University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Problems solved, problems created: A critical-case analysis of a public-private partnership in alternative education for at-risk students

(USC Thesis Other)

Problems solved, problems created: A critical-case analysis of a public-private partnership in alternative education for at-risk students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PROBLEMS SOLVED, PROBLEMS CREATED: A CRITICAL-CASE ANALYSIS OF
A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FOR AT-
RISK STUDENTS

By

Valerie Callet
______________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Valerie Callet

ii
Dedication
This study is dedicated to Ricardo and all our young people who do not graduate from
high school despite their potential.

iii
Acknowledgements
I wish to begin by thanking John Murray and John Super. Without your
transparency and trust, I could not have completed this endeavor. You not only granted
me access to your organization, but you welcomed me as part of your team. And to Rex
Comer, who met me at sites to introduce me to staff, students, and principals, thank you
for opening the door. Finally, I want to thank the district folks, the staffs, and the students
from the three sites under investigation for taking the time to answer questions about this
partnership. Without your openness and sincerity, I would have no finished product.
From the University of Southern California, I first want to thank my committee
members, David Dwyer and Melora Sundt, for your expertise and professionalism. Thank
you sincerely for taking the time to find the holes and suggest ways to fill them, for
stretching me to produce a better, more focused study. Next, I would like to acknowledge
my fellow TOOL colleagues: David Bolton, Treisa Cassens, Laura Castaneda, Ryan
Cornner, Jim Peng, and Jason Rey. It has been such a pleasure working with all of you
throughout this process. Having the opportunity to share ideas with this team has made
the journey so much more rewarding. However, the team would not have been as
cooperative and cohesive without our leader and chair, Guilbert Hentschke. Gib, from the
phone calls to the Saturday meetings, I have thoroughly enjoyed climbing this mountain
with you as a guide. I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your mentorship.
Besides the fact that you are a master scholar, you are also a master teacher, and it is
because of your light-hearted approach, kindness, and sense of humor that this process
has been both positive and enjoyable. I looked forward to our Saturday morning TOOL

iv
meetings, and I will miss them. You are indeed a great role model, the kind of teacher,
the kind of person I hope to become.
And now for the personal acknowledgements: I wish to first thank my dearest
friend Heather McGee for cheering me on, offering advice, and believing that I could
complete this paper. How lucky and honored I am to have you in my life. To baby Ani
who is literally pushing me to finish up. You are not a new chapter in my book but rather
a book of your own whose pages I cannot wait to turn. And finally, to Tony, for valuing
my dreams as your own, for the laughter and light that you bring to my life.

v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1
Nature of the Problem 1
Dropping out of School 1
Alternative Education Programs 5
Contracting and Partnering 9
Purpose and Form of the Study 10
Methodology 13
Significance of the Study 14
Limitations of the Study 15

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature 16
Dropping out of School 16
Intervention Efforts 17
Evaluating Dropout Intervention Efforts 20
Alternative Education 28
Alternative Education Impact 34
Individualized Learning 40
Computer-Assisted Learning 43
Contracting 45
Make versus Buy 46
Contracting in Public Education 48
Public-Private Partnerships in Education 50
Innovation and PPPs 56
Synthesis of the Literature and Present Research Focus 59

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 62
Research Questions 62
Sample and Setting 62
Data Collection 65
Interviews 65
Focus Groups 68
Observations 70
Documents 71
Student Records 71

vi
Preview, Consent, and Handling Data 72
Data Analysis 75
Assumptions, Limitations, and Scope 83
Credibility of Data within the Context of its Limitations 84

Chapter 4: Analysis of Findings 87
History 89
The Search for Solutions 89
Process of Forming a Partnership 93
Operations between GPI and the Schools 94
RQ #1 Problems Solved and Created 102
Addressed a Gap 104
Represented a Viable Alternative 108
Existed Within the System 111
Enabled Partners to Take Advantage of One Another’s Resources 114
Jeopardized Effective Teaching and Learning Practices 117
Lacked Criteria for Enrolling Students and Hiring Staff that Fit 122
Created Confusion among Stakeholders 125
RQ #2 Lessons Learned 129
Shared Commitment and Values 130
No Silver Bullet 133
Leadership Matters 134
RQ #3 Principal Advantages and Disadvantages 135
Private Partner Responsiveness 136
Learning 137
Relationships and Support 139
Perceptions 142
Distance 144
Business Partner 146
District Partner 147
Summary of Findings 149

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 151
Conclusions 151
Problems Solved and Created 152
Advantages, Disadvantages, and Lessons Learned 157
Generalities and Idiosyncrasies 159
Recommendations 161

References 167

Appendices:
Appendix A: Top District Official Semi-Structured Interview Protocol 174
Appendix B: GPI Management Team Semi-Structured Interview Protocol 178

vii
Appendix C: Student Focus Group Interview Protocol 182
Appendix D: Staff Focus Group Interview Protocol 185
Appendix E: Parents Informational Letter 188
Appendix F: Observation Protocol 189
Appendix G: Document Review Tool 195
Appendix H: Contract Sample Student Recruitment 197

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Aron’s (2003) Typology of U.S. Alternative Education Programs 7

Figure 2: Computer-Assisted Learning 78

Figure 3: Support 79

Figure 4: Data Sources for Answers to Research Questions 81

ix
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to determine what problems are solved and
created when two school districts and one charter school partnered with a private
company to provide alternative education to at-risk students. The research also aimed to
address lessons learned as well as principal advantages and disadvantages of the
partnership. Data collection included interviews with top district officials and principals
along with the private company’s management team. Focus group interviews were
conducted with students and staff from the sites. Observational data, documents, and
student-level data were also collected. Data analysis consisted of comparing the
responses of individuals who occupied similar roles at different sites and those who
occupied different roles. Data from observations, documents, and students were used to
test the reliability of the results.
Findings suggested that the partnership solved a number of problems: It addressed
the needs of a number of at-risk students, represented a viable alternative for districts,
existed within the districts and enabled partners to take advantage of one another’s
resources. On the other hand, the partnership created problems by jeopardizing effective
teaching and learning practices, lacking criteria for enrolling students and hiring staff that
fit, and creating confusion among stakeholders. Lessons learned included the necessity of
shared commitment and values in a partnership, that no silver bullet exists to address the
dropout problem, and that leadership matters. As for principal advantages, districts found
the private partner to be responsive, stakeholders learned from one another, and
supportive relationships were fostered. However certain disadvantages were apparent as

x
well: negative perceptions of the program, distance, and some stakeholders’ difficulty
working with an unfamiliar entity. A surprising finding was that the charter school
leaders, unlike their district counterparts, were committed to investigating options for off-
track youth beyond the partnership. In addition, the management team from the private
company noted several disadvantages of working with districts though top district
officials did not express a similar concern with respect to the private firm.
The findings from this study suggest that future research is needed to determine
why students leave alternative education programs so that additional options to recapture
off-track youth may be devised. Further research is also necessary to determine why
certain organizations foster individuals’ drives to seek solutions to complicated problems
such as dropout. Finally, how private companies can thrive working with districts is
worthy of additional research. In terms of policy, findings from the present study suggest
that partnerships between private companies and public schools can help create
educational options for at-risk youth.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Nature of the Problem
Dropping Out of School
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) estimates that approximately
3.5 million students in the U.S. between the ages of 16 and 24 are neither enrolled in high
school nor have obtained a high school diploma or equivalent (Laird, et al., 2008). They
are not distributed randomly among our youth. Most of the nation’s dropouts are poor or
minorities. The National Education Association (NEA) estimates that children living in
households in the lowest 20% of family incomes were six times more likely to drop out
than their peers whose families were in the top 20% (McKeon, 2006). In 2006, 5.8% of
White students ages 16-24 were not in school as compared to 10.7% of Black students
and 22.1% of Latinos (Laird et al., 2008). Similarly, NCES reports that 92.6% of White
students ages 16-24 have completed high school as compared to 84.8% of Blacks and
70.9% of Latinos (Laird, et al., 2008).
Failing to complete high school is particularly troublesome today as jobs that pay
a living wage are scarce for high school dropouts (Lehr, et al., 2003). Indeed, the costs
associated with dropping out are significant for the individuals who drop out and for
society as a whole. According to the National Dropout Prevention Center/Network
(NDPC/N), an individual who graduates from high school can expect to earn $9,000
more per year than a dropout. Dropouts are 72% more likely to be unemployed (McKeon,
2006) and have more health-related problems than graduates (Liard et al., 2008). High
school dropouts are also less likely to have health insurance resulting in increased
2
Medicaid and emergency room costs (Amos, 2008). Finally, the U.S. Department of
Justice reports that 30% of federal, 40% of state, and 50% of death row inmates have
dropped out of school (Laird, et al., 2008); society incurs crime-related costs for these
individuals (Amos, 2008). School districts also suffer as a district that experiences
declining enrollment will lose money despite the fact that expenses remain unchanged
(Perry, 2005).
The California Dropout Research Project focuses specifically on California’s
dropout problem. In a recent article, Belfield and Levin (2007a) outlined the economic
losses associated with the state’s dropout problem. They first examined educational
attainment for current cohorts of students and found that more than 30% of students in
California do not graduate from high school. Next, the authors calculated the costs
associated with providing education to dropouts until graduation compared to the
governmental costs of dropout on earnings, tax revenues, health, crime, and welfare
spending. Despite the authors’ use of conservative figures, the benefits far, far outweigh
the costs: The costs associated with providing two more years of education to a potential
dropout total $26,840. On the other hand, gains resulting from increased earnings equal
$25,840 in additional state tax payments, $29,510 savings in health services, $21,370 in
crime savings, and $3,700 in welfare savings for a total savings of $53,580 associated
with each additional student that graduates in the state of California.
According to Belfield and Levin (2007a) students who graduate from high school
are more likely to be working (68% v 58% for males; 50% v 28% for females) and have
jobs that include health benefits and pensions; graduates also earn more than dropouts:
3
White male high school graduates earn $402,720 more over a lifetime than dropouts;
Black males, $260,230; Hispanic males, $227,220; White females, $227,210; Black
females, $81,510; and Hispanic females, $112,170. Such numbers reflect the differences
in state tax revenue between dropouts and graduates. As for health, significantly more
dropouts use California’s Medi-Cal plan: White male dropouts, 15% compared to
graduates, 5%. The results are magnified for groups that enroll at high rates such as Black
women: 51% of dropouts are enrolled in Medi-Cal compared to 22% of high school
graduates. Here again, such figures are evidence of the high costs associated with
dropping out of high school.
Similarly, level of education plays a role in crime; increasing education reduces
violent crime by 20%, 11% for property crime and 12% drug-related crime. On average,
crime-related costs such as incarceration, parole, and crime prevention are $21,370 less
per expected high school graduate as compared to each dropout in California. Welfare
numbers are similar; graduates are 40% less likely to receive Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), 1% less likely to receiving housing assistance, and 19% less
likely to receive food stamps, resulting in state cost savings of $3,700 over a lifetime for
each additional graduate.
Belfield and Levin’s article (2007a) provided support for the argument that
additional spending to ensure that more students in California graduate makes fiscal
sense. Furthermore, the authors asserted that improving the quality of education would
raise the graduation rate. In a state that ranks 31st in the nation overall for its graduation
rate, efforts to address the problem are indeed warranted. Belfield and Levin (2007a)
4
argued that the money lost on each dropout “may be thought of as the amount of money
that government agencies could invest in the education of a 20-year old and still break
even” (p. 33). In a follow up article, the authors examined the return on investment for
improving the graduation rate in California but note that evidence surrounding effective
interventions to keep students in school is absent. Data on effective interventions is
lacking because many intervention programs are supported and advocated by
policymakers and educators without empirical evidence of effectiveness. Second, where
evidence exists, evaluations have not been rigorous. Further, education providers have
little incentive to discern which interventions are cost-effective as it may reduce their
funding. Finally, the process of evaluating educational interventions is not clear-cut.
Clearly student dropout exacts a significant toll on individuals as well as society
(Amos, 2008; Belfield & Levin, 2007a; Belfield & Levin, 2007b; Laird, Cataldi,
KewalRamani & Chapman, 2008). While research surrounding the dropout phenomenon
is ample (see for example Amos, 2008; Bickel, 1989; Finn, 1993; Fine, 1991; Laird et al.,
2008; Lee & Burkam, 2003; Worrell & Hale, 2001), empirical studies on effective
interventions to keep students in school are few (Christenson, Sinclair, Lehr & Godber,
2001; Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, Christenson, 2003; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003). Such research
suggests that improving relationships among students and between students and staff
leads to improved student engagement and persistence. Despite intervention efforts, many
students still do not fit in traditional school settings. In fact, Beales and Bertonneau
(1997) argue, “public schools cannot be expected to teach every child and teach all of
them well” (p. 1). Many difficult-to-educate students such as students with special needs,
5
at-risk students and adjudicated youth (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997) end up in alternative
programs, a final form of dropout intervention.
Alternative Education Programs
The number of alternative education programs, defined as programs that target
students at risk of educational failure (Kleiner, Porch & Farris, 2002), is certainly on the
rise, with current estimates ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 operating nationally (Aron,
2006). Between 1993 and 2002, the number of alternative schools tripled (Kleiner, et al.,
2002), and trends indicate continued growth (Lehr, et al., 2009). Of only 18 states that
provided data in a recent survey, enrollments in alternative schools totaled more than a
million students (Lehr et al., 2009). Districts that enroll minorities and students living in
poverty tend to have more alternative education programs, and in 54% of school districts
with alternative programs, demand is much greater than capacity (Kleiner et al., 2002).
High stakes accountability resulting from NCLB may account for the increased numbers
of students in alternative settings (Tissington, 2006) as educators may be concerned about
certain students’ scores counting against their schools (Nichols & Berliner, 2007).
Another reason for increased alternative school enrollments may be practices in
traditional settings that cause students to misbehave and get placed in alternative settings
(Tissington, 2006). Incidentally, among the highest number of students enrolled in
alternative schools are students with emotional, behavioral and learning disabilities (Lehr
et al., 2009). Typically, students in alternative schools are those at-risk of dropping out
and students who are low achieving academically (Tissington, 2006). Raywind (1994, in
Quinn et al., 2006) attempted to categorize alternative programs into three types. Type I
6
programs are full-time, voluntary placements, typically intended for students who need
more individualization or innovation (Raywind, 1994, in Brown-Ruzzi & Kraemer,
2006). Type II programs are last-chance options that address students with disciplinary
problems. Type III programs serve students with academic or social-emotional problems
who often return to their regular schools. Raywind (1994, in Quinn et al., 2006) later
responded to changes in the structures of schools and redefined the alternative school
categories “to better capture the complexities of alternative education today” (Quinn, et
al., 2006, p. 12): (a.) programs that attempt to change the student, (b.) programs that
change the school, and (c.) programs that change the educational system.
Several recent reports provide an overview of the variety of alternative education
options available throughout the U.S. (Aron, 2003; Aron, 2006; Brown-Ruzzi &
Kraemer, 2006) and in California specifically (Hill, 2007; Ruiz de Velasco et al., 2008).
Aron (2003) examined the literature surrounding what he called a new field, alternative
education for at-risk youth, in an attempt to synthesize the abundance of information
surrounding this area. The result of his review is a typology, or classification system of
different kinds of alternative education programs based on their shared characteristics.
Aron’s (2003) typology includes nine dimensions, which are useful in understanding the
variety of options, and the potential mix of options that characterize alternative education
programs throughout the U.S. (see Figure 1).

