool fa c ilit y No single building 9. Full-time or parttime program Part of day or part o f year Chiefly fu ll-tim e , with some movement back to main school A ll education in alternative C ertified Chiefly c e rtific a te d , with some noncertifi­ cated Noncertificated 10. S taff Table 1 .—Continued. Factors Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 11. S taff organization Differentiated Some d ifferen tiation No d ifferen tiatio n or specialization 12. Student selection "Forced" assignment lo tte ry from among applicants Open admission 13. Exclusion Pupils excluded i f they break rules Only a few pupils excluded for very serious infractions No one ever asked to leave 14. Program evaluation Comprehensive Minimal None 15. Degree of structure Highly structured and controlled Students & s ta ff develop minimal structure Openly permissive 16. Nature o f program Conventional school offerings Mixture of conven­ tional & esoteric Chiefly esoteric offerings 17. Grade organization Graded Nongraded within lim its Wide range of ages intentionally mixed 18. Schedule College schedule College schedule with variations No schedule 19. Pupil grading Letter grades with options Noncompetitive evaluation No evaluation at a ll 20. Crediting Carnegie unit Carnegie unit with variations No credit Source: Allan A. Glatthorn, Alternatives in Education: Schools and Programs (New York: Row, 1975). Harper & 28 Twenty Key Questions Planners of A lternative Programs Should Ask The Source o f the School— Funds and Control Questions 1 and 2 deal with the basic sources o f the school— Its origins and its fiscal resources. 1. What 1s the source o f funding? An Increasing number of a lte rn ative schools, lik e most of those 1n Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are supported e n tire ly with local tax d o llars; such funding probablyprovides fo r the greatest amount o f security and ensures the maximumlocal com­ mitment. Many schools, at least 1n the f i r s t few years of th e ir existence, draw upon state and federal funds or special grants from private foundations; In the early seventies, fo r example, the O ffice o f Experimental Schools o f the O ffice o f Education funded several alte rn a tiv e schools 1n Berkeley, C a lifo rn ia . While such federal grants ease the financial burdens during the f i r s t c r itic a l years, they Involve a high degree of ris k , since federal funds are subject to the whims of Congress and the caprices o f the president. Most o f the small free schools and freedom schools are supported e n tire ly by tu itio n and contributions; 1n fa c t, many o f the leaders o f the free school movement feel that any other kind of funding 1s e ith e r immoral or unduly re s tric tiv e . Such funding permits the maximum ideological freedom; but 1s equally precarious, and many free school directors seem to spend an Inordinate amount of time raising and collecting money. 2. What 1s the ultim ate source o f control? An increasing number o f a lte rn ative schools are part o f the public school system, responsible to a d is tr ic t school board. A small handful of a lte rn ative schools are church-related, most o f them private schools that once prided themselves on being academically e lit e and have now moved toward an a lt e r ­ native educational s ty le . And a large number o f alte rn a tiv e schools are tru ly Independent, responsible only to th e ir board o f directors or some faculty-parent group. The Nature o f the Student Body 3. Who are the students th at the school serves? In many ways, th is 1s the central question from which every­ thing else follows. In any planning sequence th is question perhaps should be one o f the f i r s t raised; once the target population and It s needs have been Id e n tifie d , a ll matters of governance and program can be decided b e tte r. A lternative 29 schools have developed an interesting variety o f answers. On the one hand, some e x p lic itly tr y to get a heterogeneous student body, even though they re a lize a certain kind o f homogeneity results from s e lf-s e le c tio n . On the other hand, some alte rn a tiv e schools re c ru it only certain types o f students—dropouts, drug users, disruptive students, a r t is ­ t ic a lly talented, or some other special group. While the heterogeneous student body is probably more interesting and challenging, a sense o f community is probably easier to develop when the students have in common something more than the desire to attend that school. Boundaries and Power With the student body te n ta tiv e ly Id e n tifie d , the next group of decisions deals with the c r itic a l tasks of power delineation and boundary settin g . 4. How active 1s the policy-making board? Some a lte rn ative schools are re a lly operated by th e ir s ta ffs , with the o ffic ia l board functioning prim arily as window dress­ ing. At the other extreme, some o f the freedom schools with close community tie s are in r e a lity controlled by the c itize n board, which takes an active In te re s t In the day-to-day a ffa irs o f the school. 