7
Figure 1. Aron’s (2003) typology of U.S. alternative education programs

General type of alternative education:
• Separate school or program
• Perspective/strategy with a regular K-12 school
Target Population:
• suspended/expelled students
• recovered drop-outs/at-risk youth
Focus/purpose:
• Academic completion
• Career preparation
• Disciplinary
• Transitional
Operational setting:
• resource rooms
• schools-within-a-school
• separate self-contained alternative school
Educational focus
• short-term bridge back to schools for students who are off track
• students who are very far behind educationally
• accelerated program
Sponsor or administrative entity:
• non-profit
• state or local education agency/charter school
• juvenile justice agency
• K-12 public or private school
• federally-funded program and contractors (e.g., Job Corps)
Credentials offered:
• Regular high school diploma
• General Educational Development (GED) diploma
Funding sources:
• Federal
• State
• Local
• Private
8
The typology clearly emphasizes the enormous scope of alternative education.
Alternative education programs are vastly diverse in terms of students served, educational
foci, sponsor entities and credentials offered (Aron, 2003). Despite these differences,
common characteristics of alternative education programs include flexible scheduling,
individualized instruction, and low student-to-teacher ratios (Aron, 2006). Aron (2003)
identified best practices in alternative education from his review of the literature
including small class and school sizes, student-centered approaches, and local control.
Concerns included the need to introduce and measure high academic standards while
preserving the unique features of alternative education (NGA Center for Best Practices,
2001, in Aron, 2003).
Alternative educational programs can, and often do, provide increased
opportunities for engaged learning among at-risk youth (Tissington, 2006). Research on
alternative programs, like research on other intervention reform efforts, highlights caring
relationships among students and between students and staff, relationships that are
presumed to lead to positive student outcomes (Cox, 1999; Dugger & Dugger, 1998;
Quinn, Poirier, Faller, Gable & Tonelson, 2006; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Tissington,
2006; Wilkins, 2008). Questions remain, however, related to students’ exposure to
challenging curriculum and pedagogy (Foley & Pang, 2006; Groth, 1998; Saunders &
Saunders, 2001; Muñoz, 2004; Wilkins, 2008) and with respect to the impact of
alternative education on students’ academic outcomes (Aron, 2003; Brown-Ruzzi &
Kraemer, 2006; Lehr, Tan & Ysseldyke, 2009).
9
Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), states have had to account for graduation
rates for the first time (Kronholz, 2001). More recently in 2008, the U.S. Department of
Education made explicit the formula for counting graduates, called the Four-Year
Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, which has placed pressure on districts to ensure all
students graduate within four years. The policy has the potential to unevenly impact
alternative programs, which serve students who are the most at-risk of educational failure
(Lehr et al., 2009). In efforts to enhance options available to school districts, several
recent reports on alternative education stress the importance of creating partnerships in
order to provide multiple education options and pathways to graduation for potential
dropouts (Hill, 2007; Martin & Brand, 2006; Ruiz de Velasco et al., 2008) including
partnerships between districts and private providers (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997;
Connolly & James, 2006; David, 1992; Martin & Brand, 2006; Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio
& Guàqueta, 2009; Relave & Deich, 2007). Here again, public schools simply cannot and
do not meet the needs of all students as evidenced by the more than 30% of students in
California who do not complete high school; “private providers are well equipped to meet
the special needs of difficult-to-educate students” (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997, p. 1).
Contracting and Partnering
The words privatization and contracting have been replaced with the more-
neutral, partnering due to ideological and political opposition to the former terms;
however, the idea is certainly not new (Savas, 2000; Wettenhall, 2003). Contracting, or
partnering, carries the promises of efficiency, competition and choice, improved quality,
and innovation (Connolly & James, 2006; David, 1992; Patrinos et al., 2009; Relave &
10
Deich, 2007; Savas, 2000; Wettenhall, 2003). Partnerships allow several organizations to
rally together to provide services to underserved students (Patrinos et al., 2009).
Partnering may also assure political legitimacy for members (Wohlstetter, Smith &
Malloy, 2005). Research on general outsourcing in education however suggests that
schools that are more bureaucratic tend to contract more, particularly in times of
prosperity (O’Toole & Meier, 2004; Pallesen, 2006), which calls into question the
assumption that contracting leads to more efficiency in education. More, the creation of
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), including managed and charter schools has not
resulted in innovation (Gold, Christman & Herold, 2007; Lubienski, 2007). Perhaps most
troubling is that contracting has been shown to lead to poorer student performance rather
than improved achievement (O’Toole & Meier, 2004). The rhetoric surrounding PPPs in
education appears to be quite different from the reality. What is common throughout the
literature is the fact that PPPs need to be more transparent and explicit about processes
and results, in other words, more accountable (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997; David, 1992;
Relave & Deich, 2007; Wohlstetter et al., 2005). Moreover, empirical data on the impact
of PPPs on educational outcomes is lacking, and of the evaluations of PPPs that do exist,
most do not follow acceptable and rigorous methods (Belfield & Levin, 2007b; Patrinos
et al., 2009).
Purpose and Form of the Study
The purpose of the present study is to determine what problems are solved and
created when districts partner with a private company, Graduation Partnership Inc. (GPI)
to provide alternative education to at-risk students. In addition, the research aims to
11
address the lessons learned and principal advantages and disadvantages of the partnership
from the perspective of different stakeholder groups. To describe GPI, it is useful to
examine where the program fits in Aron’s (2003) typology of alternative education
programs. As for general type, GPI is a strategy within a regular K-12 school rather than
a separate program. GPI targets students who are at-risk of not graduating; they are
typically over-age and under-credit. Students are between the ages of 16-20. GPI students
have been in school but have not passed their classes and are in danger of not graduating
as the result. Thus, the focus of the program is recovering credits to obtain a high school
diploma. Most GPI sites are in separate buildings on school campuses that operate in
three shifts per day to accommodate students’ schedules. Thus, in terms of operational
setting, the program is considered a school-within-a-school. GPI is a private company
that, since 2006, has formed partnerships with twelve districts in California and one in
Baltimore, Maryland; the company’s president and chief executive office (CEO)
anticipate rapid growth in the coming years.
Beales and Bertonneau (1997) noted three categories of difficult-to-educate
students that are often served by private entities: students with special needs, at-risk
students, and adjudicated youth. GPI serves the second category, students who are at-risk
of educational failure, students caught in “no-man’s land” (p. 14), who are neither
eligible for special education nor well-served in traditional schools. The authors mention
only a few such programs available to at-risk students (Boys Town, Sobriety High) but
only one, Ombudsman (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997), partners with districts to get
students back on track for high school graduation. Data on programs for at-risk youth is
12
conspicuously unavailable, and the data on Ombudsman is primarily limited to self-
reported success. However, a principal in one of Ombudsman’s partner schools
maintained that the district could not do what Ombudsman does at their cost.
Unlike Ombudsman, which was established in 1975, GPI is an extremely new
program established in 2006 that combines the typical characteristics of alternative
education like flexible scheduling and low student-to-teacher ratios with up-to-date
technology and college preparation. For example, each site has a learning management
system to keep track of students’ progress in the program and monitor students’ strengths
and weaknesses in each academic subject. Students at GPI also fulfill California’s A-G
requirements. This way, students who graduate from GPI are able to then attend a
California university. Another unusual feature of GPI is the fact that its founders and top
officials are former business executives, not educators; however, the majority formerly
worked for a leading provider of computer-assisted learning software prior to starting up
GPI.
Data from interviews, observations, documents, and students will be used to
identify what problems are solved and created when districts partner with GPI to provide
alternative education. These data will also highlight the lessons learned by different
stakeholders and principal advantages and disadvantages of the partnership. The
following research questions will be explored:
• What problems are solved and what problems are created when districts decide to
partner with GPI to provide alternative education for at-risk students?
13
• What do key stakeholders believe are the lessons learned from their experiences
in the partnership, from the perspectives of GPI management, superintendents and
board members, principals and staff?
• What do key stakeholders believe to be the principal advantages and
disadvantages to them of this particular partnership?
In order to answer the three main research questions, it will be necessary to first provide
some background on the history of each partnership under investigation as well as
describe current operations between GPI and public schools.
Methodology
Three GPI sites were selected based on maximum variation, two district partners
and one charter school partner. Interviews were conducted with superintendents and in
the case of the charter school partner, the cluster director. I also interviewed a board
member from each district and the chief academic officer (CAO) of the charter school.
Principals from all three sites were also interviewed along with three members of the GPI
management team, the president, CEO, and GPI’s Southern California regional director.
Separate focus groups at each site consisting of staff and students, respectively, were also
conducted. Responses were compared with each other in order to identify common
patterns and explore inconsistencies. Observational data, the analyses of documents, and
student-performance data were used to corroborate interview data in order to gain a
complete and thorough picture of what problems are solved and created when districts
partner with GPI to provide alternative education, lessons learned, and principal
advantages and disadvantages of the partnership. Comparing the responses of individuals
14
who occupy different roles, students, staff, and administrators, for example is one way to
achieve a comprehensive perspective in attempting to answer the research questions.
Another mechanism for testing the reliability of results is to compare responses of similar
categories of individuals at different sites. A means of assessing the validity of the data is
through comparison of data on the same topics from different sources: interview,
observation, documents, and student-level performance data.
Significance of the Study
The present study is significant given the severe consequences of dropping out of
high school. For individuals, consequences include lower wages and higher
unemployment, and for society, health and crime-related costs. Further, equal educational
opportunity is an expectation of individuals living in democratic societies such as the
U.S. The provision of a quality education is important not simply to avoid the
consequences of dropout but also to perpetuate the democratic ideals of the U.S.
Involvement of for-profit contractors in what is perceived to be a public good, education,
is particularly contentious. Private involvement in alternative education for students at-
risk of educational failure is perhaps even more controversial. This in-depth case study
can provide an understanding of those factors that may improve contracting practices
and, more important, education services for at-risk youth.
To the extent that the case under investigation is similar to other alternative
education partnerships, an examination that explores the major pedagogical,
organizational and economic characteristics of this partnership along with resultant
student outcomes can provide at least preliminary insights for educators and
15
policymakers alike. Results may allow stakeholders to better discern the conditions under
which students who were not successful in traditional classrooms can be successful in
alternative programs and to determine how schools might engage private businesses
further in order to create options for off-track youth. Such a partnership, if it is found to
be successful, may reveal features that enable it to be replicated to increase the likelihood
that districts can effectively and efficiently provide at-risk students with options that lead
to their successful graduation. If, by contrast, data indicate that the partnership does not
benefit some or most at-risk students or does not work from the perspective of
stakeholders, the present study is again significant in its potential to identify weak spots
or challenges in private-public alternative education partnerships and overcome them or,
if necessary, thwart efforts to create similar partnerships throughout the nation.
Limitations of the Study
The principal limitation of this case study rests in the restricted ability to
generalize these findings to other contracting relationships and to other firms and school
districts. Another limitation lies in the nature of data collection. Answering the research
questions will rely on perceptual data from interviews of private providers, partner-
district administrators, board members and staff and students. The accuracy of data
depends on the honesty of participants’ responses. In order to address such limitations,
observational data will be collected along with documents and student-level outcome data
to capture a complete picture of this partnership and ensure data accuracy.