5. Who is prim arily responsible fo r the day-to-day governance of the school? In most alte rn a tiv e schools, despite th e ir rhetoric of par­ tic ip a to ry decision making, the teachers are c le a rly 1n charge, with the students being only nominally involved. In a few o f the more radical a lte rn a tiv e schools, the fa c u lty , they have the deciding vote when pure democracy Is practiced. In a few schools there is a sincere attempt to stake out areas fo r s ta ff decision making, areas fo r student decision making, and areas o f shared Influence. 6. What is the nature o f the on-s1te leadership? This question has provoked violent controversy w ithin the movement. On the one hand, there are those lik e Jonathan Kozol (1972) who argue that a single strong leader 1s needed, often a charismatic figure who pulls the school through a continuing series of crises. On the other hand, some very small free schools, chic leadership, where decisions are made by consensus or not at a l l . Host alte rn a tiv e schools are somewhere 1n the middle, with a strong leader working hard to get s ta ff and student input into a ll c r itic a l decisions. 30 Location 1n Space and Time The next sequence o f questions examines organization, s p a tia l, and temporal relationships, as another level o f boundary settin g . 7. What 1s the school's relationship with the conventional schools? A small number of a lte rn ative s— lik e the Cambridge Free School 1n Massachusetts— are ac tu a lly housed w ithin the regular school and draw heavily upon the support services {c a fe te ria , health services, and so on) provided by the regular school. While such an arrangement 1s often most feasible economically and enables the s ta ff to devote It s energies to other more cen­ tra l problems, the arrangement also has severe drawbacks. Problems o f t e r r i t o r ia l it y develop with the regular school, and the a lte rn a tiv e students often find themselves subject to two quite d iffe re n t sets o f rules and codes o f behavior. Most a lte rn ative schools have opted fo r complete Indepen­ dence, operating to ta lly autonomous and physically separate units. The tra d e -o ff Is obvious. They gain more freedom but have more problems with f a c ilit ie s and services. Several a lte rn ative schools have trie d to have the best of both worlds by operating as a semidetached annex to the regular school; the School fo r Human Services, fo r example, Is an annex o f the John Bartram High School 1n Philadelphia. Such annexes ty p ic a lly keep th e ir students on the attendance ro lls of the conventional school and recommend that the regular school Issue a diploma when its s ta ff feels th at the altern a­ tiv e school student has q u a lifie d fo r 1 t. Such annex arrange­ ments have unique advantages; the main drawback 1s th a t, being neither fish nor fowl, the school spends much time negotiating questions o f fin a l authority. 8. What type of f a c ilit ie s should be used? Many alte rn a tiv e schools are housed in old school buildings that the d is tr ic t abandoned 1n favor o f new ones; such old buildings constructed In the early decades of this century are s t i l l in sound condition and seem to make suitable envi­ ronments fo r a lte rn a tiv e schools. Some schools, lik e the early Parkway Program, have no single building but use the varied resources o f the c ity ; In such cases a warehouse l o f t often doubles as o ffices and assembly room, with the students leaving th is home base fo r learning throughout the c ity . And many-alternative schools are housed 1n very unconventional f a c i li t i e s , such as abandoned fa c to rie s , empty dorm itories, and vacated supermarkets. 31 9. Is the a lte rn ative school viewed as a ll or part o f the student's education? In a few cases the alte rn ative school Is seen as only a part of the student's secondary education—e ith e r as a part o f each year or as one fu ll year 1n a three-year program. The Freedom School 1n Washington, D.C., fo r example, provides a blackoriented curriculum fo r part of the student's day; 1n the other h a lf of the day he or she attends the regular school, taking conventional courses. The Pennsylvania Advancement School In Philadelphia previously enrolled ju n io r high school students fo r a year, a fte r which they returned to th e ir regu­ la r school. While such "part-time" schools are often attacked as being "fragmented," they do seem to o ffe r an a ttra c tiv e a lte rn ative fo r the student who Is not ready fo r a fu ll com­ mitment to the alte rn ative school. Most alte rn a tiv e schools, however, ask fo r and get a f u ll commitment from the student— he or she spends a whole day there and 1s expected to attend u n til graduation. In passing, this observation might be offered: as the number and variety o f a lte rn ative schools grow, I t seems quite lik e ly that In a typical four-year high school sequence a student might spend one year at each of three quite d iffe re n t alternatives and one year at the regular school. Teaching and Staffing The next phase of planning probably should Include determina­ tions about the composition and relationships o f the s ta ff. 10. What type o f s ta ff should be used? A few a lte rn ative schools use only fu lly c e rtific a te d teachers, perhaps because they are bound by state or local re stric tio n s or because they were started by a small group o f c e rtific a te d teachers who do not