16
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Dropping out of School
A great deal of research has been devoted to the dropout phenomenon and in
particular, the causes of dropping out, which can be described along a continuum. On the
one end, certain student characteristics or risk factors seem to predict dropout (Finn,
1993; Lee & Burkam, 2003). Lee and Burkam (2003), for example, found that students’
social and academic backgrounds, and in particular, low socioeconomic status and
underachievement in mathematics, were related to higher levels of dropout. According to
Finn (1993), risk factors that predict dropout include both status and behavioral
characteristics. Status risk factors are historical or demographic characteristics that
statistically lead to increased dropout such as race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or
home language (Finn, 1993). Behavioral risk factors are amenable characteristics such as
attendance, class participation and involvement in extracurricular activities (Finn, 1993).
While Finn’s (1993) landmark study on student engagement and academic achievement
paved the way for future intervention efforts aimed at reducing at-risk student dropout,
the term “at-risk” is not without controversy considering that all students can be at-risk
given a certain combination of circumstances (Barr & Pratt, 2001, in Muñoz, 2005).
At the middle of the continuum is research that suggests that the dropout problem
is a consequence of both individual and school-related factors (Lee & Burkam, 2003).
Lee and Burkam (2003) found that while student characteristics predicted dropout so did
school organization and structure. In particular, medium-sized schools that offered fewer
remedial courses had lower dropout rates than large schools in which the curriculum
17
favored basic skills. Most importantly, regardless of academic or social background,
students in schools characterized by positive interactions between staff and students were
least likely to drop out of school (Lee & Burkam, 2003). Such research avoids blaming
the victim and opens up the possibility that educators can ameliorate the dropout problem
(Lee & Burkam, 2003) and that they can do so via what Masten (2001) calls ordinary,
“everyday magic” (p. 235), the positive relationships between students and caring adults.
At the far end of the continuum is the suggestion that schools, through their
policies, structures, and staff, push certain students out (Fine, 1991; Kelly, 1993; Spring,
2007; Valencia, Menchaca & Donato, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). Ultimately, research
surrounding the causes of dropout suggests that the phenomenon is complex and context-
specific, the result of an extended period of disengagement from school (Finn, 1993;
Jordan, McPartland & Lara, 1999, in Christenson et al., 2001). Further, interaction
between variables – student, family, school and community – as well as risk and
protective individual factors, impacts school dropout or completion (Bickel, 1989;
Worrell & Hale, 2001).
Intervention Efforts
Despite plenty of research on the causes of dropout, empirical studies surrounding
effective interventions to keep students in school are few (Prevatt & Kelly, 2003).
Interventions are largely based on the concept of school engagement, an amenable
characteristic presumed to lead to school completion (Christenson et al., 2001; Finn,
1993). Finn (1993) conducted a landmark study on at-risk students and school
engagement using a national sample of 8
th
grade students from the U.S. Department of
18
Education’s NELS:88 survey (in Finn, 1993). He first examined the relationship between
students’ academic achievement and measures of engagement to include attendance, class
participation and after-school activities. He then looked at data from students whose
status characteristics indicated that they were at-risk for educational failure. Finn
separated the at-risk students into three groups: successful, those that scored above the
mean on reading and mathematics examinations; passing, those who scored higher than .5
standard deviation below the mean on reading and math; and unsuccessful, students who
scored lower than .5 standard deviation below the mean on either reading or math. Finn
concluded that at-risk students are not a homogenous group and that more successful
students attend school more regularly, participate actively in class, and are involved in
more outside-school activities than unsuccessful students. Interestingly, while some
research suggests that certain school characteristics alienate some students (Fine, 1991;
Valenzuela, 1999), Finn found no significant differences among the three performance
groups on measures of student perceptions of staff’s supportiveness and warmth. Finn,
however, acknowledged that at-risk behaviors may be mediated by the school setting and
that smaller schools, lower student-teacher ratios, and instructional approaches that
encourage student participation may have positive results in engaging students and thus
discouraging dropout. Ultimately, research on student persistence suggests that students
must have connections with people in the school community in order to be engaged and
to stay in school (Christenson et al., 2001; Knesting, 2008; Knesting & Waldron, 2006).
Knesting and Waldron (2006) set out to explain at-risk students’ persistence in a
comprehensive high school. At-risk students were identified by their teachers through a
19
network selection process. A total of 17 students in grades 9-12 participated in the study;
13 were White and 4 were African American. The authors conducted interviews and
observations to identify why certain at-risk students stay in school and found that three
interactive, reciprocal factors were decisive in terms of student persistence: goal
orientation, willingness to play the game, and meaningful connections. Regarding goal
orientation, students who believed a high school diploma would pave the way for a better
life and ensure financial independence and further education were more likely to persist.
Students willing to play the game were also more likely to persevere. These students
understood school rules and took responsibility for their own actions. Finally, persisters
were able to identify caring staff members who were open to helping, who knew about
students’ lives, provided safe places for students and had high expectations. Ultimately,
persistence seemed contingent upon the presence of all three factors (Knesting &
Waldron, 2006).
Knesting (2008) acknowledged that both students themselves and the school play
a role in dropout. At-risk students understand their marginal places in traditional schools
but hold themselves accountable for poor behavior and lack of attendance (Knesting,
2008). However, school staff can include such students in the school community by
actively listening to and holding high expectations for them (Knesting & Waldron, 2006;
Knesting, 2008; Saunders & Saunders, 2001). Further, Knesting (2008) argued that
implementing programs for dropout intervention may have less of an impact in curbing
student dropout than encouraging staff to change their attitudes and expectations toward
at-risk students. Nonetheless, a number of intervention strategies exist to ameliorate the
20
dropout problem. However, key among them is the notion that improving relationships
among students and between students and school staff will positively impact students’
engagement and persistence.
Evaluating Dropout Intervention Efforts
Evaluating dropout intervention programs is indeed complex given the lack of a
common definition of dropout, inconsistencies in reporting dropouts, and competing
theoretical orientations which focus on different dropout predictors (Prevatt & Kelly,
2003). It is, moreover, important to note that engaging students involves a shift in
attention from simply preventing dropout to encouraging school completion by providing
support mechanisms designed to help students meet academic standards in addition to
social and behavioral standards (Christenson et al., 2001; Lehr et al., 2003). Clearly,
interventions must be based on a thorough understanding of the complex nature of
dropout (Lehr et al., 2003). Lehr et al. (2003) and Prevatt & Kelly (2003) conducted two
separate reviews of the dropout intervention literature: Lehr included studies from 1981-
2001; and Prevatt & Kelly, from 1982-2002. Both noted a general lack of research
surrounding dropout intervention. Nevertheless, Prevatt & Kelly (2003) maintained that
most interventions were based on past research, and Lehr et al. (2003) noted that
interventions appear to address current understanding of the complexity of dropout and
the variety of factors associated with it such as low grades, attendance, and student
perceptions of schooling, variables critical in improving student engagement. However,
according to Lehr et al. (2003), most intervention strategies focus on changing the student
21
as opposed to mediating contextual factors associated with student dropout, to include
family, peer, and school-related factors.
For example, Eggert, Seyl, and Nicholas (1994) tested whether a semester-long
Personal Growth Class would lead to improvements in school performance such as Grade
Point Average (GPA), attendance, and school completion. Participants included high-risk
9
th
through 12
th
graders, either dropouts or potential dropouts, attending four high schools
in the Pacific Northwest. Data were collected prior to the intervention and post
intervention. The authors tested the effects of the program on students’ self esteem,
school bonding, and deviant peer bonding (Eggert et al., 1994). Students were randomly
assigned to treatment (n=101) and control (n=158) groups. Regular teachers taught The
Personal Growth Class, which met 55 minutes per day for a semester. Students received
elective credit for participation. The student-to-teacher ratio of the course was
approximately 12:1, and the course content centered on group support, friendship
development, and school bonding through positive student-to-staff, student-to-student
relationships. Pre and post data from student questionnaires and the schools’ databases
indicated increases in self-esteem and grades for program participants as compared to the
control. The class did not, however, impact participants’ attendance. Overall, the authors
maintained that the program was most beneficial when students were actually enrolled in
and taking the class. The study did not describe which program components led to
particular student outcomes. Incidentally, Lehr et al. (2003) maintain that a weakness in
the intervention literature surrounds the clear articulation of processes by which specific
interventions improve school completion.
22
Another school-based intervention initiative that attempts to address student
causes of dropout is the Check and Connect intervention model (Sinclair, Christenson,
Evelo & Hurley, 1998; Sinclair, Christenson & Thurlow, 2005). Sinclair et al. (2005)
conducted a replication study on the Check and Connect intervention model (Sinclair, et
al., 1998). Two cohorts of 9
th
graders with emotional and behavioral disabilities were
randomly assigned to treatment (n=71) and control (n=73) groups. The intervention
consisted of regular monitoring of student engagement. A key component of the model is
personalization as evidenced by the case-management approach: Teachers keep the same
caseload of students for four-five years and build relationships with students and their
families throughout the years. Program participants attended school more regularly and
were less likely to drop out. A potential issue in the Sinclair et al. (2005) study was the
exclusive focus on students with special needs, results that might not generalize to other
at-risk populations.
Baker and Sansone (1990), by contrast, reported on an intervention to address the
needs of at-risk students in a large urban high school with an overall dropout rate of 27%.
Instead of focusing solely on improving student factors that contribute to dropout, the
intervention considered school organization and structures. In particular, Baker and
Sansone (1990) examined a committee within a school, composed of teachers,
administrators, counselors, psychologists, social workers, and outside personnel, whose
purpose was to address referrals for 9
th
-12
th
grade students at-risk for dropout. In
particular, Baker and Sansone (1990) aimed to describe the interventions of the
committee, the difficulty in implementing interventions, and the effectiveness of
23
interventions. The authors interviewed personnel and observed committee meetings.
Results indicated that school staff engaged in four levels of intervention: individual
accommodations, such as contracts for students, modified schedules, and sign-in sheets;
school-level structures, such as academic adaptations and a homeroom program; district-
level structures, like transfers to other high schools or alternative schools; and
community-level structures, such as connections with group homes, juvenile court, drug
and alcohol programs, and alternative placements. Of the four intervention types, the
authors found that individual accommodations were the easiest to implement. The authors
reported positive findings with respect to student retention: Of the 70 student participants,
49 could be located a year after the study; 22 of these students were attending high school
or had graduated, and 17 had transferred to other programs. A total of 10 students had left
school (20%), and 21 students were not on record. Here again, the study raises questions
about what features of the program led to student success. A further concern is the
omission of data for 21 students, which calls into question whether the program was in
fact successful.
In their review of the literature, Prevatt and Kelly (2003) suggest that intervention
practices typically center on improving students’ academic success, developing
supportive relationships among students and between students and school staff, and
facilitating students’ psycho-social development. The research studies highlighted above
are consistent with Prevatt and Kelly’s overall conclusion and further suggest that
intervention consists of small-scale techniques, such as an individual class within a
school, as well as methods that include the larger community. Indeed, both Lehr et al.
24
(2003) and Prevatt & Kelly (2003) reported on intervention programs that extend beyond
the school walls to involve the outside community.
For example, the Allen, Philliber and Hoggson (1990) study is included in both
reviews of the literature. Researchers evaluated the Teen Outreach Program, the purpose
of which was to enable at-risk youth to do volunteer work in their communities and
engage in classroom discussions on topics in the Teen Outreach Curriculum. Students in
30 schools across the country participated in the study. Initial demographic characteristics
were recorded and a questionnaire was administered prior to the intervention and post
intervention. Students responded to items surrounding problem behaviors. Despite
variation in program implementation, program participants reported significantly more
problem behaviors, including course failure and suspension, at the outset than control
group students and significantly fewer at the end of the program; effects were stronger for
older students and for students whose participation in the program included more
volunteer experience. Results suggest that intervention programs must be tailored to
specific populations.
In a follow-up study, Allen and Philliber (2001) attempted to discern whether the
broadly targeted Teen Outreach program had differential success for different students. A
subset of 660 students was randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Again,
students self-reported problem behaviors at the outset and following the program.
Participating in the program was significantly related to lower levels of course failure and
suspension, consistent with results from the previous study. Results were stronger for
students the most at-risk for problem behaviors. Such a result may indicate that despite a
25
program’s breadth, it may be effective in addressing specific risk factors by engaging
students in their communities and schools (Allen & Philliber, 2001). The study does not,
however, describe the mechanisms by which the Teen Outreach Program addressed
specific risk factors.
Nevertheless, building relationships and encouraging bonding, in which students
are either help givers (Allen et al., 1990; Allen et al., 2001) or receivers of help from
mentors (Baker & Sansone, 1990; Sinclair et al., 1998; Sinclair et al., 2005) appears to
have mitigating effects on risk factors associated with dropping out. Two other studies of
school-based partnerships with outside organizations aimed at increasing student
engagement offer additional support (McNamara, 2000; Shumer, 1994). In her review of
the literature, McNamara maintained that school intervention efforts have moved from
focusing on one problematic behavior such as attendance to a larger range of behaviors
due to research demonstrating the complex relationship between multiple risk factors and
school failure or dropout. Failure of students to bond leads to disengagement, which in
turn places a student at-risk for troublesome behavior. McNamara (2000) reported on a
school-based program intended to increase 9
th
grade at-risk youths’ bonding with
mainstream students through a service activity. McNamara used a pre-post design; data
on attendance, GPA, and student behavior from the schools’ databases and files were
collected as well as teacher ratings on the Behavior-Academic Self-Esteem rating scale
(BASE) and student ratings of self-esteem and school bonding. The intervention
consisted of students choosing, planning, executing and evaluating a service activity from
November through March. Results suggest that the program had a positive impact on
26
attendance, GPA and social-academic competence for program participants as compared
to a comparison group. Results indicated no significant changes in program participants’
bonding but positive peer associations were improved for the program participants,
which, the author concluded, is a powerful deterrent against risk for problem behaviors
such as dropout.
The problem in determining what aspects of intervention programs for at-risk
students lead to student success was addressed somewhat in Shumer’s (1994) study of a
community-based learning intervention aimed at preventing dropout and introducing
youth to adulthood. Shumer (1994) compared youth in a magnet alternative school who
participated in the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program with a control group in
the same school that did not. Student participants spent two days a week in field sites that
they selected for themselves aimed at helping students find out about occupations and
how they relate to their learning at school. Program participants spent two days per week
at the school site learning in small groups or one-on-one with teachers and college tutors
who assisted students with academic and personal issues. A case study approach was
utilized; the researcher observed and interviewed students, who also completed a survey
in which participants rank ordered the aspects of the program they believed most
influenced their interest and learning in school. Results indicated that participant
absences declined while controls’ increased. Case study students reported that the aspect
of the program that made it successful was the human connection, the small, intimate
atmosphere of the program. As for student learning, program participants’ grades were
lower than the control group’s prior to the intervention and higher afterwards. Survey
27
data indicated that students ranked help from college tutors as most helpful in improving
their learning and teacher interest and involvement second. The comparison group, by
contrast, rated teacher lectures and homework most beneficial to their learning. For the
comparison group, learning amounted to teachers doing most of the talking and students
completing independent work. Program participants, by contrast, were exposed to small
group lessons led by teachers or tutors with ratios of 4-5:1. Interestingly, in terms of what
mattered most to both participant and control groups, personal interactions were cited
most often. The fact that even control group students reported that relationships with
teachers were the most meaningful aspect of their education led the author to conclude
that the human factor is key to student “engagement, retention, and success in educational
programs” (Shumer, 1994, p. 366). While the researcher was unable to distinguish
between the impact of the service compared to the career activities in terms of student
outcomes, the study clearly suggests that the activity matters less than the relationships
forged in its course.
Indeed, improving the relationships among students and between students and
staff appears a critical factor in improving student engagement. The concept of
engagement helps explain student dropout (Finn, 1993) and is also a focal point in
intervention efforts designed to keep students in school. Students who succeed in school
are engaged students who identify and bond with members of the school community
(Finn, 1993). Research on intervention for at-risk students reveals a tendency to lean on
methods intended to promote positive interactions, particularly among adults and
students, regardless of whether the interventions are in traditional programs (Baker &
28
Simone, 1990; Eggert et al., 1994; Sinclair et al., 1998; Sinclair et al., 2005;), programs
that link schools with community organizations (Allen et al., 1990; Allen et al., 2001;
McNamara, 2000; Shumer, 1994) or separate, alternative programs (Cox, 1999; Dugger
& Dugger, 1998; Groth, 1998; Muñoz, 2004; Quinn, 2006; Wilkins, 2008).
Alternative Education
Regardless of whether students drop out because of certain risk factors or whether
school-related deficiencies cause students to leave, many students do not fit in traditional
schools and ultimately end up in alternative programs (Quinn et al., 2006). Alternative
programs provide opportunities to “increase the likelihood of engaged learning”
(Tissington, 2006, p. 23). Alternative programs have existed as long as public education
(Young, 1990, in Tissington, 2006), but programs from the late 1950s and early 1960s
most resemble today’s alternatives (Tissington, 2006).
Recent reports from Aron (2006), Brown-Ruzzi and Kraemer (2006), and Martin
and Brand (2006) are part of a series of papers on alternative education written by the
American Youth Policy Forum for the U.S. Department of Labor. To begin, in an
overview of alternative education in the U.S., Aron (2006) noted that the U.S.
Department of Education defines alternative education programs as public schools that
serve the needs of students that cannot be addressed in regular schools. The definition
excludes a number of programs, such as private programs, which may account for the
lack of research on non-public alternative schools. Aron (2006), by contrast, defined
alternative education broadly, as a program set up by a state, local school district, or other
entity, in order to address the needs of students who are not successful in traditional
29
schools. Such programs offer innovative methods in unique settings for students who
may be failing, have behavior or learning difficulties, or poor attendance. Alternative
schools are characterized by flexible scheduling, low student-to-teacher ratios, and
alternative curricula. Aron noted the variety of programs available and that “to date, there
is no precise accounting of the number or types of alternative schools or programs in the
United States” (Aron, 2006, p. 10). Estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 alternative
programs currently operating (Aron, 2006). In an attempt to provide a snapshot of the
universe of programs available, Aron mentioned a variety of programs that are operated
as charter, contract or independent schools including those referred to as Early and
Middle College high schools, Career Academies, Diploma Plus, College Gateway
Programs, experiential learning environments, Twilight Academies and employment
programs, to name a few.
Initiatives underway to foster and support alternative education include the
following: the Alternative High School Initiative launched by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation in 2002; Jobs for the Future, an initiative by the Department of Labor to help
seven cities in the U.S. to support struggling students and dropouts via the creation of
multiple education pathways; the Youth Transition Funders Group; and the National
League of Cities’ (NCL) Institute for Youth, Education, and Families (IYEF) (Aron,
2006). Aron (2006) recommended that alternative programs demonstrate specific
outcomes, ranging from basic skills to higher-order thinking skills. Aron (2006)
concluded with a list of funding sources supporting alternative education though in the
final report in the series from the American Youth Policy Forum, Martin and Brand
30
(2006) maintain that state per pupil funding is the primary funding source for most
alternative programs.
In the second report in the series, Brown-Ruzzi and Kraemer (2006) took a more
narrow approach in order to describe in detail the academic programs present in different
alternative education settings. The authors surveyed leaders in 15 different alternative
education programs, selected based on maximum variation with respect to several
characteristics including geographic location, population served, academic outcomes,
curriculum, and staff characteristics. Their purpose was to provide an overview of the
academic programs available in alternative settings. In terms of academics, alternative
education programs offer a range of goals from English as a Second Language (ESL), to
GED, high school diploma, and even college credit, but the vast majority of the 15 case
study schools focused on the goal of high school diploma completion. Students served in
alternative education settings differ according to age, credits needed, and academic
capabilities. Student characteristics help program administrators determine appropriate
goals (i.e. high school diploma or GED) in addition to appropriate placement. For
example, one case study school provides an online high school diploma program;
however, students need at least a ninth grade reading level to enroll in the program.
As for learning environment, Brown-Ruzzi and Kraemer (2006) noted that the
alternative education programs were generally smaller than traditional high schools, and
several programs lacked adequate resources due to operating in shared or borrowed
classrooms. Two programs surveyed use curriculum that is highly dependent on
computers, one program is on-line while another, the School for Integrated Academics
31
and Technologies (SIATech), makes use of computer-assisted instruction. The authors
also found significant diversity in learning environments. Some programs are highly
individualized and self-paced, and students work by themselves with one-on-one teacher
support. Others are quite traditional where teachers instruct whole groups. Curriculum
was similarly diverse. Some programs use a partner-districts’ curriculum, others purchase
curriculum from commercial publishers, a few develop their own curriculum, and
combinations are evident as well.
In terms of professional development, Brown-Ruzzi and Kraemer (2006) again
found significant variation. Of the 15 schools, 11 offer staff development however
number of hours range from 6-80 per year. Finally, the authors reported a “striking lack
of consistency among programs in terms of what is measured and how” (Brown-Ruzzi &
Kraemer, 2006, p. 28), which the authors pointed to as a weakness in the area of
academic programming for alternative education. Other weaknesses from survey data
included attracting and retaining quality staff, lack of effective curriculum, insufficient
strategies for teaching multi-leveled classes, and an absence of educational options for
students who leave programs without earning a credential. Strengths included low
student-to-teacher ratios, individualized academics, flexible scheduling, and relevant,
competency-based curriculum.
In the final report, Martin and Brand (2006) outlined the federal, state, and local
roles supporting alternative education. The authors noted that no federal agency is
responsible for alternative education and that different departments (Education, Health
and Human Services, Justice and Labor) target specific populations. Similar lack of
32
coordination exists at the state level; states’ definitions of and approaches to alternative
education vary greatly as do provisions for quality components. Incidentally, California is
listed as one of six states with comprehensive legislation on alternative schooling. As for
local responsibility, Martin and Brand (2006) argued that communities must increase
alternative education options and that districts should provide multiple education
pathways themselves or contract out services to community-based organizations or
private contractors. Such partnerships increase options available to students who are
struggling or have already quit school. Further, in such contract arrangements, funds stay
with students so that districts can use per pupil funding to outsource alternative
education.
Taken together, the three reports on alternative education in the U.S. (Aron, 2006;
Brown-Ruzzi & Kraemer, 2006; Martin & Brand, 2006) suggest that alternative
education programs are quite diverse, which is evident from the range of possibilities
across all domains in Aron’s (2003) typology. Hill’s (2007) report on improving
alternative education in California, by contrast, notes just four state-authorized types of
alternative schools: continuation schools, community day schools, community schools,
and independent study (see Hill, 2007, for a brief description of the four varieties of
alternative education programs). The California Department of Education’s website,
however, includes additional alternative education options such as Diploma Plus high
schools, home-based instruction, and juvenile courts schools. Hill maintained that four
alternatives “constitute the range of alternatives used by most districts” (Hill, 2007, p. 4).
In an examination of California Education Code, specific codes outline legislation for the
33
four types of alternative education options in California: continuation schools, education
code sections 48430-48438; community day schools, 58500-58512; community schools,
4895.7; and independent study, 51745-51749.3.
Hill (2007) visited a cross section of alternative education programs throughout
California and spoke with county office and district administrators, teachers, principals
and students in order to determine the quality of programs. She found significant
variation and characterized programs according to Kelly’s (1993) classification,
developed 14 years prior through a case study of two continuation schools: safety net,
safety valve or cooling-out programs (Kelly, 1993). Safety net programs provide
provisions for a variety of services specific to student needs; such programs tend to go
beyond minimum standards including monitoring students’ academic achievement via
pre and post tests (Hill, 2007). Safety valve programs comply with state policies but
program administrators do not create options geared toward specific student needs; these
programs largely serve districts’ rather than students’ needs, allowing for a means by
which to rid schools of certain students without suffering consequences (Hill, 2007).
Cooling-out programs fail to meet students’ needs and according to Hill (2007), are
characterized by the use of independent study as the sole option for students who are not
successful in traditional school settings. Such programs, the author found, were also
places to send inadequate teachers (Hill, 2007). Hill argued that California alternative
education policy encourages a compliance mentality, discouraging districts from creating
programs that address specific student needs. Hill recommended flexible grant money
provisions that would free districts to create programs that match students’ needs.
34
Further, Hill asserted the accountability mechanisms for alternative education need to be
adjusted in order to create incentives for programs to improve student learning and
graduation. Ultimately, Hill noted that dropout rates in alternative settings are
considerably higher than traditional high schools.
A later study focused more narrowly on California continuation schools (Ruiz de
Velasco et al., 2008). The authors corroborate the lack of coordination in California state
policy and district policy regarding alternative education cited by Martin and Brand
(2006) as a national concern. Survey data indicated significant variation in quality and
focus of alternative schools in California. Ruiz de Velasco et al. (2008) echoed Martin
and Brand’s (2006) argument that district-level partnerships may provide added resources
and options for students. For now, continuation schools “may be the last schools ever
attended by large numbers of California students because [students] are not getting the
academic support services [in continuation schools] they need to succeed (Ruiz de
Velasco et al., 2008, pp. 1-2).
Alternative Education Impact
It is critical to examine the literature surrounding alternative education given the
persistent dropout problem coupled with ambiguity surrounding the purposes and
outcomes of alternative education programs (Tissington, 2006). One common theme is
the notion that improving relationships among students and between students and staff
will lead to engagement and student success. A look at the literature surrounding
alternative educational programs reveals the tendency for such programs to be small with
low student-to-teacher ratios (Dugger & Dugger, 1998; Groth, 1998; Lange & Lehr,
35
1999; Wilkins, 2008). As compared to traditional schools, alternative programs have been
characterized by more respectful interactions between students and staff (Groth, 1998;
Quinn, 2006; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Wilkins, 2008). Alternative programs typically
individualize instruction and support for students (Brody-Hasazi et al., 2001; Cox, 1999;
Dugger & Dugger, 1998; Groth, 1998; Lange & Lehr, 1999; Muñoz, 2004; Saunders &
Saunders, 2001; Wilkins, 2008), and they provide flexibility in scheduling and services in
order to meet students’ outside needs such as work and family (Groth, 1998; Dugger &
Dugger, 1998; Lange & Lehr, 1999; Muñoz, 2004).
Saunders and Saunders (2001) compared student perceptions of traditional staff
and school environments with those of an alternative program. Alternative school student
participants were in grades 8-12; 88% were White. The alternative school, Walnut Creek,
was unique in that counselors were social workers that were on call 24 hours a day and
even provided in-home counseling to students and their families. Staff at the alternative
program provided strong academic and psychosocial support as well as transportation to
students if they needed it. Student participants completed two questionnaires, the first of
which was administered in March and asked students to rate the level of support of
teachers, counselors, and administrators as well as school environment in their prior,
comprehensive schools. A similar questionnaire was completed in May regarding the
alternative school. Comparing the results, students rated the staff significantly higher in
the alternative school in areas such as fairness, caring, and listening. Similarly, school
environment at the alternative school was rated higher. The authors concluded that the
alternative school staff created a community environment that met students’ needs.
36
Unfortunately the extent to which the sense of community impacted student outcomes
such as attendance, grades or high school graduation was not considered.
Wilkins (2008) in contrast did examine an alternative school’s impact on student
attendance. The setting of the study was a K-12 alternative school with a total enrollment
of 157 students, a school within a large, urban district in the Northeast. Most of the
students at the alternative school had learning disabilities but the study’s participants
were four students who did not. They were enrolled in the alternative school because of
very poor attendance in their home schools. Case study students included one female and
three males in grades eight through eleven. Students were interviewed several times and
data were triangulated through observations and examination of students’ attendance
records. Students were asked to compare school climate at the alternative school with
their home schools. Results indicated that the schools were different in four areas:
climate, academic environment, discipline, and relationships with teachers. In terms of
school climate, students indicated that the small size of the alternative school and the
concentration of students with special needs allowed closer bonds to be formed between
students and teachers as well as among students. Concerning academic environment,
students considered the alternative school to be easier, and teachers, more lenient.
Furthermore, teacher flexibility in terms of assignment due dates and opportunities to
redo work were “signs that teachers cared about [students’] academic success” (Wilkins,
2008, p. 19). Discipline at the alternative school was also viewed as more lenient and fair;
staff listened to students and did not apply discipline procedures uniformly. Finally,
students praised the staff at the alternative school for spending time talking with students
37
about topics other than academics, another way, according to students, that staff
demonstrated care. Attendance for all four case study students improved dramatically at
the alternative school.
However, the impact of alternative educational settings on student outcome
indicators related to dropout is nebulous. Catterall and Stern (1986) used the High School
and Beyond survey to compare students who graduated (n=2,483) with those that
dropped out (n=256). Students in schools with similar dropout rates who participated in
an alternative program, in this case, vocational education, were more likely to drop out
than students who did not participate in vocational education. Among students who
expressed doubt relative to whether they felt they would graduate, students in vocational
education programs were more likely to drop out; however, students in other alternative
programs (n=12) were less likely to drop out. In all, Catterall and Stern (1986) report
mixed results with respect to the impact of alternative education on student dropout.
While Cox (1999) reported that an alternative program had a positive impact on
students’ self-esteem and GPA, he noted that the effects diminished after one year. In
fact, participants’ grades increased while in the alternative program and then decreased a
year later as compared to the control group for whom the trend was reversed. Cox
concluded that participants, middle school students in an alternative program designed to
place students back in their home schools, experienced success in the alternative program
due to program supports. Supports included providing transportation to students to and
from school, flexible environment, different grading scales, and caring teachers.
Unfortunately, students’ home schools did not support their transition back. Cox’s (1999)
38
study begs the question of what defines success for alternative programs aimed at
returning students to their home schools if, indeed, the transition back to the home school
is ultimately unsuccessful.
In their literature review, Quinn et al. (2006) noted little evidence of what
characterizes successful alternative programs. The authors used extreme case sampling to
identify three urban alternative programs with evidence of effectiveness. From the three
case study programs, the authors surveyed 53 students in the first program; 45 in the
second; and 49 in the third. The authors used the Effective Schools Battery (ESB), an
instrument to assess school climate and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses;
results from the case study schools were compared to the ESB national norm. The
alternative case study schools had higher ratings for students’ belief in and fairness of
rules as well as respect for students (Quinn et al., 2006). Alternative school scores were
equivalent to the norm with respect to attachment to school, academic expectations,
interpersonal competency and social integration; and lower on positive peer relations and
school effort. The authors concluded that the quality of interaction between students and
teachers in alternative settings, where teachers were described as non-authoritarian,
created a positive climate for students.
However, little research documents the impact of alternative education on student
academic achievement. On the one hand, at-risk students in comprehensive high schools
perceive caring staff as having high expectations and pushing them academically
(Knesting & Waldron, 2006; Knesting, 2008). On the other hand, alternative education
students seem to consider staff caring if they are lenient with respect to academic and
39
behavioral expectations (Groth, 1998; Quinn et al., 2006; Wilkins, 2008). In the Saunders
and Saunders (2001) study, a student commented on the climate at the alternative school:
“It’s just like my old school without the tests” (p. 21), suggesting that perhaps alternative
school staff might have difficulty balancing relationships with rigor and further, that
caring itself is rather ambiguous in the eyes of students and their teachers (Knesting,
2008). Muñoz (2006) succinctly articulated the concern: Alternative schools operate
according to a “bizarre affective principle . . . [that] students need to feel ‘good’ about
themselves, from which academic performance will follow” (Muñoz, 2006, p. 14).
Unfortunately, such a philosophy does not “translate into effective pedagogy, content
mastery, and critical insights which are the tools that these [students] will need to
participate in an increasingly demanding social milieu and market economy” (Muñoz,
2006, p. 14).
In addressing the academic achievement of potential dropouts in alternative
settings, Dugger & Dugger (1998) set about to measure the impact of a successful
alternative high school on students’ attendance, achievement, and self-esteem.
Characteristics of the alternative program included hands-on, individualized curriculum,
shortened day, small school and low student-to-teacher ratios, high expectations, non-
authoritarian teachers, daily follow-up, goal setting, and so on. In order to get into the
program, students had to apply and interview; the waiting list included 200 students. A
group of 71 students enrolled in the school for one semester was compared to a control
group of students who had applied to the program but were not yet attending. Results
from students’ Self-Esteem Index (SEI) and Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE)
40
scores in reading, math, and language were compared. While program participants’
attendance was better than that of the control group and comparable to the local school
district, results from the TABE were inconsistent.
A more recent study (Lehr, et al., 2009), based on a national survey about
alternative schools, revealed that only 19 of 36 states have a system for collecting
outcomes for students in alternative schools. Among outcome measures collected are
graduation rates, attendance, and results from state-mandated tests. A meta-analysis of 57
alternative education evaluations revealed that such programs have small, positive
impacts on students’ academic performance, attitudes and self-esteem (Cox, Davidson &
Bynum, 1995). Overall, students appear to like attending alternative schools but not
enough evidence points to the fact that alternative schools have a significant positive
impact on student outcomes (Cox, et al., 1995). Research that points to how alternative
schools impact students’ academic achievement are rare (Cox, 1999).
Individualized Learning
While characteristics of alternative programs appear somewhat consistent in that
emphasis is placed on creating a community in a small environment through respectful
student-teacher relationships, research is split regarding the impact of alternative
education programs. Furthermore, characteristics that are touted as positive by some
researchers are cause for concern for others. For example, while individualized learning
is reported to contribute to improved student outcomes such as attendance (Dugger &
Dugger, 1998), feelings of control over learning (Groth, 1998), positive perceptions of
school climate (Muñoz, 2004; Quinn et al., 2006), and short-term gains in self-esteem
41
and GPA (Cox, 1999), such instruction is also criticized for depriving students of the
opportunity to experience rigorous academic learning (Groth, 1998; Muñoz, 2004). In
their review of alternative programs, Foley and Pang (2006) found the main curriculum
for students in alternative programs was the general education curriculum. Unfortunately,
students in such programs were not afforded certain academic supports such as libraries
and computer and science labs, which suggested that “the integrity of state learner
standards and academic expectations [were] being compromised for these youth” (Foley
& Pang, 2006, p. 18). Similar findings are reported elsewhere (Brody-Hasazi et al.,
2001).
Likewise, Groth (1998) noted that while individualized computer-assisted
instruction gave students a sense of control over their learning, the researcher likened the
pedagogy to Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). Students simply withdrew their
education from computers like customers withdraw cash from an ATM. Incidentally, the
analogy is similar to Freire’s (1970/1998) concept of a banking model of education
characteristic of programs for underserved and oppressed people. Furthermore, in Groth’s
case study, the teacher’s role as monitor rather than power-holder was viewed positively
by students, but Groth (1998) likened the dynamics of the classroom to an atmosphere of
“low-paying jobs” (p. 234) within a “working-class ideology” (p. 234). Ultimately, Groth
(1998) concluded that the absence of student participation in knowledge construction
undermined quality-learning experiences. To students, lack of interaction among each
other and with the teacher was viewed as “frustrating and boring” (p. 237). Students were
empowered because they worked at their own pace and their effort alone determined their
42
success in completing the program. Unfortunately, this empowerment was undermined by
the absence of pedagogy to increase students’ critical thinking.
Muñoz (2004) had similar concerns about individualized learning in his review of
an alternative education program for at-risk Latinas. Muñoz (2004) located alternative
education in the context of the historical and purposeful exclusion of certain groups of
people from educational opportunities. His qualitative case study included interviews
with students and staff as well as observation and a whole-school survey. While students,
all females, appeared satisfied with the alternative program, pedagogy was reduced to
encouraging students to follow rules resulting in the accumulation of points that
determined whether students passed or failed courses; quality learning was thus sacrificed
for good behavior. The author criticized an administrator for suggesting that the program
was “personal” (p. 12) rather than academic. The administrator maintained that staff took
students from where they were, academically, which amounted to what the author called
an ideology of remediation. Perhaps most troubling was the refusal of the majority of the
school staff to complete the researcher’s survey about the program. The author concluded
that “academic standards were lacking, pedagogical consistency was absent, and an
institutional effort to self-evaluate was tacitly discouraged” (p. 14). In terms of outcomes,
few students graduated from the program or returned to their home schools and even
fewer pursued their education after high school. Interestingly, Muñoz (2004) noted that
school staff did not follow up on graduates, so whether or not students pursued education
beyond high school may have been a matter of speculation.