see a need to bring 1n others. On the other hand, some o f the radical free schools pride themselves on not using c e rtific a te d teachers at a l l , relying almost e n tire ly on parents and other concerned adults to provide the Instructional expertise. Most o f the a lte rn ative schools seem to be somewhere 1n the middle, using a small core s ta ff of c e rtific a te d volunteers and part-tim e paid help. 11. How should the s ta ff be organized? A few a lte rn ative schools use a d iffe re n tia te d s ta ffin g pat­ tern , with two or three levels o f leadership and many special­ ized functions (d ire c to r, head teacher, team leader, reading s p e c ia lis t, e t c .) . Most alte rn ative schools, however, re jec t such a practice as being too bureaucratic and undemocratic; they work hard to maintain a f l a t table o f organization, one 32 1n which there are no specialists and no differences 1n status. In the la t t e r form, fo r example, every teacher 1s considered a reading teacher and 1s expected to act as a guidance counselor. Student Selection, Retention, and Program Evaluation With the s ta ff selected or at least the process Id e n tifie d , the planning can next move to decisions about student selection, student retention, and program evaluation, the fin a l group o f deci­ sionswhich can rig h tfu lly be made without student and parent input. 12. How w ill students be selected? In a handful of the a lte rn ative schools (usually those fo r the d is ru p tiv e ), students are assigned to the school, with only a minimal amount o f choice; 1n most o f the free schools, anyone who walks 1n o ff the s tre e t Is welcomed. Most o f the a lte rn ative schools connected with the public school system permit a ll Interested students to apply, selecting by lo tte ry those to be admitted. While c r itic s of the lo tte ry system argue that many o f the students who "most need" the altern a­ tiv e school are excluded by the luck of the draw, the defend­ ers re to rt that 1t Is the only f a i r system—since no one can determine 1n advance who "most needs" the a lte rn ative school. 13. Will students ever be required to leave the school? Since the conventional schools have often been c ritic iz e d fo r excluding students who don't f i t 1n, most a lte rn ative schools are reluctant to follow the same practice. However, since they usually do not punish with detention or suspension, some schools find that the only sanction they have fo r controlling behavior 1s exclusion; they therefore set up rules and pro­ cedures by which students may be requested to leave the school. The free schools ty p ic a lly make a point of not asking anyone to leave; always there 1s the hope th at salvation is possible. 14. How should the program be evaluated? A few schools, ch iefly those with federal or foundation fund­ ing, develop and carry out elaborate evaluation systems, with e x p lic itly stated objectives and measures fo r determining whether those objectives have been achieved. Most free schools claim they are too busy fo r such formal evaluation and that th e ir programs are working toward goals that cannot be evaluated. 33 Program Substance and Implementation The fin a l stage o f the planning process Includes a ll those substantive matters that are perhaps best determined with student and parent Input. 15. How structured should the school be? "Structure" 1n this sense focuses on the question o f how much adult control and direction are desired. A few o f the freedom schools developed by and for blacks and other ethnic minori­ ties are openly proud o f the fact th at they operate a "tig h t ship"*, th e ir leaders contend th at young people from those ethnic groups seem to th rive best 1n a highly ordered world with strong adult authority. On the other hand, many o f the free schools espouse a child-centered permissiveness, argu­ ing that only as the child experiences to tal freedom can he or she learn to be free. Most a lte rn ative schools seem to be struggling along a middle path, having students and s ta ff together develop a few simple rules that a ll agree to accept. Those In this middle group argue quite strongly, 1n fa c t, that th is "boundary setting" 1s one o f the most important functions the school should accomplish before 1t opens fo r the f i r s t day. 16. What 1s the general nature o f the school's program? A few a lte rn ative schools o ffe r rather conventional programs 1n unconventional environments. Here again the freedom schools serving black communities argue that th e ir students need basic s k ills and solid subjects, not the "basketweaving" curriculum o f the free schools. But the free schools argue th at th e ir curriculum 1s rig h tly b u ilt around students' interests and the s ta ff's competencies; th e ir pro­ grams consequently feature such unconventional offerings as "stained glass making" "the Marxism o f Mao," "how to survive In the c ity without spending money," and "the p o litic s o f hunger." Most of the alte rn a tiv e schools seem to find them­ selves 1n the middle, often pushed there by the demands o f parents or the anxieties of students, o fferin g standard courses 1n science, mathematics, and foreign languages, sup­ plemented with a healthy mixture o f the esoteric. 17. How should students be grouped fo r Instruction? This question, which often absorbs the attention o f conven­ tional school administrators, does not loom very large in the a lte rn a tiv e school lite r a tu r e . Observation and correspon­ dence Indicate that a few school students are grouped by grade le v e l. Most of the free schools make a point o f mix­ ing older students and very young children 1n some type o f 34 "family s e ttin g ." Most o f the public altern ative schools operate nongraded programs in which students sort themselves out by in te re s t, with such groups usually covering a threeyear grade span. 18. What kind o f schedule should be used? The prevailing pattern in a lte rn ative schools seems to be some type of college schedule, where students are given a l i s t o f courses, teachers, and hours and are expected to build th e ir own schedules. Some of these f a l l Into rather regular pat­ terns o f Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 9-10; Tuesday, Thursday, 10-11:30. Other schedules Include interesting variatio ns, with team-taught courses offered in large blocks of time, or a single day set aside fo r "free-form learning." At the other extreme, some of the small free schools make a point o f having no schedule at a l l ; people meet together rather spon­ taneously without much prearranging to exchange Ideas and s k ills . 19. How should the pupils' progress be evaluated? Most o f the a lte rn ative schools have moved away from le t t e r grades (A ,B ,C ,0,F ). A few of the "straighter" a lte rn ative schools o ffe r students the choice o f having le t t e r grades 1f they want them fo r college admissions, but the greater m ajority are using personal conferences, w ritten evaluations, and student p o rtfo lio s , a more valid re fle ctio n of how the student 1s progressing. Some of the radical free schools have rejected the whole notion of evaluation and refuse to be judgmental about student progress and achievement. 20. How should schoolwork be credited? A few alte rn a tiv e schools use the conventional Carnegie unit as the basis fo r evaluating credits earned and determining the e l i g i b i l i t y fo r graduation. The more experimental schools use the Carnegie u n it only as a general guideline and develop more fle x ib le crediting systems. The free schools tend to re je c t the whole notion o f credits and simply le t the student determine when he or she 1s ready to graduate. These twenty questions should both assist in the planning process and be useful in describing the s ig n ific a n t features of a given school. Summation These 20 questions developed by Glatthorn 1n his e ffo r t to assist the designers o f altern atives should present a basic framework 35 to begin planning. one's needs. Included. A ll the questions may not be applicable to every­ There 1n fac t may be additional areas which can be From this basic framework planners can begin to experiment with th e ir own c re a tiv ity and resources to develop secondary a lte r ­ natives. Evaluation of Alternatives The lite ra tu re Indicated th at alternatives were somewhat fearfu l o f evaluation from an external source, and using tra d itio n a l measures 1n th e ir early years. Some a lte rn ative educators believed the tra d itio n a l evaluation methods were going to destroy th e ir pro­ grams because they were "d iffe re n t" and threatened the existing system. To them th is fear was ju s tifie d because o f the tenuous, fra g ile nature of the early programs.1 A lternative evaluation had also been addressed by Michael Hickey, 1n 1972. Hickey declared th at: Evaluation w ithin alte rn a tiv e programs cannot be separated from the planning process. I t begins with an Id e n tific a tio n o f needs and the establishment of goals and objectives based on those needs. By considering evaluation as part of the planning pro­ cess, goals and objectives can be considered from the perspec­ tiv e of the ease with which they can be evaluated. This 1s meant to Imply only th at some means o f evaluation can be estab­ lished fo r p ra c tic a lly any program o bjective, p a rtic u la rly i f the need fo r evaluative data 1s established early enough 1n the program so that appropriate measures can be b u ilt 1n.2 Ralph K. Hansen, Are Optional A lternative Public Schools Viable?, position paper, International Consortium fo r Options In Public Education, 1973, p. 3. 2 Michael Hickey, Evaluating A lternative Schools, position paper, National Consortium fo r Options in Public Education, 1972, p. 5. 