43
Computer-Assisted Learning
The pressure to provide flexible, individualized learning opportunities for students
enrolled in alternative education settings coupled with the explosion of technology over
the past couple decades may account for the fact that alternative education programs
often make use of computer-assisted or online curriculum delivery. It is important to note
that the two terms are often confused because they are so closely connected. Computer-
assisted learning is the use of computer-based software, which is not necessarily Internet-
based. Often, online courses make use of computer-assisted instructional software;
however, online courses are typically delivered from a distance via the Internet. In a
recent report by the North American Counsel for Online Learning (NACOL), several
promising programs were highlighted that were touted as using online learning for at-risk
students and credit recovery (Watson & Gemin, 2008). However, of the six programs
mentioned, only one program was actually online, the Florida Virtual School™. The
others use computer-assisted instructional packages or provide courses over the Internet,
but students in these programs learn in a face-to-face environment at a school site. Such
an approach makes sense in light of the research on online learning for K-12 students,
which suggests that certain student characteristics predict online learning success: high
GPA and achievement beliefs, technology efficacy, and organization skills (Roblyer,
Davis, Mills, Marshall & Pape, 2008), characteristics not often associated with students
at-risk of school failure. Indeed, the online program mentioned in the Brown-Ruzzi and
Kraemer (2006) study had a 9
th
grade reading level prerequisite for entry. Generally, at-
risk students need additional support to be successful in school beyond traditional school
44
students. Incidentally, even students who are high achievers benefit from having more
support structures in online learning environments like orientation classes and mentor
teachers (Roblyer, et al., 2008).
The NACOL report points to the potential of computer-based and online course
offerings to help students recover credits and get back on track for graduation. Such
instruction is supposedly motivating because it provides the conditions for individualized,
flexible, self-paced learning without the “social stigma of credit recovery” (Watson &
Gemin, 2008, p. 14). The authors assert that most credit recovery programs have a
significant face-to-face component, which is believed to be essential for the success of at-
risk students. Finally, the authors note that online and computer-based programs are
supported by state per pupil funding though “online programs are particularly scalable
and able to expand more easily than programs based entirely on brick-and-mortar
classrooms” (Watson & Gemin, 2008, p. 15). Nevertheless, the authors maintain that
most data on computer-assisted and online programs for students at-risk of educational
failure is anecdotal; empirical studies on such forms of instruction are rare.
One empirical study in particular highlights the potential of computer-assisted
instruction to produce learning gains for different types of students (Traynor, 2003). The
researcher examined the impact of a computer-assisted instruction program,
CornerStone™, on students’ academic gains in language arts and math. Students were
seventh and eighth graders who took one computer-assisted class per day. The sample
included 161 students from four different instructional programs: (a) special education,
(b) sheltered English immersion (non-English proficient), (c) transitional English
45
immersion (limited English proficient), and (d) regular education. Pre-Post test results
indicated significant learning increases for all students enrolled in the computer-assisted
course though students with special needs had the least growth among the four groups.
All other groups had comparable learning gains. In the discussion section, the author
attributed students’ improved learning to specific aspects of computer-assisted
instruction: the challenging nature of the computer technology which spurred student
curiosity, the fantasy context of the curriculum, and the element of student choice
provided by this particular medium of instruction. The results from the Traynor (2003)
study point to the benefits of computer-assisted instruction for all students even those
who struggle, but it is important to acknowledge that the students in Traynor’s study were
younger than typical alternative education students and had only one computer-assisted
course per day. Students in alternative settings that make use of computer-assisted
instruction often rely on this mode as the primary means of instruction (Brown-Ruzzi and
Kraemer, 2006; Groth, 1998; Watson & Gemin, 2008).
Contracting
With the passage of NCLB in 2001, all states in the U.S. for the first time were
required to consider graduation rates as a part of the new federal accountability
mechanism to determine whether schools met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
(Kronholz, 2001). In October 2008, the U.S. Department of Education announced the
establishment of a uniform measure of calculating graduation rates. The Four-year
Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate is defined as the number of students who graduate with
a regular high school diploma in four years divided by the number of students that started
46
high school four year prior, adjusted for transfers, emigrants, and deceased students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008). The federal mandate provides a provision for states to
use an Extended-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, reported separately, as a means
by which states, districts, and schools can get credit for students who take more than four
years to graduate. Schools are under considerable pressure to meet AYP targets, which
translates into pressure to ensure that all students graduate. Recent legislation has thus
forced districts to explore options for students who are in danger of not graduating,
students often enrolled in alternative education programs. One way of ensuring that such
students graduate is to provide options via partnerships (Hill, 2007; Martin & Brand,
2006; Ruiz de Velasco et al., 2008), including partnerships between districts and private
providers of alternative education services (Martin & Brand, 2006). Now more than ever,
public schools are faced with the dilemma of creating their own alternative programs or
contracting with outside vendors to provide alternative education.
Make versus Buy
While traditional make versus buy decisions in the business sector were
understood to surround potential cost savings relative to quality, Coase (1937, in Platts,
Probert & Cáñez, 2002) recognized additional costs beyond market costs, including those
associated with acquiring a product or service. Williamson (1975, in Platts, Probert &
Cáñez, 2002) later expanded on the notion of costs associated with delivering services
either in house or via a contractor; transactional costs include those related to planning,
initiating, modifying, and monitoring the completion of a task (Brown & Potoski, 2005,
p. 327). Such costs are the result of lack of information, future uncertainty, and human
47
self-interest (Coase, 1937, in Brown & Potoski, 2005; Williamson, 1997, in Brown &
Potoski, 2005, p. 327).
Applying transaction cost economics to the public sector, contracting has the
potential to improve both the efficiency and quality of performance but carries the risk of
fraud or inadequate service (Brown & Potoski, 2005). In effect, public managers must be
adept not only at determining when to contract but also in implementing and monitoring
contracts (Brown & Potoski, 2005). Brown & Potoski (2005) suggest that managers
consider factors such as cost, quality, politics and law in their decisions to contract and
that a framework based on transaction cost economics might be useful. In particular, the
framework Brown and Potoski (2005) propose consists of two features of transaction cost
economics, asset specificity and ease of measurement (Williamson, 1981, in Brown &
Potoski, 2005). Asset specificity refers to the degree to which investments can be used for
multiple purposes while ease of measurement is the ability to measure a vendor’s
performance. Brown & Potoski’s framework consists of a two-by-two matrix used to
classify services as low transaction cost services, i.e., those low in asset specificity that
are easy to measure and which pose the least risk in contracting, high transaction cost
services, with high asset specificity, measurement difficulties, and greatest risk; and
mixed cases within the two-by-two matrix.
Brown & Potoski (2005) surveyed 36 mayors and city managers about their
perceptions of transaction costs. Data suggest that transaction costs as determined by the
framework do not necessarily dictate contracting decisions. While city mayors and
managers tended to contract out low transaction cost services, the authors found that
48
those services with the highest transaction costs, often those in the social services, were
often outsourced, perhaps due to internal lack of capacity. The authors include some
suggestions to reduce risk in high transaction cost services such as splitting contracts
apart and allowing different vendors to provide services, clearly defining success
measures, and contracting with vendors whose goals and priorities match those of the
government.
Savas (2000) noted a list of transaction costs associated with the formation of
partnerships between private and public entities including establishing the guidelines of a
contract, overcoming both public and political opposition, working with employees and
partners, assessing results, and deciding to continue or terminate a contract. The author
noted that contracting out services is better under several conditions: a task or result is
clear and specific, performance can be easily measured and assessed, competition exits,
the activity to be contracted is not critical to an organization’s mission, demand changes
over time, the private entity can hire more easily, and the private vendor has greater
economies of scale.
Contracting in Public Education
Contracting out in public education is complicated by the fact that education is a
service without paying customers (Cohen, 2001). Moreover, public education has a
symbolic role; the provision of a system of public schools provides evidence and support
for a democratic system of government (Cohen, 2001). Regardless of the type of
organization, public, non-profit, or private, Cohen (2001) recommends the consideration
of ethical, technical, economic, social, and political issues when making contracting
49
decisions. Pallesen (2006) examined the level of contracting relative to school districts’
fiscal stress in Washington state school districts and found that financial stress was the
strongest predictor of contracting. Less money was associated with less contracting
contrary to the common perception that contracting is the result of a district’s desire to
reduce costs. The author also examined the impact of market structure and size of locality
on contracting decisions; smaller districts were more likely to contract as were more
urban districts. Pallesen (2006) concluded by acknowledging the most significant
obstacle to contracting: public employee and union opposition, particularly in
economically difficult times when outsourcing may cost employee jobs and, therefore,
union memberships.
O’Toole and Meier (2004) examined data from 1,000 Texas school districts to
determine why districts contract and the results. Advocates of contracting point to
positive results such as increased efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility; less union
influence; and more consumer choice (Savas, 2000, in O’Toole & Meier, 2004) as well as
increased innovativeness (Hill, Lawrence, Pierce & Guthrie, 1997, in Gold, Christman &
Herold, 2007). O’Toole and Meier (2004) found districts contract for a variety of
activities including special education services and professional development. With
respect to the presumption that contracting provides more money for core educational
functions, O’Toole and Meier’s (2004) multiple-regression analyses suggest that
increased contracting results in less spending for core instruction. Evidence points to the
fact that contracting “constricts instructional resources” (O’Toole & Meier, 2004, p. 346).
In terms of whether contracting improves performance, the authors examined districts’
50
levels of contracting and students’ performance on the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS) and found a negative relationship. Furthermore, the authors found no
relationship between district contracting and student diversity or classes offered, but
contracting was negatively associated with district size. District revenue, including per
pupil revenue and revenue from local sources, was positively associated with contracting.
The most notable finding of the study, however, was the relationship between district
bureaucracy and contracting where top-heavy organizations tended to contract more, a
phenomenon the authors coined an “updated version of Parkinson’s law” (O’Toole &
Meier, 2004, p. 342). Data suggest reciprocal causation: Building bureaucracy leads to
more contracting, which in turn necessitates monitoring and increased bureaucracy. The
findings of the study do not support the assertion that contracting improves performance
or that it ultimately serves the public. O’Toole and Meier (2004) conclude by noting a
gap in the literature relative to the various considerations public managers must make in
deciding whether or not to contract (Hodge, 2000, in O’Toole & Meier, 2004).
Public-Private Partnerships in Education
Despite its practical use in improving government and society, the notion of
privatization is subject to extreme political and ideological opposition (Savas, 2000). Paul
Starr (in Savas, 2000) expanded on some major concerns: Privatization reinforces power
structures, allowing for those who hold market power to increase it; it focuses on profits
by targeting the cheapest clients, builds on the public’s skepticism of government utility,
and reinforces class divisions. For these reasons, Wettenhall (2003) argues that the term
partnership is now fashionable despite the fact that Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are
51
certainly not a new concept. Wettenhall asserts, “the rhetorical power of a new slogan can
blind us to the fact that the idea on which it is based is far from new” (p. 80). Indeed,
many articles surrounding PPPs and alliances in general maintain that such partnerships
have developed recently, in the last couple of decades or sooner (Connolly & James,
2006; Relave & Deich, 2007; Wohlstetter et al., 2005). Others note the growing
prevalence of such partnerships in education (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997; Patrinos et al.,
2009) as well as increased calls from the private sector for schools to demonstrate that the
money donated by private businesses has made an impact (David, 1992).
PPPs are defined as collaborations between public and private sector entities with
the aim of pursuing common goals (Relave & Deich, 2007). Collaboration is a strategy to
help solve “wicked issues” (Stewart, 1996, p. 2, in Connolly & James, 2006, p. 69),
problems that are so interrelated and complex that they require the collaborative work of
multiple organizations in order to solve them. Partnerships may be formed to increase
capital, solve internal problems, allow organization to continuously adapt to the
environment, and in some cases they create political advantages (Weiss, 1987, in
Connolly & James, 2006). Besides attempting to improve student and school
performance (Connolly & James, 2006), partnerships are also formed to improve
academic outcomes for at-risk students (Relave & Deich, 2007). As for common
characteristics, partners typically have shared goals; they both contribute time, money
and expertise; and they work together and share decision-making (Releve & Deich,
2007).
52
In the U.S., two kinds of partnerships exist between school districts and
independent school operators: managed schools and charter schools (Patrinos et al.,
2009). Managed schools are those in which districts allow for-profit educational
management organizations to manage schools, both traditional public schools and public
charter schools, particularly those that are failing. Such agreements exist in 29 states and
have increased almost four fold between 1999 and 2006. Charter schools are public
schools that operate independently of local school boards but according to the provisions
of a specific contract known as a charter that is typically granted through a school district.
Charter schools numbered 253 in the 1995-1996 school year and in 2007-2008 they
totaled 4,147 (Patrinos et al., 2009).
Wohlstetter et al. (2005) investigated the evolution of 22 U.S. charter schools in
10 states plus the District of Columbia. Though her analysis was centered on partnerships
involving charter schools, results supported background literature on alliance formation
and evolution in and outside the field of education. Typically, organizations go through
three phases as they begin to work together: initiation, operations, and evaluation. During
the initiation phase, a champion guides the organizations through problems; at this time,
complementary needs and assets are explored. This phase requires trust from both parties.
During the operations phase, the governance structure is developed to make and carry out
decisions collaboratively. Effective communication between both organizations is critical
during the operations phase. Wohlstetter et al. (2005) noted that many charter school
alliances struggle in defining operations. In the final phase, evaluation, partners calculate
impacts and areas for improvement. Of the 22 charter school leaders interviewed, 17 said
53
they had no accountability plan, which made moving to the evaluation phase difficult.
The authors recommended the use of formal evaluations to set goals and improve
practices between partner organizations.
Some advantages of forming partnerships include increased flexibility,
productivity, knowledge and legitimacy (Wohlstetter et al., 2005). Partnerships may also
create competition and increase efficiency (Patrinos et al., 2009). Partnerships
purportedly increase the supply and improve the quality of youth programs (Relave &
Deich, 2007); they allow for decisions to be make closer to the customer and improve
education services for underserved students (Patrinos et al., 2009). Recently the World
Bank undertook a project to examine the role of PPPs in education throughout the world
(Patrinos et al., 2009). The authors underscore five ways in which PPPs can help
countries address education goals. First, partnerships increase access to education for all
students, particularly poor children. Second, innovative financial arrangements are
apparent in partnerships, which can be replicated. Third, for developed nations,
partnerships help create a “more differentiated business model” (Patrinos et al., 2009, p.
ix). Partnerships can also help schools meet education goals as well as foster innovation
(Patrinos et al., 2009, p. ix).
As for empirical evidence of the effectiveness of partnerships in particular,
Patrinos et al., (2009) reviewed a number of studies that point to the positive impact of
charter schools on student achievement in the U.S. and in Colombia and Venezuela
(Hoxby & Rockoff, 2004, in Patrinos et al., 2009; Hoxby & Murarka, 2007, in Patrinos et
al., 2009; Barrera-Osorio, 2007, in Patrinos et al., 2009; Allcott & Ortega, 2007, in
54
Patrinos et al., 2009). However, on closer examination, two studies suggested that charter
school students perform more poorly academically than their public school counterparts
(Bettinger, 2005, in Patrinos et al., 2009; Bifulco & Ladd, 2006, in Patrinos et al., 2009).
In several other studies, charter students were lower to begin with academically but
caught up to their public school peers within a few years (Booker et al., 2008, in Patrinos
et al., 2009; Hanushek et al., 2007, in Patrinos et al., 2009; Sass, 2005, in Patrinos et al.,
2009; Solmon, 2004, in Patrinos et al., 2009). In short, the impact of charter schools on
student achievement appears inconclusive.
Interestingly, no research on managed schools was reported in Patrinos et al.
(2009). Indeed, most articles about PPPs specifically outline one major disadvantage: the
lack of empirical evidence to support their effectiveness. According to Belfield and Levin
(2007b), competition in education may improve academic achievement; however, “there
is very little solid evidence that privatization will raise the rate of high school graduation”
(pp. 21-22). Patrinos et al. (2009) argue that PPPs have the potential to improve
education, but few programs have been evaluated, and evaluations typically do not follow
standard protocols. The authors maintain that evidence from across the globe suggests a
correlation between privatization and quality indicators; private businesses can provide
quality education at a low cost, but “few of the existing empirical studies of PPPs can be
considered to have yielded robust conclusions” (p. 7). The authors add that research is
needed to explore how PPPs work in different contexts and which features make such
partnerships more effective than traditional schools. At this point, not enough rigorous
research exists to draw specific conclusions about PPPs (Patrinos et al., 2009).
55
The dual problems of lack of evidence and sufficient evaluation of existing PPPs
are also noted in the literature surrounding privatization in the education of at-risk
students. Beales and Bertonneau (1997) explain that policy for educating at-risk students
is less regulated and formalized, particularly compared to the education of children with
special needs, which explains the lack of consistent data on alternative education
programs mentioned previously in this review of the literature (Aron, 2006). Incidentally,
in the article by Beales and Bertonneau (1997), data on the number of private providers
serving at-risk students and enrollment of at-risk students in such programs were
unavailable. While administrators claim that contracting allows for the provision of
specific programs for specific students, a service that districts cannot provide themselves,
the authors note that “lack of performance measures . . . plagues both public and private
schools for difficult-to-educate students” (p. 45). The authors suggest that programs
implement measures of achievement and improve accountability in order to place
students in appropriate programs and ensure positive results.
The notion that accountability is lacking is common throughout the literature
surrounding privatization, contracting, and PPPs (Savas, 2000; Wettenhall, 2003). With
regard to PPPs in education, accountability is absent with respect to outputs like
academic achievement and graduation. Instead, inputs are typically emphasized such as
low student-to-teacher ratios and flexible curricular delivery (Belfield & Levin, 2007b;
David, 1992; Patrinos et al., 2009; Relave & Deich, 2007; Wohlstetter et al., 2005). To
date, much of the research on the benefits of PPPs has been speculative at best or
commercial at worst. David (1992), for example, reported on several PPPs in education
56
and their impact on student achievement and innovation. One such program,
Ombudsman, was highlighted. The program boasts a 90% retention rate for its at-risk
students who are educated at a lower cost than the public school spends on average to
educate each student; however no empirical research supported the claim. A subsequent
Google Scholar search yielded no empirical research on the program.
Innovation and PPPs
A final concern with PPPs is the gap between rhetoric and reality on the topic of
innovation. Theory surrounding PPPs and privatization suggests that innovation will
result from what Wettenhall (2003) calls the “blurring” (p. 88) of public-private
boundaries (David, 1992; Patrinos et al., 2009). However, research suggests that
partnerships do not produce innovation. In their case study of the implementation of a
Diverse Provider Model (DPM) in the Philadelphia School District, Gold, Christman, and
Herold (2007) challenged the notion that contracting leads to competition and innovation
in public schools. The DPM is a reform effort whereby for-profit and non-profit
organizations are hired to manage low-performing schools in Philadelphia. Based on the
assertion of Hill et al. (2000, in Gold, et al., 2007), a DPM is expected to transform
educational bureaucracies into innovate and flexible institutions, responsive to the public.
However the implementation of the DPM in Philadelphia was rife with state-city
conflicts, which thwarted innovation.
Prior research on the creation of markets in the public sector suggests that a
variety of factors lessen competition and innovation and complicate accountability (Gold,
et al., 2007). The case study reports on three years of implementation of the DPM. In year
57
one, 2002-2003, both NCLB provisions as well as providers’ varying management
experience levels limited the providers’ ability to deliver the educational reforms they
promised. NCLB’s focus on standards and accountability forced providers to align
curriculum to state examinations. A thin management approach was adopted in response
to collective bargaining agreements, which, like NCLB, served a “homogenizing effect”
(Gold, et al., 2007, p. 198) on the reform effort. Further, political pressure that stressed
central authority also limited the providers’ ability to innovate. In year two, providers
worked closely with the district to ensure successful implementation of the DPM; the
district “emerged as the dominant partner in the public-private collaboration” (Gold,
Christman & Herold, 2007, p. 202). The authors concluded that the DPM was actually a
hybrid model in which providers collaborated with the district, which in turn retained
significant control over the reform limiting innovation. Such a model is characteristic of
real-life examples of private involvement in the public sector, where competition and
innovation are stifled.
On the subject of charter school innovation, Lubienski (2003) reviewed all extant
literature to understand how charters compare with districts in terms of innovation.
Charter school practices deemed innovative in a total of 190 research reports served as
data for analysis. Of the 190 reports, the author excluded those in which data were not
collected in a systematic way, leaving a total of 56 studies for analysis, the “most
comprehensive research available of the topic of charter school innovation” (p. 406). At
the level of administration, charters employ a variety of new practices such as increased
control over budget, merit pay for teachers, and experimental governance. Administrative
58
autonomy appears to provide parents with more options. Furthermore, charters typically
have fewer students and can cater to specific groups of students. As for classroom-level
practices, while charters use diverse approaches like incorporating technology into
classroom learning, such practices are also quite common in public schools. Overall, in
examining charter school innovation, a pattern of organizational change was seen
together with “pedagogical and curriculum conformity” (p. 416). To sum up, charter
schools provide diverse alternatives for parents regarding class size, technology, and
program options, and they are innovative with respect to governance. But charters
typically use classroom approaches common in public schools.
As in the case of the DPM described above, a sort of homogenizing effect appears
to affect charters just as it does managed schools. Lubienski (2003) suggests that market
forces in education encourage curricular conformity as opposed to innovation.
Organizations in similar environments respond to similar pressures and constraints,
which encourages homogeneity. Furthermore, when organizations face ambiguity, they
respond in a limited number of ways, minimizing consumer worry by mimicking existing
organizations and reducing innovation. Taken together, the articles (Gold, et al., 2007;
Lubienski, 2003) suggests that true innovation in schooling is difficult, regardless of
whether the institution is a managed or charter school.
Clearly the gap between rhetoric and reality regarding innovation in PPPs coupled
with the conspicuous lack of empirical evidence and robust evaluation of PPPs points to
the need to examine private involvement in public education. Furthermore, unavailable
research surrounding PPPs in an extremely sensitive area, alternative education for at-risk
59
students, makes an examination of such a partnership timely and warranted, especially
considering recent legislation that now forces all districts to report graduation rates as a
part of AYP.
Synthesis of the Literature and Present Research Focus
Attempts to curb the dropout problem have included PPPs in alternative education
for at-risk youth, but little is known about how such partnerships work and whether or not
they are effective in improving student outcomes. Alternative education programs serve
youth with emotional and learning disabilities (Foley & Pang, 2006; Lehr et al., 2009)
and students who are the most at-risk of failure in traditional settings (Lehr et al., 2009).
A review of state policy suggests four major criteria for student enrollment in alternative
school settings: at-risk status, suspension or expulsion from a traditional school,
disruptive behavior in class, and academic failure (Lehr et al., 2009). While students can
choose to attend an alternative school, findings from a recent legislative review and state-
level survey point to mandatory placement in alternative settings as a consequence for
disruptive behavior (Lehr et al., 2009). Perhaps traditional school officials are more
concerned with getting certain students out of their schools than determining who can
benefit from an alternative school experience (Cox, 1999; Hill, 2007; Kelly, 1993).
Worse, some research points to the fact that alternative schools are mere dumping
grounds for less-valued students (Groth, 1998; Kelly, 1993; Muñoz, 2004) or inadequate
teachers (Hill, 2007).
The research on alternative education paints a picture of programs where students
and teachers have relationships that are more respectful than those in traditional settings
60
(Groth, 1998; Quinn et al., 2006; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Wilkins, 2008), but serious
questions remain regarding students’ exposure to challenging curriculum and pedagogy
(Foley & Pang, 2006; Groth, 1998; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Muñoz, 2004; Wilkins,
2008) and academic outcomes (Lehr et al., 2009). One academic outcome in particular,
graduation, has become an important part of school accountability under NCLB. Now
more than ever, districts are under considerable pressure to ensure that all students
graduate from high school. For this reason, several reports on alternative education
recommend that districts partner with alternative education providers in order to ensure
that students have a variety of educational options that will lead to graduation (Hill, 2007;
Martin & Brand, 2006; Ruiz de Velasco et al., 2008). Furthermore, partnerships which
specifically involve private companies have the potential to positively impact student
achievement and services to students who are underserved (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997;
Connolly & James, 2006; David, 1992; Martin & Brand, 2006; Patrinos et al., 2009;
Relave & Deich, 2007; Wohlstetter et al., 2005).
Though private involvement in public education is plagued with controversy,
schools have a history of contracting out certain services. The research on contracting
between public schools and private companies suggests that such outsourcing is born in
times of economic prosperity (Pallesen, 2006) to top-heavy, bureaucratic institutions
(O’Toole & Meier, 2004) resulting in little innovation (Gold, et al., 2007). And while
research on the impact of contracting on student performance is mixed (Gold, et al.,
2007; O’Toole & Meier, 2004), the first systematic investigation of the impact of
contracting on student performance and investment in core educational objectives
61
suggests inverse relationships on both counts (O’Toole & Meier, 2004). In light of the
fact that empirical studies surrounding PPPs in education are rare and that studies on
partnerships between private providers and districts in the area alternative education for
at-risk youth are absent, an examination that explores a private-public partnership in
alternative education, the major pedagogical, organizational, and economic
characteristics of the partnership, and resultant student outcomes is clearly justifiable.
The present study thus aims to investigate the problems that are solved and
created when school districts decide to partner with a private provider to offer alternative
education for at-risk students, lessons learned from partnering, and principal advantages
and disadvantages of the partnerships from the perspective of relevant stakeholders in
three different district contexts. The study will shed light on an area that has heretofore
been unexplored in the hopes of providing information about an option to help at-risk
youth get back on track for graduation. The study addresses the following research
questions:
• What problems are solved and what problems are created when districts partner
with Graduation Partnership, Inc. (GPI) to provide alternative education for at-
risk students?
• What do key stakeholders believe are the lessons learned from their experiences
in the partnership, from the perspectives of GPI management, district
administrators, and GPI staff?
• What do key stakeholders believe to be the principal advantages and
disadvantages to them of this particular partnership?
62
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Research Questions
The methodology in the present section is aimed at addressing the following
research questions:
• What problems are solved and what problems are created when districts partner
with Graduation Partnership, Inc. (GPI) to provide alternative education for at-
risk students?
• What do key stakeholders believe are the lessons learned from their experiences
in the partnership, from the perspectives of GPI management, district
administrators, and GPI staff?
• What do key stakeholders believe to be the principal advantages and
disadvantages to them of this particular partnership?
Sample and Setting
In order to answer the research questions, it was necessary to first examine the
universe of private alternative education providers with the aim of finding a particular
case, which had the potential to provide useful data in terms of the history of the
partnership, current operations, and lessons learned. Finding a case that would most
thoroughly answer the research questions began with a Google™ search of private
providers of alternative education, which yielded over 275,000 hits. Though most states
allow contracting out in alternative education, only Pennsylvania has a list of providers
on its Department of Education website, which includes over 100 providers in this state
alone.
63
Another source of providers was found on a national level. The Education
Industry Association (EIA) is a national organization aimed at supporting education
entrepreneurs and promoting public-private partnerships. EIA includes a special interest
group, the Multiple Education Pathways Coalition, which focuses on alternative
education for dropout prevention and recovery. In order to narrow the range of
possibilities yet find a nationally recognized private provider of alternative education, I
spoke with the chair of the Multiple Education Pathways Coalition of EIA, who arranged
for me to participate in a conference call with coalition members on February 25, 2009.
Two multi-state providers were interested in participating in the study. One was a
separate-school model that focuses primarily on students with special needs, mainly at
sites in the Southeast. The other program was a school-with-in-a-school model intended
for students who are over-age and under-credit and at-risk of dropping out. This program
partners with several districts, mainly throughout California though the company is based
in Virginia. Because the second program more closely matches the focus of the present
study and operates in convenient locations throughout California to allow for
observations of several sites, it was selected as the business around which to build the
case study.
Graduation Partnership, Inc. (GPI), a pseudonym, is a private provider of
alternative education for at-risk youth. The school-with-in-a-school model consists of
partnerships with twelve districts throughout California as well as one district in
Maryland. GPI opened its first site in Northern California in April, 2006 and has
experienced continued growth since then. The private company served as the primary
64
unit of analysis for the present study. The firm was recommended by the chair of the
Multiple Education Pathways Coalition of EIA as a successful, cost-effective model in
alternative education. Further, private, for-profit partnerships in education continue to
spur much debate in the field of education; it is thus important to explore such a
partnership to uncover whether a private firm can provide cost-effective, quality
instruction to students at-risk of academic failure. GPI therefore served as the case for the
present study because the company met specific criteria: it is a rapidly expanding,
private-public, school-within-a-school partnership model in alternative education for
students at-risk of dropping out.
In order to answer the research questions, it was necessary to identify and gather
data within several GPI sites. Three specific sites were selected from thirteen possible
partnerships based on maximum variation (Miles & Huberman, 1994) relative to student
demographics and school characteristics. Convenience was also a factor in site selection.
Since I live in Southern California, GPI’s management team identified three unique sites
in Southern California that served as the settings for the current study. At one site, the
student population is primarily low-income, and in terms of demographics, students are
approximately 70% Latino, 20% African American and 10% Caucasian. The district is
also low performing. Another site is of particular interest because the partnership
involves a charter school not a district, the only partnership that GPI has with a charter
school. The school was originally a large, failing urban school within an extremely large
unified school district. The school converted to a charter in the 2008-2009 school year,
the same year that the partnership with GPI was formed. The student population at this
65
school is exclusively low-income Latinos (65%) and African Americans (35%). The third
site is unique because the district is a high performing, middle-class district. Students are
44% Latino, 44% Caucasian, and 12% Asian; 30% of the Caucasian students at this site
are Armenian or of Armenian descent. Examining sites that provide such maximum
variation allowed for the documentation of both diverse and common patterns (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
Data Collection
Data were gathered from interviews, focus groups, participant observations,
written documents and student records.
Interviews
Interview data were collected by interviewing the superintendents from two
districts and the cluster director from the charter school who is akin to an area
superintendent and is in charge of several school sites including the one under
investigation that partners with GPI. GPI management recommended that I interview
these three individuals because they are responsible for forming the partnership with GPI
and have extensive knowledge about it (see interview protocol, Appendix A). In an
informal conversation with GPI’s president on April 6, 2009, I learned that each
partnership begins at the top level of a district; it must be integrated into the mission and
vision of the school district. Therefore, interviewing top-level administration was critical.
I also interviewed a board member from each district and the chief academic advisor
(CAO) of the charter school, individuals who, according to GPI’s management team,
must have buy in in order for the partnership to be successful. These top-level
66
administrators (superintendents, board members, the cluster director and the CAO) will
henceforth be referred to as top district officials for the purpose of reporting data and
maintaining anonymity.
To gain a balanced picture of the partnership, I also interviewed top-level
managers from GPI: the CEO, president, and the Southern California Regional Director
who oversees all Southern California sites and works very closely and regularly with GPI
academy and district staff (see interview protocol, Appendix B). At the outset, I was not
aware that GPI has regional directors, so I did not originally intend to interview Southern
California’s. However, GPI’s president introduced me to the Southern California regional
director when I had the opportunity to attend GPI’s lead teacher summit in July 2009.
This individual became a gatekeeper throughout the study, accompanying me to each site
for an initial visit to meet all three principals and facilitating observations. Because the
director visits each of his sites at least once every two weeks, he knows quite a bit about
the partnership. In addition, he was a deputy superintendent of a district that decided to
partner with GPI (not one of the cases under investigation), so he has a particularly
unique perspective. Naturally, I thought interviewing him would provide very useful data,
and he agreed to an interview.
The semi-structured interview protocol for top district officials is included in
Appendix A. In particular, district leaders were asked about the history of the partnership
with GPI. More specifically, they were asked to describe what led to the decision to
contract out alternative education, the steps in forming the partnership, and initial
expectations and goals. In terms of current operations, top district officials were asked to
67
describe their roles and responsibilities and GPI’s, the process for identification of both
students and staff; and they discussed how performance is gauged. Finally, regarding
lessons learned, specific questions surrounded the evolution of the partnership, lessons
learned, principal advantages, and continued challenges.
As mentioned, in order to attain a balanced perspective of the partnerships, it was
important to speak with the private company. To that end, Appendix B includes the semi-
structured interview protocol for the GPI management team. Questions closely parallel
those in Appendix A with respect to the history of the partnership, current operations, and
lessons learned. It is important to note that multiple perspectives are needed to determine
the history of the partnerships, current relationships between the partners, and to
understand what both parties have learned from the experience. Each interviewee will
have a role and a perspective to enable comparisons between the district and the company
and within each group as well.
Most top district officials were interviewed face-to-face for approximately one
hour with the exception of two board members and one superintendent who requested
abbreviated phone interviews. This particular superintendent was initially unwilling to
participate in an interview due to conflicting obligations; however, GPI’s CEO spoke
with him and he agreed to a shorter interview. Incidentally, I was able to get through all
the interview questions with him on the phone in less than forty-five minutes. As for the
board members, I found that they had very little knowledge of the partnership, so their
interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Additionally, because GPI’s CEO and
president live in Virginia, I had to accommodate their travel schedule and interview them
68
together at a hotel in San Diego in December 2009 when they were in town for a
conference. Incidentally, this interview lasted approximately two and a half hours.
Focus Groups
Separate focus group interviews were conducted with students and staff,
respectively, from each of the three sites (see focus group interview protocols,
Appendices C and D). In the area of pedagogy, and in particular, to identify the principal
educational advantages and disadvantages of the partnership, hearing the voices of
students and staff is critical. Eight students at each site were interviewed for
approximately one hour. As for staff, each GPI site has approximately six staff members
– teachers, teachers’ assistants, and a registrar – so staff was interviewed in groups no
larger than six.
The decision to conduct focus group interviews for these individuals was based on
several considerations: First, focus groups are efficient in terms resources such as time
(Patton, 2002). Such interviews also have the potential to yield more thorough data as
participants’ shared views can be assessed and false views can be rejected by participants
(Patton, 2002). Furthermore, staff and students may be more inclined to express
themselves in a group than they would in a face-to-face interview with an unknown
researcher; such interviews are natural to people who are, indeed social creatures (Patton,
2002). Here again, questions posed to students closely parallel those for staff in order to
gain a balanced perspective with respect to why students and staff chose GPI, how GPI
compares to traditional high schools, and factors lead to student success or failure in this
program. Each focus group discussion lasted approximately one hour.
69
At the outset of the study, I also intended to conduct focus group interviews with
parents at each of the three sites. I was not able to attain contact information to call
parents at home due to district policies. However, GPI staff at each site sent out a short
informational letter on my behalf (see Appendix E) to parents, and I attended a parent
meeting at the charter school on August 24, 2009, where I had the opportunity to explain
the study and ask parents to sign up and provide a phone number in order to participate in
a focus group interview. I mentioned in the letter and the presentation that I would
provide dinner for participants. I received no calls from parents in response to the letter;
however, three parents from the charter school provided a phone number. I called all
three. I left two messages for one parent who never returned my call; another number was
out of service; I was able to talk to one parent, a father whose daughter attends GPI, but
when I asked him about the program, he did not know what it was. In short, my attempts
to gather data from parents failed. I spoke to several principals about my lack of data
from parents and one stated that I would not be able to get parents’ involvement unless
their child was in jeopardy of not graduating or some injustice was served.
I had the opportunity to visit each campus with GPI’s regional director prior to
formal data collection. A key purpose of these visits was to get each site principal to
agree to allow me to conduct my study on his/her campus. Throughout these initial visits,
I came to understand that the principal at each site has extensive knowledge of the
partnership between the district and GPI, so I decided to interview site principals early
on. These individuals are at the sites daily, unlike top district officials, so I felt that they
would have unique perspectives. All agreed to in-person, hour-long interviews. I used the
70
same interview protocol for principals that I used for top district officials (see Appendix
A) for consistency. All in all, I believe the insight that the principals provided was by far
more substantial than parents, who I never witnessed on site throughout my visits and
formal observations.
Observations
Interviews only capture people’s perceptions, so in order to gain a complete
understanding of the relationship between GPI and its partner districts as well as to fully
understand current operations, I needed to observe the three GPI sites under investigation.
Patton (2002) argues that direct observation is necessary in order to understand a
program; personally experiencing the program is the only way to get to know it (Patton,
2002). Direct observation, Patton argues, allows the researcher to understand context,
stay open, and notice things that would not come out in an interview. Thus, participant
observation was necessary, particularly to understand the curricular and instructional
practices that characterize the program.
I observed each site consecutively for five instructional days over the course of
two weeks to ensure that I had an accurate picture of current operations at each site
(Patton, 2002). I used an observation protocol (see Appendix F) for consistency. The
observation protocol is evidence of a deliberate attempt to capture students’ learning
experiences. The instrument is a modified protocol, developed by WestEd in
collaboration with educators at SIATech, a program very similar to GPI where the
researcher worked for eight years. Incidentally SIATech was highlighted in the Brown-
Ruzzi and Kraemer (2006) study reported earlier. Like GPI, SIATech is a computer-
71
assisted alternative education program where students are working toward the completion
of a high school diploma. While GPI partners with districts, SIATech partners with the
national Job Corps program and its various private contractors. Instructional delivery is
similar, and the SIATech observation protocol was developed as part of a quality review
process to ensure that students at SIATech have access to quality learning experiences.
The protocol was modified slightly to match the GPI program.
In addition to completing the protocol, I took detailed notes of what I saw and
heard, which I typed up following each observation. By observing three sites, it is less
likely to make unfounded conclusions about the overall nature of the program.
Nonetheless, reporting out differences between the three sites might allow readers to
understand how particular school contexts impact the organizational structures of the
partnership and resultant student outcomes.
Documents
In addition to interviews and observations, I collected documents including
contract agreements, newspaper articles, pages from GPI and districts’ websites, student
work, and other relevant artifacts. The document review tool is included in Appendix G.
Here again, the tool is aimed at ensuring consistency in the process of analyzing a variety
of documents.
Student Records
Finally, student-level data were collected in order to assess how GPI students
performed on indicators of program quality. Data included student attendance and
progress in the program, grades, test scores, and graduation rates. I intended to also
72
collect student surveys that GPI planned to administer, including initial, mid, and post-
program; however, GPI has not yet implemented such surveys. I also wanted to collect
post-program data to determine what students are doing once they graduate, and this data
is not available either. GPI collects data on the number of students who graduate, are
progressing toward graduation, who transfer, drop out and so on, which I will report.
However, neither the districts nor GPI collect longitudinal data on students.
Preview, Consent, and Handling Data
The GPI management team had the opportunity to preview all semi-structured
interview questions and focus group discussion starters and make suggestions and
revisions prior to finalizing the protocols. Consent for participation was obtained from
each interviewee. In the case of minors, primary caregivers provided consent, and assent
was attained from each student under the age of 18. Since GPI students are primarily ages
16-18, it was critical to include minors in the present study because dropout is the result
of extended disengagement from school (Finn, 1993; Jordan, McPartland & Lara, 1999,
in Christenson et al., 2001), and capturing the voices of students under 18 is thus
imperative. Only individuals who completed consent paperwork were included in the
study. I distributed the consent packet to the GPI management team, top district officials
and principals in August 2009, prior to conducting interviews or observing sites. Students
and staff from each of the three sites received a consent packet at the onset of each
observation. Focus groups were conducted toward the end of the observation period with
all students who returned the packet. Student focus groups therefore consisted of student
volunteers, eight from each site.
73
While focus group participants were not paid for their involvement in the study, I
provided a meal on the day of the focus group in order to compensate for participants’
time. Finally, I assured all interviewees and focus group participants that participation is
strictly voluntary, that their responses would be confidential, and that neither
participation nor refusal to participate would impact their status in the program in any
way. The consent process began in August 2009; data collection, both informal and
formal, occurred between February 2009 and December 2009. After making contact with
GPI via EIA in February 2009, I had an informal, in person meeting with GPI’s president
in April 2009 and a phone conversation with the CEO that same month. The CEO invited
me to GPI’s lead teachers’ summit in Vegas in July, 2009; I attended for two days and
met GPI’s entire management team, the lead teachers from all the sites, and district
partners – both principals and superintendents. I visited sites to meet principals in August
2009 and began formal interviews and observations in October, 2009. All observations
were complete mid November, and I finished all interviews by the first week in
December.
I tape-recorded and personally transcribed all formal interviews and focus groups.
I took notes during the interviews and focus group sessions in the event that equipment
failed. Data were collected through observing all three sites for five days over the course
of two weeks each (see the observation protocol, Appendix G). Finally, documents like
newspaper articles, student work, and contracts were also collected (see the document
review tool, Appendix F) as well as student-level data such as test scores, student
progress, and graduation rates, which I obtained from GPI’s president. It is important to
74
note that care was taken to ensure that interviewees’ words were transcribed verbatim and
that observation notes were extremely descriptive. An exploratory study of this nature
lends itself to a naturalistic approach whereby the researcher is immersed in the setting,
studying real-world interactions as they occur naturally in context (Patton, 2002).
An inductive approach was aligned to the research questions. This investigation
did not begin with an attempt to search for data in support of a particular theory but rather
the data itself was used to create generalizations, consistent with an inductive, qualitative
approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Finally, the present research is meaning-centered in
the sense that a deliberate attempt was made to capture participant perspectives
(Erickson, 1986, in Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In summary, a qualitative approach most
aptly addresses the research questions and purposes whereby the researcher acts as an
“instrument of data collection” (Creswell, 1998, p. 14), gathering and analyzing data
inductively, focusing on how participants make sense of their particular settings
(Creswell, 1998). Such an approach allows for in-depth inquiry surrounding the operation
of a public-private partnership in alternative education and how organizational and
instructional practices impact student outcomes.
In terms of storing data, all hand-written notes are in different-colored
composition notebooks, which are labeled consecutively. Digital interview files,
transcripts of interviews, completed observation protocols, and typed-up notes from
observations have been stored electronically and printed out and filed to ensure that no
data are lost. All consent and assent forms, composition notebooks, handwritten and
typed notes and transcriptions are in a locked cabinet in my home. No other individual
75
has access to the cabinet’s contents. All digital files are stored on a password-protected
computer. Data will be destroyed within a year following the culmination of the study.
All individuals’ responses are strictly confidential. In writing up findings, I ensured that
data could not be tied to any particular individual. Efforts to manage the data included
consistent formatting and cross referral (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Specifically, all
interviews and observations are appropriately labeled to include the type of data
collection (ie. interview, focus group, observation); the time and date; location; and the
people involved. It is important to ensure that researcher bias is minimized throughout the
process of data collection. Creswell (1998) suggests that researchers bracket their
prejudgments. Thus, in addition to recording what participants said and what I observed, I
took notes on my own preconceptions, which I set apart in brackets within my notes.
Data Analysis
Preliminary data analysis began during the data collection period as recommended
by Miles and Huberman (1994). For example, each interview was transcribed
immediately following its close, and observation notes were typed up and read
immediately following each observation. During this initial phase of data processing, I
took notes on emerging themes. Miles and Huberman (1994) call these notes descriptive
codes where initial classifications are attributed to different segments of text during the
initial stage of transcribing and reading. The process of reading over notes, or descriptive
codes, was iterative such that after each interview or observation and transcription, I went
back to older transcriptions and looked for common patterns in the notes, adjusting codes
76
to better reflect the data. This initial process of coding is called open coding (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998).
In terms of addressing the history of the partnership between GPI and the three
district sites, I compared the top district officials and principals’ responses to question
one in the interview protocol, which I then compared to question one in the interview
protocol for the GPI management team (see Appendices A and B). Question one asks top
district officials, principals, and GPI management to describe how the partnership came
about. Questions two through four were compared across district and GPI respondents in
order to understand the history of the partnerships (see Appendices A and B). As for
current operations and lessons learned, the structure of the questions in the interview
protocols for both the district representatives and the GPI management team are
purposely parallel in order to facilitate cross-case analysis of the data (see Appendices A
and B).
Regarding the focus group interview protocols for students and staff (Appendices
C and D), question one is similar for all respondents in that it asks participants to
comment on the decision to come to GPI. This question can be compared across
respondents to address both problems created and problems solved and the principal
advantages and disadvantages of the partnership. Question three in the staff focus group
protocol asks staff to discuss how students are identified for GPI and to describe
characteristics of GPI students. This question is aimed at checking for consistency with
regard to student identification with responses from district leaders and the management
team at GPI. Asking both staff and students to discuss a typical day and month will
77
ensure accuracy in terms of how the learning environment is structured at the alternative
school, but question six in the teacher focus group protocol specifically asks teachers to
comment on what a typical day and month look like for a student to gauge teachers’
perceptions of students’ learning experiences. Moreover, asking students and staff what
they like about the program and what they wish they could change helps to create a
consistent picture of the program as well as addressing its principal advantages and
disadvantages.
Several questions in the interview protocols for students and staff are aimed at
assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the GPI program and how it is different from
students’ previous schools to discern what unique characteristics of the alternative
program benefit – or do not benefit – certain students. Questions also attempt to account
for students’ success or failure in both school settings. Important to mention is that the
protocols include more than one opportunity for participants to critique both GPI and
previous schools as well as to comment on the strengths of both school experiences. For
example, students and staff are asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of
the GPI program as well as traditional schools and are asked what they would change – if
they could – about both settings. Structuring such opportunities is important for
individuals who may be reluctant to criticize either setting; plus it allows for a deeper
understanding of why the alternative settings might work for certain stakeholders.
Specific attention was paid in each interview protocol to understanding learning
experiences and in particular, about perceptions related to computer-assisted learning.
78
The figure below is an example of how questions related to computer-assisted learning
will be compared across respondents (See Figure 2).
Figure 2. Computer-assisted learning