36 In his discussion 1n "The Parkway Evaluation: The D irector's Perspective," 1n 1973, Leonard Flnkelstein pointed out th at his a lte rn ative was being evaluated by an outside agency. He went on to state the current format fo r evaluation o f students' performances at Parkway and Indicated th at i t was under revision to improve In the areas o f c la r it y , s p e c ific ity , and length. Through such a revision, Parkway Intended to make its evaluation procedures uniform w ithin the program, and "tra d itio n a l" measurement devices, such as stan­ dardized tes ts, were to be Included.1 In th e ir "Survey of Trends 1n Evaluation of A lternative Schools," Coppedge and Smith cited a study conducted In 1972-73 using subjects p articip atin g 1n the six in s titu te s on alte rn a tiv e public schools, jo in tly sponsored by the National Association o f Secondary Principals and the International Consortium fo r Options in Public Education. The primary purpose of the study was to obtain informa­ tion on the evaluation practices and preferences 1n a lte rn a tiv e schools. Their conclusions were based on 118 of the 452 participants representing 32 states across the country. The major conclusions of the study can be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. A lternative schools are receptive to the Idea of evaluation assuming they can afford the cost of evaluation sp ecialists and external evaluators. They preferred to give parents and students program change and information rather than boards o f education. They cited the lack o f, or weaknesses in personnel and resources, money, time, evaluation to o ls, and use of 1Leonard B. Flnkelstein, "The Parkway Program Evaluation: The D irector's Perspective," Changing Schools 2,2 (1975): 18. 37 4. 5. evaluation 1n decision making as major deterrents to improved evaluation. Two-thirds favored the Idea o f a center to provide evalua­ tion services to alte rn a tiv e schools; however, the majority f e l t the cost should be borne by an outside funding source, not the local school system. Large numbers f e l t additional research 1s warranted related to students and alternatives most favored student related research.' Grand Rapids has developed a d is tric t-w id e evaluation program to ascertain the effectiveness o f Its a lte rn ative education programs. No comparative data are available on a lte rn ative students and con­ ventional students, but c a re fu lly monitored and developed objectives are available to see 1f programs are reaching th e ir stated goals. External evaluations have also been conducted on these a lte rn ative s. From a 11st of 20 evaluation surveys conducted on altern a­ tives 1n Grand Rapids, the following strengths were found: 1. Fad 11tie s —A1ternatives make use of f a c ilit ie s existing 1n both schools and the community. This practice 1s a more e ffic ie n t use o f f a c ilit ie s than conventional schools, thus, low cost effectiveness. 2. Selection Procedures—A ll alternatives have developed a fin a l screening process to determine 1 f the alte rn a tiv e 1s the appropriate learning environment fo r a given student. Final screening Includes Interviews with parents and stu­ dents to Investigate th e ir expectations, and describe the educational program offered. 3. Student-Adult Ratio—A ll programs have a low student-adult ra tio compared to conventional schools. These range 1n altern atives between 1 to 15. This 1s possible through the use o f supplementing teachers with student teachers, uni­ versity Interns, aides, parent and community volunteers, and sp ecialists In certain s k ill areas. 4. Pupil Achievement— Findings Indicated success in four areas: Increased rates o f attendance, decreased suspension rates; V lo yd L. Coppedge and Gerald R. Smith, "Survey o f Trends 1n Evaluation of A lternative Schools," Changing Schools 3,2 (1974): 14. 38 Increased social m aturity, adjustment, self-confidence, sense o f re sp o n s ib ility, and Independence. Achievement scores were equal to standard schools in reading and mathe­ matics. Remedial gains in s k ill areas were consistently raised in altern atives. 5. Student-Teacher Relationships—Highly cited as a favored strength, the findings were that: a. Teachers tre a t students as people and with respect. b. Teachers establish warm, frie n d ly , and even affec­ tionate relationships with students. c. Teachers allow students freedom and resp o nsib ility simultaneously. d. Teachers create a casual, low-pressure atmosphere. e. Teachers show a genuine in te re s t in students. 6. Relevance—Students and parents both f e l t that most alternatlves o ffe r a r e a lis tic education that is connected to the student's future. Teachers are more open to suggestions and change than conventional schools.1 Alternatives are not panaceas with no fa u lts , and they s t i l l are experiencing some growth pains as others have who were trying new Ideas and methods. Perhaps the evaluation Information most feared by alte rn a tiv e program s t a ff weaknesses or problems in a lte rn ative education. The evaluator fa ile d to remember that students and s ta ff come Into these programs with old habits and behavior patterns which can only change over time and through the use o f preconceived s tra te ­ gies. By developing and establishing alternatives by goals, many problems can be prevented before they occur. Apparently Grand Rapids, through Its O ffice o f Planning and Evaluation, has benefited from Its past learning. There are s t i l l some problems which concern the Grand Rapids a lte rn a tiv e s , and frequently appear: a. Too much, too fas t syndrome where enthusiastic supporters tr y to expand programs too rapidly. Any hint o f a successful program and pressures are applied to enlarge and expand. ^Smith, Barr, and Burke, Alternatives in Education, pp. 57-58. 39 b. c. d. e. Screening and orientation o f schools 1s s t i l l not uniform. Student learning needs re la tiv e to environment should receive higher p rio r ity . Many programs su ffer Image problems due to poor communi­ cation o f program goals, weak public re la tio n s , and the unfortunate perception of alternatives as a dumping ground. S ta ff must be well acquainted with new processes before they are Implemented. Otherwise, harmful results might occur 1f certain approaches are trie d without proper train ing (example, behavior m odification). Conventional schools may feel slighted by the atten tio n , p rivileg es , money, and f a c ilit ie s granted a lte rn a tiv e s .' Evaluation fo r altern atives has created some trying experi­ ences, but today's programs seem to be b etter prepared to meet this challenge. In summary, the alte rn a tiv e education movement has progressed in the la s t fiv e years, but there may be some students th at alte rn a­ tives cannot f u lly serve such as students who are d is s a tis fie d with the conventional school, but lack the self-d1sc1p11ne/mot1vation required fo r the Independent learning environment offered in alte rn a­ tiv e s . Another concern which Is not exclusively re s tric te d to a lte r ­ natives but does pose problems 1s the area of meeting student needs. Again the altern atives are not able to be a ll things to a ll students; fo r example, they cannot balance students' desires fo r Individualized learning with th e ir desire fo r learning 1n groups* nor can alte rn a­ tives ensure th at every student w ill master the basic s k ills . To Incorporate some of the healthy aspects o f academic completion without ^ Ib id ., pp. 58-59. 40 Including some o f the negative aspects is also quite d if f i c u l t fo r alternatives to achieve.^ I t is only logical to conclude that nobody has yet developed one a lte rn ative program th at can provide everything to a ll people. That is why alternatives are so wide and d iv e rs ifie d . U ntil educa­ tors know more about the factors affecting student learning, such as environmental conditions, including space allowance, time influences, and m obility needs o f individuals, alte rn a tiv e educators must con­ tinue to search fo r new methods and techniques to help students pre­ pare fo r th e ir future roles in socijety. Summary In this chapter, the secondary a lte rn ative movement was traced from its origins in the nonpublic sector into the public school sys­ tems o f today. This discussion was presented 1n the following manner: (1) a b rie f history of secondary alte rn a tiv e s , (2) common types of alternatives in public schools, (3) planning a lte rn a tiv e s , and (4) evaluations o f secondary alte rn ative s. In Chapter I I I the design o f the study is presented. ^"Alternative Schools: What Have We Learned?" What's Happening 4,5 (January, 1975): 4. CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY In th is chapter the design used to c o lle c t the data and the method o f analysis are presented. This study 1s designed to employ the descriptive method o f research. The major purpose o f descriptive research 1n education 1s to t e l l "what 1s" or the "current status." Therefore, the method was selected as the best means o f determining the present status of secondary alternatives 1n Michigan. Borg lis ts the following functions of the descriptive method: Descriptive studies (1) are often of great value merely to make known the current state o f the science when the body of knowledge 1s re la tiv e ly small; (2) provide us with a starting point; (3) are the d irec t source o f valuable knowledge concern­ ing human behavior; (4) are used widely by public school sys­ tems 1n th e ir educational planning; (5) provide the school system with the means fo r internal evaluation and Improvement; (6) give a description of current status and a source o f Ideas fo r change and Improvement.1 Some descriptive studies can be based on hypotheses, but many are not. Usually, they are designed to portray facts and not to explain why the relationship exists or why certain conditions have occurred. Individuals 1n education and the behavioral sciences use the descriptive research method. York: Many types o f descriptive research ^Walter R. Borg, Educational Research. An Introduction (New David McKay Company, In c ., 1963), pp. 202-203. 41 42 are u tiliz e d . The type used 1n th is study is a social survey involv­ ing the use of a questionnaire technique to make a broad analysis of the problem. Population The to ta l population used for th is study was drawn from a population o f 96 secondary a lte rn ative education programs operating within Michigan public school d is tric ts . The alte rn a tiv e programs were Id e n tifie d fo r particip atio n 1n th is study according to the following d e fin itio n : An a lte rn ative education program 1s defined as a program which 1s a part of the public school system, uniquely d iffe re n t from the basic conventional program, and available to stu­ dents by choice. Methodology Procedures As stated e a r lie r , this study made use of the survey questionnaire technique. The f i r s t step included a telephone survey to determine which Michigan school d is tric ts operated secondary alte rn a­ tiv e education programs. Once this determination was made and the contact person Id e n tifie d , the questionnaire, along with a cover