Questions in the interview protocols are also aimed at discerning what supports are in
place for GPI students. Responses from students and staff were read and compared. The
following figure demonstrates which questions related to supports were compared across
respondents (See Figure 3):
District
Why does the
GPI program
make use of
computer-
assisted
learning?

Can you
comment on
the pros and
cons associated
with computer-
assisted
learning in the
GPI program?
GPI
Why does the
GPI program
make use of
computer-
assisted
learning?

Can you
comment on
the pros and
cons associated
with computer-
assisted
learning in the
GPI program?
Students
Can you
comment
on what’s
good and
bad about
how you
use
computers
in this
school to
learn?
Teachers
Can you
comment on
what’s good
and bad about
how students
use computers
in this school
to learn?
Parents
Can you
comment on
what’s good
and bad
about how
your
son/daughter
uses
computers
in this
school to
learn?
79
Figure 3. Support
Students
What kind of support do you
receive in this program?

to complete your school work
with personal issues
activities
beyond graduation
other
Staff
What kinds of support do you
provide students in this
program?

to complete their school work
with personal issues
activities
beyond graduation
other

Students in alternative schools often miss out on opportunities to participate in traditional
school activities in ways they consider meaningful (Kelly, 1993). Students were thus
asked about what types of district activities they participate in to determine the ways in
which partnering in alternative education might – or might not – benefit certain students.
Students were asked about their plans once they make up credits and graduate. While
districts are not currently mandated to keep track of students’ post-graduation activities,
this question is again aimed at determining whether students benefit from the partnership.
A key factor in determining whether the partnership benefits students is what happens to
them beyond graduation. Incidentally, in an informal interview with the president of GPI
on April 6, 2009, he questioned what would happen when students realize that the high
school diploma means nothing. The presence or absence of post-graduation student-level
data will shed some light on GPI’s priorities and help respond to the question of the
principal advantages and disadvantages of this particular partnership. Incidentally, both
80
district representatives and the GPI management team will be asked to comment on
whether the partnership is working from the perspective of all relevant stakeholders.
The research questions guided the data analysis process, which began with open
coding, reading and analyzing data, identifying concepts defined through the data, and
grouping them together and classifying them. The process is an act of comparative
analysis whereby events, behaviors, or perceptions that share similar attributes are
compared and grouped together (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Such groupings are placed
together into the same code. In particular, I analyzed responses from top district officials,
principals, and the GPI management team in order to determine what problems are solved
and what problems are created when districts partner with GPI, as well as the history of
the partnerships, current operations, lessons learned, and principal advantages and
disadvantages of the partnership. The results of these interviews began to paint a picture
of whether such partnerships work from the perspective of different stakeholders. Focus
group interview data from students and staff addressed whether the partnerships work
from the perspective of these important stakeholders. Responses from staff and students
highlighted advantages and disadvantages of the partnership in terms of teaching and
learning. Observing the three sites provided additional evidence to confirm the principal
advantages and disadvantages of this partnership, particularly by noting the presence or
absence of good instructional practices at the three sites (see the observation protocol,
Appendix F). Finally, the document review tool (Appendix G) is purposely constructed to
link documents to the specific research questions. The following matrix provides an
81
illustration of the primary data sources that were used to answer specific research
questions, which is aligned to the findings in chapter four (See Figure 4):
Figure 4: Data sources for answers to research questions
Q1: What problems are solved and what problems are created with districts
partner with GPI to provide alternative education to at-risk students?
Q2: Lessons learned, from the perspective of all stakeholders
Q3: Principal advantages and disadvantages of the partnership from the
perspective of all stakeholders

To arrive at a greater understanding of what problems are solved and created
when districts partner with GPI, lessons learned and principal advantages and
disadvantages, it is necessary to pick apart the data and ask questions that “dig beneath
the surface” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 109). The act of classifying phenomena and
Q1 Q2 Q3
Interview, District X X X
Interview, GPI X X X
Interview, Students X X
Interview, Teachers X X X
Observation X X
Document, contract X
Document, Newspaper article X
Document, GPI website X
Document, District website X
Document, student work X
Student-Level Performance Data X
82
naming such phenomena may allow for an understanding of “the range of potential
meanings contained within the words used by respondents” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.
109) such that their properties and dimensions may be developed more completely.
Naming itself does not however enable the researcher to arrive at a deep understanding of
the data; the critical reading and analysis of the data, rather, provides justification for
creating categories that reflect a deep understanding of the truth in the data. In effect,
interview data, together with data from observations, documents, and student-level data
will be combined and synthesized to form a more thorough explanation of what problems
are solved and created in the partnership with GPI, lessons learned, and principal
advantages and disadvantages.
Categories will then be linked to subcategories according to their specific
properties. Such subcategories, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998), answer questions
such as who, what, when, where, why, and with what consequences (p. 125), which will
ultimately allow for a greater understanding of the phenomenon of private-public
partnering in alternative education. This process will also involve discarding information
that does not relate to the research questions. Throughout the process of data analysis,
responses from district representatives, GPI management, students and staff, as well as
observations, documents and student-level data will be compared through cross-case
analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Such analysis will allow for a more complete
understanding of how partnerships in alternative education possibly differ depending on
context but converge in terms of history, operations, problems solved and created, lessons
83
learned, and principal advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, collecting data from
three different sites will allow for a deeper understanding of the partnership.
Assumptions, Limitations, and Scope
The present study makes several assumptions. First of all, it is assumed that the
interviewees, top district officials, principals, and the management team at GPI, are able
to articulate why they partnered to provide alternative education for at-risk students. It is
assumed, also, that district officials have choices regarding whether they will attempt to
provide alternative education on their own or contract with outside agencies. While
numerous private providers of alternative education exist, it is assumed, based on the
services provided and the nature of this particular partnership, that the case study
company, GPI, has the potential to offer rich data surrounding a unique partnership in
alternative education that extends beyond the typical, limited scope of private
involvement in areas such as technology or textbooks. With regard to the questions
surrounding history, current relationships, and lessons learned, the present study assumes
that individuals will be able to reflectively comment on past and present relationships and
that such individuals will be able to reflect upon both strengths of the partnership as well
as challenges. Similarly, the study assumes that students and staff will talk openly and
candidly with the researcher and their peers about their current experiences at the
alternative school. The questions in the interview protocols were constructed with the
expectation, also, that students are capable of reflecting on their prior schooling
experiences as compared to GPI and that staff can similarly compare GPI with traditional
schools. Finally, some questions require top district officials, principals, and GPI
84
management as well as staff to reflect on others’ perceptions and experiences, putting
themselves in others’ shoes. Ultimately, this case study assumes that participants will
provide accurate and truthful information in interviews.
Thus, a limitation of the study is that data collection relies heavily on perceptual
data from the private providers, partner-district administrators, board members, staff, and
students. However, the primary limitation is the inability to generalize findings from the
present study to other PPPs in education. The scope of the present study includes the
partnership between GPI and two districts and one charter school. Clearly this partnership
does not represent all partnerships with private companies in alternative education. Thus,
a delimitation of the study is the inability to explore all public-private partnerships in
alternative education for at-risk youth. In short, the present study is limited in that
findings cannot necessarily be generalized.
Credibility of Data within the Context of its Limitations
Collecting a variety of kinds of data – interviews, observations, documents, and
student-level data – will help address the aforementioned limitations to provide an
understanding of the problems solved and created when public schools partner with GPI
to provide alternative education for at-risk. In qualitative research, the term triangulation
is often used to describe the combination of different types of data, the mixing of
sampling techniques, or the use of different theories to inform data analysis (Patton,
2002); however, Bogdan and Biklen (2007) caution against use of the term to avoid
confusion. Instead, the authors suggest that researchers simply describe what they did. In
this case, truth in findings will be ensured by collecting a variety of data types; from a
85
variety of sources at three different sites throughout California. The characteristics of
relatively successful programs will be informed by analyzing all the data types in
addition to examining student records. In particular, data on student achievement,
graduation, and attendance will be collected in addition to observing classrooms,
analyzing documents, and talking to district representatives, GPI management, staff and
students.
The combination of gathering a variety of kinds of data from various sources in
several sites together with the researchers’ deliberate endeavor to report on her biases
will help ensure that interpretations made on the basis of the data collected will be valid.
The issue of validity in qualitative inquiry has been a topic of much debate. Historically,
the issue of standards for quality research was dichotomized within the quantitative,
qualitative debate (Howe & Eisenhart, 1990). Howe and Eisenhart (1990) proposed
standards for both qualitative and quantitative research. In assessing the validity of
educational research, the authors call first for a match between the research questions and
data collection and analysis. The present study lends itself to qualitative inquiry given the
emphasis in the research questions on process. Second, Howe and Eisenhart (1990) argue
that quality research is characterized by specific data collection and analysis techniques.
The present study will make use of appropriate and credible interview and observation
protocols as well as a consistent document analysis tool. As mentioned, collecting a
variety of kinds of data from a variety of sources will help ensure validity. Third, Howe
and Eisenhart (1990) emphasize an awareness of background knowledge, both in terms of
background literature and potential researcher bias. Indeed, the present study is rooted in
86
background literature surrounding the dropout problem, dropout intervention, alternative
education, private contracting in public schooling, and PPPs. Furthermore, in order to
minimize researcher bias, the researcher will employ techniques such as bracketing while
recording evidence (Creswell, 1998) and including notes on her own subjectivity
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Fourth, Howe and Eisenhart (1990) maintain that quality
research must have overall warrant. In other words, the researcher must seek
disconfirming evidence and remain critical throughout the process of data analysis. Here
again, using a variety of data sources from several sites will help ensure validity;
however, spending enough time collecting enough evidence to the point of saturation or
what Lincoln and Guba (1985, in Patton, 2002) refer to as redundancy is necessary to
ensure validity. The present study meets the criterion of saturation due to the length of
time the researcher collected data – from February until December 2009 – and in
particular, the time spent observing each site. Finally, Howe and Eisenhart (1990) define
quality research according to value constraints. External value constraints require
judgment about the worth of a research study. Given the severe consequences of dropping
out of high school, the study passes the external value test. As for internal value
constraints, the present study is ethical in the sense that potential harm to participants is
minimal.
87
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
The purpose of the study was to determine what problems are solved and created
when districts partner with Graduation Partnership, Inc. (GPI) to provide alternative
education for at-risk students. The study also attempted to ascertain what key
stakeholders believe are lessons learned and principal advantages and disadvantages of
the partnership. This chapter presents an analysis of the data in response to the three
research questions below:
• What problems are solved and what problems are created when districts decide to
partner with GPI to provide alternative education for at-risk students?
• What do key stakeholders believe are the lessons learned from their experiences
in the partnerships, from the perspective of GPI management, superintendents and
board members, principals, and GPI staff and students?
• What do key stakeholders believe to be the principal advantages and
disadvantages to them of this particular partnership?
Interview and focus group data from all stakeholders, documents, student records,
and observations addressed the first research question. Primarily interview and focus
group data addressed the last two questions. However, I will first begin by providing
context for the present study by describing the history and current operations of the three
sites under investigation. Interviews of top district officials and GPI management
outlined how each partnership got started. Moreover, documents such as contracts,
newspaper articles, and websites along with observations were used to describe current
operations.
88
Before beginning, it is important to note that a deliberate attempt was made to
collect data from a variety of stakeholders in order to balance out biases and get at the
root of the story. One of the teachers who was interviewed mentioned different
stakeholders’ competing agendas, which illustrates the notion of bias:
Sometimes the district has a political agenda . . . GPI has their own agenda; you
know theirs is a product they’re trying to sell. We [teachers] try to play it to
what’s going to be most advantageous to the kids.

Clearly, GPI was motivated by a desire to open new sites and thus increase profit, which
may have influenced their responses to certain questions in favor of the private company.
Similarly, top district officials wanted the public to believe that they were addressing the
dropout problem via the partnership with GPI and thus might have been hesitant to
critique their involvement in the partnership. And consistent with the above quotation,
teachers also have self-interests. Their responses might have been biased in an attempt to
demonstrate student centeredness and professional competency. A final bias lay in the
nature of the study and researcher. The present study relied on the researcher to be the
instrument of data collection and analysis, which posed a threat to validity (Patton, 2002).
I carried biases that were the result of working in a similar alternative education
partnership for the past eight years. Such experience might be a strength of the present
study as well, given my familiarity with a partnership in alternative education. Keeping a
journal to record personal reflection helped reduce researcher bias, as did the fact that the
primary unit of analysis, the private provider in the present study, as well as the three
partner schools, were unfamiliar to me. Ultimately, collecting various kinds of data from
different stakeholder groups was necessary in order to minimize bias in the present study.
89
In terms of data analysis, I conducted and transcribed all of the interviews myself.
Analysis began during the process of transcription. First, I read each transcript while
simultaneously looking at the research questions visible on another document. On the
transcripts, I highlighted and took notes on what I considered possible findings based on
the research questions. The next step was creating three separate Word documents for the
three stakeholder groups – district and GPI administration, staff and students – which
listed all research questions on each. I went back to the transcripts and typed up
quotations that fit under each question in these documents. I then reviewed the
documents, grouping like responses together to begin to create themes. At the same time,
I reviewed student records and artifacts and highlighted and took notes on these data
sources as well, trying to fit data into the emerging themes. I continued to revise the
themes and combine and get rid of categories to accommodate the data. I used
documents, student records, and observational data to confirm themes. Significant
findings, which correspond to each research question, are presented following a
description of the history of the partnerships and current operations.
History

The Search for Solutions

Top district officials had the most insight regarding the history between GPI and
their districts. In interviewing these individuals, I learned that in all three cases,
partnership formation began with the identification of a problem at the district level and a
desire to seek a solution. In the case of the first district, the board raised the issue of the
dropout problem and urged the superintendent to address it. In the second district, a
90
research report highlighted the district as having the lowest graduation rate among the
100 largest districts in the county (Greene, 2006). The superintendent, wanting to avoid
the stigma of the label “dropout factory,” sought a solution, which created the impetus for
forming the partnership with GPI. As for the third school, the charter entity, the
leadership team investigated the problems facing the school prior to its conversion to a
charter. The team discovered that a number of students enrolled in the school were so far
behind in credits that they had no chance of graduating without a serious intervention.
This realization gave rise to the partnership. In short, partnership formation began with
the realization that a serious problem faced the district – students were dropping out or
were on the verge of dropping out because they lacked the credits needed to graduate on
time – which propelled the districts to seek solutions and eventually decide to partner
with GPI.
When asked to describe what led to the decision to contract out to provide
alternative education, one superintendent immediately mentioned the board. When he
first arrived at the district, the board was planning to establish a charter school for credit
deficient students. The superintendent, not a fan of charters, asked the board to give him
time to investigate an alternative option. Shortly thereafter, a representative from GPI
made contact with him and pitched the idea. He then sent a group of administrators to
visit GPI’s first site in Northern California. After observing the program, the group came
back excited. At that point, the superintendent went back to the board and provided a
brief outline of how the partnership would work. He then put together a team of
administrators to explore an agreement with GPI: the Curriculum and Instruction person,
91
facilities, and the chief business official. The partnership at the first site in Southern
California officially began on January 2, 2007. The principal who presided over this
particular GPI site was new to the district and therefore could not comment on the history
of the partnership.
The second impetus for forming a partnership with GPI was a report from the
Manhattan Institute in April 2006. In the report, one case study district was listed as
having the lowest graduation rate among the 100 largest districts in the county, 42%
(Greene, 2006). According to the superintendent, “That got our attention . . . . It was an
alarm to us that we needed to take care of this matter whether we agreed with every word
of it [the report] or not. We just felt it was a real problem for us so we began to look at a
number of options and GPI was one of them.” When asked what other alternative
providers the district considered, the superintendent explained that the partnership with
GPI was just one of many strategies the district implemented to address the dropout
problem. The superintendent continued by saying that the program was not well
established at the time, but that one partnership was up and running in Northern
California, so he spoke with the superintendent of that district who “seemed very happy
with what was going on.” He concluded by explaining how the district worked with GPI
to establish a contract. The site opened its doors on June 1, 2007.
The principal at the aforementioned site, who presided over GPI as well as a
continuation high school that shared the same campus, had a long history with the
district. She mentioned that in the initial phase of partnership formation, she made trips to
two GPI sites along with the director of alternative programs from the district and the
92
assistant superintendent. She had the opportunity to ask a lot of questions and “then the
final decision was to go with that program.” She had this to add later on in the interview:
“It really bothered me that everything had to be done so quickly without really looking to
see what all the options could have been; however, this is the field of education and not
all things are planned with enough lead time.”
The third partnership under investigation officially got started on September 8,
2008. In this case, the partnership was between GPI and a charter school that recently
took over a failing public school. In the process of researching the school and, in the
words of a top official, “trying to anticipate the different needs of the students that we’d
be serving,” the leadership team found that “a lot of kids had not graduated, were 5
th
year
seniors and credit deficient.” Both administrators for the school noted that there were so
many new things to consider in the charter conversion, and they felt that credit recovery
was not something they could do well themselves, so they sought a partner from whom to
learn. The cluster director mentioned three organizations that he contacted. They decided
on GPI because GPI’s curriculum was compliant with California universities while the
other two organizations’ were not, and the mission of this particular charter school
surrounded college readiness. Furthermore, one program made use of a “packet style”
curriculum, which was a drawback, according to the director, and the third program was
residential and thus not affordable. Here again, administrators made several visits to GPI
sites in operation. The charter school leadership team interviewed administrators and
teachers in the program, and then a contract was established. The principal of this site
was not able to comment on the partnership because she was hired after it was formed.
93
Process of Forming a Partnership
Besides the identification of a problem at the district level and the desire to seek a
solution, partnership formation involved site visits and conversations with existing
partners. Interview data suggested that such conversations were essential in forming the
partnership with GPI, particularly since GPI was a relatively new company and initially
did not have data to support its effectiveness. The interview with GPI’s CEO and
president confirmed this finding. District officials needed to know that their public school
counterparts were satisfied with the partnership before they proceeded. Incidentally,
partnership formation was not without issue and controversy as evidenced by the
comment from one principal; however, the ability to address a problem coupled with the
blessing from existing district officials who currently partnered with GPI appeared to
trump potential drawbacks.
GPI management spoke about the general process of forming a partnership with a
district from their perspectives. The first step is to get buy in from the superintendent and
the board that they have an issue and that GPI is a viable partner to address the dropout
problem. The next step is a feasibility study that occurs over a couple of days. A team
from GPI works with each department in a district to discuss the partnership from that
department’s perspective. First, the curriculum needs to be addressed “because if your
Chief Academic Officer (CAO) in two months says it’s not going to work, the
conversation will come to a halt.” The next conversation is the financial one, which the
management team spoke about in great detail. The management team was quick to point
out that they know more about district finances than most district business officials. GPI
94
discussed the risk they take up front and the potential pay off as well as the need to
convince chief business officials that the program is sustainable. If at any point during the
feasibility study one party says the partnership will not work, both parties can walk away.
Once all aspects of the partnership are discussed and agreed on, the parties sign a five-
year contract, the terms of which will be discussed in the next section.
Operations between GPI and the Schools

The common characteristics that describe current operations between GPI and
public schools can be presented using data from the contract agreements, which outlined
roles and responsibilities of both partners, from observation notes that provided a glimpse
into the classroom, through newspaper articles that reported on the partnership between
GPI and the three districts as well as the GPI website and one district website available
that overviewed the program.
For the most part, all three contracts were similar and outlined the duties of both
partners, the fiscal relationship, and termination provisions. Contracts spelled out the
purpose of the partnership:
GPI and the District shall work cooperatively . . . to create a technology-based
academy . . . to serve out-of-school and at-risk youth with a specialized
programmatic approach utilizing customized learning plans to meet the varied
needs of students who have dropped out of high school.