le t t e r , was mailed to the program. (See Appendix C fo r questionnaire and cover l e t t e r . ) A time frame was developed to allow 45 days fo r responses. A fte r the 45-day period had passed, 43 questionnaires had been returned. Follow-up telephone calls were made to nonresponding pro­ grams and when necessary, additional mailings were made. As a 43 consequence of these procedures, 13 more questionnaires were received. From the survey 56 or 58 percent o f the programs completed and returned survey forms. Development o f Survey Questionnaire The purpose o f th is study was to id e n tify and c la ss ify secon­ dary a lte rn ative programs operating in Michigan public schools. Furthermore, the study Intended to provide a description o f the types o f a lte rn a tiv e s , including th e ir unique and outstanding characteris­ tic s . In order to accomplish this task, several steps were necessary 1n the data-gatherlng process. The f i r s t step Involved the selection of a panel to assist in the construction of an appropriate question­ naire fo r respondents. The panel was headed by a psychometrlcian who had extensive experience 1n the fie ld o f a lte rn ative education. Others on the panel were representatives from the State Department o f Educa­ tio n , Intermediate and local school d is tr ic ts , an a lte rn a tiv e educa­ tion Instru cto r and adm inistrator, education researcher, and a program researcher. A to ta l o f 11 Individuals made up the panel. I t was agreed that a simple m ajority would determine the panel's decision in any voting situ atio n . The second step involved the formulation o f the items fo r the questionnaire. For the purposes o f this study, 143 Items were pre­ pared fo r the panel o f experts. Most o f these Items were constructed as closed-ended questions, which meant that the respondents selected th e ir answers from among a l i s t provided fo r th is purpose. Demographic 44 information, such as key dates, ages, grades, and so fo rth , was also mentioned. The th ird step involved the panel reviewing the items prepared fo r the research study. The panel used the principles applicable to most forms o f w ritten communication to analyze the Items: 1. Questions should be clear and e x p lic it. 2. Avoid complex or awkward wording. 3. A ll q u alificatio ns needed to provide a reasonable basis fo r response selection should be included. 4. Responses that overlap or include each other should be avoided. 5. Should be relevant. 6. Respondents must be competent to answer. 7. Avoid double-barreled questions. The panel reviewed the original pool o f 143 Items, and agreed that 68 o f the items were most appropriate and useful fo r the study. Next the questionnaire was pre-tested using a sample o f 10 former a lte rn ative education administrators. An analysis o f findings from the p re-test revealed that 33 Items fa ile d to be answered by the subjects due e ith e r to the lack of understanding or d if fic u lty 1n In te rp re ta tio n . Thus, fu rth e r modi­ fic a tio n and c la rific a tio n was necessary to obtain a useful instrument. In Its d elib eratio n, the panel looked a t the questionnaire and noticed th at several items could be grouped by the type o f In fo r­ mation sought. In fa c t, 1t was discovered th at fiv e Items pertained to program location, general program v ic in ity , delineation o f regional and/or community service boundaries, nearest cross s tre e t, and school 45 d is t r ic t area 1 f appropriate. Thus, through consolidation and dele­ tion of three Items, a ll sim ilar 1n nature were omitted with Items 4 and 5 yield ing the needed information. I t should be pointed out th at the panel used to develop th is instrument operated under the constraint o f satisfying mechanical or technical needs o f the Michigan Department o f Social Services. These constraints were created when the o rig in al computer programming pro­ cedures were set 1 n place p rio r to the alte rn a tiv e educational Items being Included. This meant that any needed reprograrrmlng would Involve additional expense which the Michigan Department o f Social Services (MDSS) wished to avoid. However, MDSS agreed to modify Its computer programming a fte r the fie ld te s t 1 f the questionnaire fa ile d to get the Information sought from Items. In a s im ila r manner, Item 13 resulted from fiv e original items which reflected upon funding, and item 5 consolidated this Information by allowing the respondent to check up to three responses. Items 17, 25, 28, 30, and 31 a ll were derived from procedures sim ilar to the one described 1n the previous discussion. Since there were a number of Items which dealt with age, e l i g i b i l i t y to receive services, sex, and school grade, these were consolidated Into four Items: 25, 28, 30, and 31. The remaining reduction o f 15 Items can be accounted fo r by the Michigan Department o f Social Services. As a consequence o f these m odifications, consolidations, and other procedures described, a 35-1tern questionnaire resulted which was deemed useful and appropriate fo r the study. 46 Analysis o f the Oata The data from the questionnaire were tabulated, analyzed, and recorded. The analysis of the data collected was presented 1n a number o f ways. Information was presented by raw scores in tables to indicate the number o f d is tric ts operating certain a lte rn ative programs and the responses to questions dealing with c la s s ifia b le Information was presented. The data received from the open-ended questions were reviewed, edited, and summarized. On the basis of these data, a state directory was developed. A page identifying each program was prepared. on each of the responding 56 alte rn ative s. The data are available Forty alternatives did not respond, but Part I I of Appendix A lis ts the names of the contact persons along with information on county and school d is tr ic t size . Summary This study was designed to provide Information concerning secondary a lte rn ative education programs operating 1n Michigan. The two specific objectives o f this study were to id e n tify and cla ss ify these programs. The descriptive research method using a questionnaire was used to carry out the objectives o f th is study. Programs Included in this study were id e n tifie d from a statewide telephone survey. data from the study were tabulated, analyzed, and recorded. Open- ended questions were reviewed and summarized. In Chapter IV a complete analysis o f the results w ill be presented. The CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS Introduction This chapter presents the data collected from the questionnaire and gives an analysis o f the results and a summary o f the findings per­ taining to the study. Secondary A lternative Education Program Types The a lte rn ative education t it le s and d efinition s used to assist respondents 1 n making the determination of th e ir program type were derived from a 11st generated from several surveys. These surveys were conducted by fiv e d iffe re n t educational e n titie s : 1. Nation's Schools^ 2. New York City Schools 3. National Urban League 4. F lin t Public Schools 5. Neighborhood Education Authority From these fiv e separate surveys, a l i s t o f 21 secondary a lte rn ative education program types were id e n tifie d to be used 1 n th is study. (See Appendix C.) ^"All About A ltern atives," Nation's Schools 90 (November 1972): 36. 47 48 From the available program t i t le s and definition s used fo r cla ss ifica tio n in th is study, 12 o f 21 were id e n tifie d as operational 1n Michigan school d is tr ic ts . Table 2 gives a breakdown o f these programs. Table 2 .—C lassificatio n of secondary a lte rn a tiv e education programs in Michigan. A lternative Program Types 1. Work Study Program Number 6 Percent 11 2. General Education Development (GED) 3. Secondary Level Exam Program (SLEP) 4. College Level Exam Program (CLEP) 5. A lternative High School Program Within Public System 6. ,, Radio and Television 7. Academically Talented Student 8. Mini Schools 9. S a te llite Schools 4 7 4 7 10 18 2 4 2 4 1 2 11 20 10. Learning Centers or Education Parks 11. Community Schools or Schools Without Walls 12. Special Needs (PregnantPersons) 13. Open School 14. M ulti-C ultural Program 15. Survival Programs 16. A uxiliary Services 17. Bilingual Bl-Cultural Education 18. Voluntarism 19. Neighborhood Education Centers 20. Street Acaden\y 1 2 21. Schools o f Choice 2 4 Total 56 100% 49 Three a lte rn a tiv e programs made up over 50 percent o f the reported altern atives: (a) those defined as alte rn a tiv e high school programs w ithin public systems, which numbered 13, constituting 23 percent; (b) neighborhood education centers numbered 1 1 , constituting 20 percent; and (c) special needs (pregnant persons) numbered 1 0 , con­ s titu tin g 18 percent. The remaining nine a lte rn ative types as shown 1n Table 2 rep­ resented 49 percent. I t should be noted th at work study programs represented 11 percent o f a ll programs reporting. As indicated 1n Figure 1, the preponderance o f reporting a lte rn a tiv e programs are located w ithin four counties 1n Michigan. They are Wayne with seven, constituting 13 percent; Ingham and Kent each with s ix , constituting 11 percent respectively; and Genesee with four, or 7 percent. The remaining 33 programs are located w ithin 22 counties In Michigan. From the figure 1t should be noted that most programs are located 1n the southern portion o f the Lower Peninsula. For purposes o f this study, local school d is tric ts were c la s s i­ fie d by the number of students enrolled 1n grades 9 through 12. Table 3 depicts the class and the population d is trib u tio n fo r each class. Based upon the Information 1n Table 3, 65 percent o f the responding a lte rn a tiv e types were located In classes I I , I I I , and V. The remaining classes I , IV, and VI had a substantially smaller num­ ber o f programs operating In th e ir d is tric ts . T m tft M l I 1 BVj j ~ * P H K p i^ g p a K * Key: Arabic Roman 1 I I •. V !. 1 ! ___ lTu«i«7!c»ir^o*oTeicii* MJ«4j0M T*iici»*i Respondents Nonrespondents -Jii -J L -j ttnra I is * i i I j - . L 11 \RX>mwTMf,(*tC i i i . _._L------- 1--------- L .. 1 . J ____ 'OCttm 'HtIfjrco 'UtZOSTA **"Ji ' J 1 10M 0L4 \CldM f i i 1__i_____ i i j jMwrcSw h *v*0* I * ' 'rvicoTi'fuVT/ic ji . i * L ._ . J . _ , j j I ) I I —T •*"* i o ! ; O — n J j n b iS - 4 w w ^ S r /,^ v 1 1 ! 6 l 4u ts ** /w ’i I i ! l. I ,— tL 1 I *1 ; tu tr • fsrtm lj new |Un tional Foundation, 1976.