Following the purpose, duties of each organization were explained. For example, GPI
furnished and operated the academies, recruited and educated students, participated in the
selection, training and management of staff, and reimbursed the district for staff costs.
The district, on the other hand, housed the academies, reported Average Daily
Attendance (ADA), enrollment, and other information necessary to obtain funding from
95
the state, negotiated with bargaining units, provided internet connections, and covered
lighting, phone service, electric, security, and custodial services. The districts were also
responsible for providing special education services to qualified students.
The contract for the charter school differed from the others in that it stipulated the
number of students to be served at a minimum in the academy, 180, in one of three, four-
hour sessions each day. This particular contract contained a provision that the parties
could agree not to operate the evening session if the facilities could accommodate 180
students in two sessions. This site offered just two sessions per day due to staff concerns
about safety in the evening, and indeed the facility accommodated 90 students.
The contracts laid out the fiscal responsibilities of each party. For example, GPI
inputted and maintained student enrollment and attendance information in the district’s
database, reported aggregate days of student attendance, and reimbursed the district for
staff salaries and benefits. The district provided guidance on data and programmatic
requirements to ensure compliance with the law, reviewed the attendance reports filed by
GPI and paid GPI “an amount equal to the product of the aggregate number of days of
student attendance and the net daily rate.” Rates were $31.16 per student per day at the
first site opened; $33.44 for the second site; and $37.37 for assigned students, $39.44 for
recovered students at the last site that opened.
Finally, termination provisions were provided in each contract. The first two years
of the contract could not be terminated without cause. Each contract also delineated
duties of both parties in the areas of instruction, academy operations, human resources,
and student recruitment. The contracts clearly articulated the roles and responsibilities of
96
both parties in an easy to read format with GPI duties in one column and district duties in
another. Appendix H provides an example.
In addition to contract agreements, GPI’s website also provided information
useful to understanding current operations, especially what GPI offered to the district. For
example, GPI compensated teaching staff per district policies and union regulations,
provided ongoing professional development, participated in hiring staff, and provided the
capital for furniture and software.
On district websites, only the charter school provided information about GPI. One
district’s website contained information about its other alternative programs, the
continuation high schools and independent study program, but GPI was missing. Another
site had an inoperative link to a PDF file about GPI. The charter school, however,
provided background on the conversion high school and GPI:
This school . . . . has a history with a large number of . . . students who have
failed so many classes that dropping out is almost their only option. . . . GPI is a
computer-based program in which students work independently to make up
missing credits at their own pace, allowing them to build up credits to graduate.

As far as the classroom environment, newspaper articles were mixed. For
example, The Los Angeles Times reported the following:
At first, the GPI Academy looks more dreary than dramatic. Long institutional
tables with computer stations fill a warehouse . . . where 160 students. . . mostly
juniors and seniors, are divided into two shifts, each shift sitting at the computers
for four hours a day. (Learning that clicks, 2009, p. 1).

This lackluster description could be contrasted with another article from a different
newspaper describing a second GPI site in a more up-beat fashion: “The GPI Academy…
offers a spacious room filled with computers that allow students to catch up on their high
97
school credits – at their own pace.” (Schatz, 2007, p. 1). GPI’s CEO described the
academies as “modern . . . more like internet cafés, business type environments.”
All academies looked alike, so interpretations of site differences were based more
on intangible phenomena like conversations than on physical objects. The classrooms
were clean, had new carpets and furniture, and walls were decorated with content and
motivational posters though student work was not displayed. Each site had several
bookshelves with extensive collections of new literature for young adults, books like
Monster by Walter Dean Meyers and How the Garcia Girls Lost their Accents, by Julia
Alvarez, as well as classics like The Odyssey. However, I did not observe students
reading these texts, only the books that were part of the curriculum, available on the
computer. I noted no overlap between the required course readings and the classroom
libraries. In terms of lighting, only one site had windows that allowed natural light. All
sites used fluorescent lights.
I observed each site for 5 total instructional days, mainly during the morning
sessions although I did observe at least one afternoon session at all sites and one evening
session at the two sites that offered a third session. Observations occurred throughout
October and November 2009. Observation notes surrounded classroom operations. On-
task behavior generally ranged from about 50% at one site to 90% and 100% at the
others.
At the site with nearly 100% on-task behavior, students worked on computers at
individual cubicles on subjects ranging from humanities to biology and health. Activities
observed were primarily computer-assisted instruction with some one on one teacher-
98
student interaction. At this particular site, staff also had opening and closing activities.
Students set goals at the beginning of class and reported whether they met goals at the
end of the class at which time they received rewards – fake dollars that could be used to
purchase classroom privileges – for meeting goals.
As for student learning, students worked independently, took notes, used graphic
organizers and calculators, and they could respond when asked, “What are you working
on today?” Students could also articulate what they were going to write about in essays.
Essay topics included whether animation would replace actors, five rights you enjoy as a
citizen and a responsibility that goes with each, and what Coolidge meant by saying ‘the
business of America is business.’ When I spoke with the lead teacher about the
GPI writing requirements, she told me that the district was focusing on writing this year,
and although the curriculum only required that students write three paragraph essays,
these students had to write five. I noticed one student struggling with a topic surrounding
a piece of literature. Even after discussing the topic with the student and helping him
create an outline, he had not started writing by the end of the class, four hours later.
Students were not observed participating in any collaborative learning activities nor did
they work in small groups or pairs. Students spent 90-100% of the instructional time
working individually at a computer.
Other than being late in the morning, students tended to follow classroom rules,
procedures and routines. They came in and immediately grabbed their time cards and
punched in and went to their desks. A noticeable feature of the classroom was its silence.
Students did not interact with each other at all. Furthermore, the content on the computer
99
was solely text-based with no audio support. When I questioned one of the teachers, she
said the original idea was to have students work in groups at tables and interact with each
other and staff. When the staff tried this approach, the rest of the class “went crazy.”
Thus, the policy of silence began, and students were required to remain quiet during class
time with the exception of two twenty-minute breaks spaced evenly throughout the four-
hour session. During breaks, students got water from a large water cooler in the room and
chatted with friends or went outside. The teacher also explained that one staff person is
always on the floor, helping students while the others do work at their computer stations
such as grading papers and unlocking units. The majority of the curriculum consisted of
reading passages followed by multiple-choice questions. Each unit of study also
contained an essay. I observed a number of students using Wikipedia to research content.
Finally, regarding teacher and classroom practices, I observed teachers walking
around the room fairly consistently, answering students’ questions. I did not observe
teachers engaging students in the content at deep levels but rather answering questions
about multiple choice quizzes and tests. On the other hand, I had the opportunity to view
several graded student essays; comments focused on organization, argumentation, and
conventions. Furthermore, on Friday, the lead teacher made an announcement about job
openings in the area before dismissing students.
At the site where on-task behavior was the lowest, around 50%, the environment
looked similar – time clock, water cooler, individual workstation cubicles lining the walls
– only the room was much larger, to accommodate 90 students, though only about 75
were in attendance on the days I observed. Many students were not engaged but rather
100
socializing with one another, playing with cell phones or portable music players, putting
on make up, or trading cards. The staff tried to get the students quiet over and over again
to no avail. After having observed a different GPI site, I was confused about the level of
noise and asked whether students were on break. A staff member replied, “No.” One staff
member informed me that they had difficulty keeping certain students on-task, so they
put the more serious students in a small, separate section of the classroom.
Approximately 15 students occupied that area, the majority of whom stayed on task
throughout my visits.
Here again, the chief classroom activity at this site was computer-assisted
instruction. Students could respond when asked what subject they were working on, but
many were unable to articulate what they were learning beyond that. Students were very
receptive to my attempts to engage with them and were willing to discuss content with
me. I did not observe students working on any essays other than the personal narrative.
The students who were on-task were primarily engaged in taking multiple choice quizzes
and tests, copying and pasting notes from their computerized lessons to Word documents
and using these documents to answer questions. Students had extremely limited Internet
access, but a common practice was typing a test question into Google and examining the
hits for the correct answer. Students were unable to click on the sites to read further. All
in all, the classroom environment consisted of a lot of chatter among students, very little
of which surrounded academic content. I did observe teachers walking around assisting
students but again did not observe teachers varying their instruction to engage students on
deeper levels. No small group lessons were observed at the site.
101
On my first day at the final site, approximately 35 students were in attendance at
8:20 in the morning, and this number moved up to 45 by 9:00. Incidentally, the morning
session began at 8:00. This site was similar to the first in terms of student engagement;
approximately 90% of students were on-task, and students were silent during class except
for break time. However, one significant difference in terms of student learning was the
small group lessons each day, alternating between CAHSEE math and English
preparation. These lessons were teacher-directed. For example, one day the math teacher
lectured students on scientific notation and another day the English teacher demonstrated
how to write an essay about the United States’ bombing of Japan during WWII.
Still, the students spent the majority of their time working individually on the
computer. At this site, students could access printed documents, which contained all the
lesson material that the students at other sites could only access on the computer. Here
again, students were primarily engaged in answering multiple-choice questions on the
computer. Only three students were writing on the days I observed; two were completing
their personal narratives and one was writing a paragraph for his art history class. When
asked, the lead teacher told me she does not require that students do all the essays
included in the curriculum. At this site, students were perhaps the least responsive to my
presence. When asked what they were working on, a few students could not name even
the subject despite the fact that it was indicated on the top left hand corner of their
computers. Students had no access to the Internet but were allowed to listen to their
portable music players with headsets. At one point I tried to get the attention of a student
102
wearing headphones. I asked his neighbor what his name was, and the student shrugged
that he did not know.
Here again, aside from a significant number of tardy students, most were on-task
at their computers, following classroom rules and policies. I noticed one student was
crying, and I asked her if she was okay and she replied in the affirmative. Later, I
witnessed her asking the lead teacher to go outside to talk. The lead teacher later told me
that the student was having personal issues, so she asked her to work through them by
writing an essay entitled The Miracle Question: If you woke up tomorrow and your life
was perfect, what would that look like? The teacher, a former counselor, had her then go
through the essay and highlight what things were within her control. Finally, the teacher
asked the student what she should work on. According to the lead teacher, this was a
common exercise.
All in all, students at GPI spent the majority of their time working individually at
computers, attempting to answer multiple-choice questions. A strategy common across
the sites was to copy questions from tests along with answer choices and take them
repeatedly, narrowing down the correct answer choices until they passed.
RQ #1 Problems Solved and Created
Data revealed that the partnership between GPI and school districts
simultaneously solved and created problems. Problems solved included the following:
The partnership addressed a gap, represented a viable alternative to current unsuccessful
practices, existed within the system, and enabled both partners to take advantage of one
another’s resources. As for problems that were created, the partnership jeopardized
103
effective teaching and learning practices, lacked criteria for enrolling students and hiring
staff that fit, and created confusion among stakeholders. To distinguish between problems
solved and created and principal advantages and disadvantages, I limited problems solved
and created to issues that applied to all stakeholder groups while the section on
advantages and disadvantages included those mentioned by only one stakeholder group.
In this section, problems solved included those that all stakeholders – top district
officials, principals, GPI management, staff, and students – mentioned and agreed on.
First of all, the partnership between GPI and school districts addressed a gap or problem
that school districts face. The overview of the history of the partnerships revealed that
partnership were initiated when the district realized that a problem needed to be
addressed, namely that students often fail to earn enough credits to graduate resulting in
drop out. The partnership allowed students to quickly earn credits in order to get back on
track for graduation.
In addition, all stakeholders noted that the partnership provided a viable
alternative, different from traditional public school and alternative education programs.
GPI used computer-assisted learning in order to allow students to make up credits and
work at their own pace. This educational delivery represented a departure from more
traditional forms of alternative education such as continuation high school or independent
study. In short, the partnership allowed district to provide yet another alternative to
students who did not succeed with available educational options.
The third problem that the partnership solved related to the fact that GPI was a
school-within-a school; the partnership existed within the district system. Thus, students
104
could continue their education within the district without having to leave and seek an
alternative setting on their own. For teachers, the program allowed them to retain district
privileges. As for district administration, the partnership enabled them solve their own
problems from within thus saving face and building internal capacity. For GPI
management, partnering with districts gave them credibility among educators and
increased business. Working within the system also helped them avoid the perception that
they were competing with public education.
Finally, the partnership enabled both public and private entities to take advantage
of one another’s resources. From the districts’ perspective, GPI provided the capital up
front to provide a classroom and instructional staff; the company also offered continuous
professional development. The districts by contrast provided facilities to GPI and the
students who generated the funding necessary for operation.
Addressed a Gap
Perhaps the most significant finding under problems solved was the fact that the
partnership addressed the dropout problem. Indeed, interview comments from all
stakeholders attested to the fact that this partnership enabled students to graduate,
students who were so far behind in credits that they did not stand a chance of walking
across the stage and earning their high school diplomas.
One student commented:
I don’t see how I would have walked across the stage. I needed 23 credits when I
first started and if I had been on that side [at the regular high school], I would
have been screwed because I would have needed 16 classes, but here in less than a
year I’ve finished 19 courses, so it’s a big improvement, and I’m so glad they
came over to get me.

105
Another student very poignantly said the following:

I think it’s a process when you’re in high school and you just want to have fun.
You don’t realize till the point of ‘Oh, I’m not walking across the stage.’ That’s
when it hits you – ‘Wow, I need to do something!’ but it’s too late.

Traditional high schools do not make provisions for the students above, who
realize, too late, that they should have attended, completed work, and passed classes.
High schools offer a finite number of courses to students, and if they do not pass these
classes, they have little opportunity to get back on track. GPI offered this type of student
the opportunity to work at his/her own pace, at a computer, to make up missed classes,
often at a rate much quicker than in traditional high school.
All stakeholders consistently mentioned the fact that without the program, these
students would not be able to graduate: “When you think of the big picture, it’s good this
school is here; students wouldn’t have a chance to get a high school diploma in X district
if not for this program.” One principal succinctly expressed the first problem solved:
The partnership has offered an immediate stop to the bleeding of X amount of
students dropping out, not completing their high school career . . . . They have
provided a service and delivered on it on a percentage of students whose needs we
as a district were not meeting.

Students noted obstacles which prevented them from earning credits in their
previous high schools such as lack of attendance, failure to complete work, poor teachers
and an educational system that forced them to go along with the rest of the class, however
fast or slow the class was moving:
It suits me – for everything – the one thing, you work at your own pace. That’s
the best thing for me cause I felt like I can – my regular high school you know if
someone got behind in the class, the teacher would work on catching them up
with the rest of the class. That would take time for the rest of the students from
106
getting ahead. If you’re smarter, you’ll advance faster [at GPI]. So here I just
work at my own pace; it works for me.

Clearly, these comments bear witness to the fact that the partnership between GPI
and the district addressed a gap: Many students who were not attending, performing, and
thriving seemed to find a fit at GPI. Students went on to say, “They should have had this
program in regular school. If they would have had it before, I think I would have
graduated.”
Data from documents like newspaper articles supported the theme that traditional
schools allow students to fall behind and yet do not provide them an opportunity to catch
up. A 2009 article about the partnership between GPI and the charter school stated,
75% or so of the 2003 freshman class . . . never made it to . . . graduation . . . .
When [charter school administrators] examined the . . . records, they found that
dozens of students were too far behind on required course work to stand much
chance of graduation . . . . They flunked because they seldom went to class . . . .
[GPI] is clearly rescuing significant numbers of bright students who have the
capacity for hard work but who were lost in traditional classrooms (Learning that
clicks, 2009, p. 1).

The degree to which the partnership addressed a gap, however, was not totally
clear. Top district officials and GPI management tended to compare student-outcome data
to zero. For example, records showed that average attendance was 65% at one site, 72%
at another, and 78.5% at the third site. A newspaper article mentioned the student
attendance rate was “remarkable given the student population . . .” (Hokanson, 2008, p.
1). Similar comments were made across stakeholder groups, who compared student
attendance and progress with zero levels. Unfortunately, according to the California
Department of Education, districts do not report out individual student attendance rates
and overall percentage attendance of a school’s population out of 100% total. While
107
GPI’s website boasted that student attendance improves in the program by threefold, it
was impossible to corroborate this information. Similarly, in examining CAHSEE data,
GPI students generally performed slightly poorer than students in their home districts.
However, the fact that GPI students’ scores were comparable was promising given that
GPI students were not attending and passing their regular high school classes. Here again,
I was not able to examine individual CAHSEE scores to compare student performance
prior to and post GPI, so the degree to which the partnership truly addressed a gap was
not clear.
Fortunately, I was able to attain student credit attainment data; GPI kept track of
how many credits individual students earned in their previous schools compared to GPI.
These data were very promising; most students earned credits at a much faster rate at
GPI, on average from .22 credits to .79 credits per day. A student earning .79 credits per
day could complete high school in 291 days, a little over a year and a half on a traditional
185-day school calendar whereas it would take them four years in a regular high school.
On the other hand, not all students attained .79 credits per day. Moreover, not all
students succeeded at GPI. At one site, 15.1% of students graduated, 36.7% were
progressing toward graduation, 6.8% transferred to another program in the district, 5%
transferred out of the district, 12.2% went to adult education, 15.5% dropped out, and the
remaining students left for other reasons. In short, roughly 76% of students either
graduated or were continuing their education. At the second site, 23.6% graduated, 33.3%
were progressing, 19.4% transferred either inside or outside the district, 7.9% enrolled in
adult education, 7.9% dropped out and the remaining students left for other reasons. In
108
short, about 84% graduated or were continuing their education. At the final, newest site,
9% graduated, 69.5% were progressing, 7% transferred, .5% went to adult education, and
0% dropped out though a high number of students, 9.5%, withdrew for behavior.
Altogether about 76% of students had positive outcomes.
Ultimately, many students have succeeded at GPI. The partnership enabled
districts to recover students who were on the verge of dropping out due to lack of credits.
All stakeholders converged on the notion that GPI provided an option for students who
could not have graduated otherwise. However, the degree to which the program fully
addressed the dropout problem was unclear. Some students ended up dropping out of GPI
just like their previous schools. The suggestion that GPI solves the dropout problem for
districts is therefore unfounded although it does appear to mitigate the problem. More
accurately, the partnership helped districts address a gap by providing an alternative that
was innovative and worked for some students for whom other district options did not,
which leads to the second major finding in this section: The partnership enabled districts
to provide a viable alternative.
Represented a Viable Alternative
All stakeholders agreed that the partnership provided a viable alternative, a
program significantly different from traditional schools and traditional forms of
alternative education. Top district officials were consistent in mentioning that GPI was a
different option for students who did not find success in other alternative programs. GPI
management also mentioned that traditional forms of alternative education do not support
109
student success like GPI does. Students themselves noted that they could not handle
alternatives like independent study due to lack of support.
Though many alternatives exist, the districts under investigation only offered
continuation high schools and independent study programs for students who were not
successful in traditional schools. Continuation programs are very similar to regular high
schools except that teacher-student ratios are generally smaller. Students attend classes
and earn credits at a similar fashion. Independent study programs, by contrast, allow
students to attend fewer days per week and do work at home, typically in packets, at their
own pace. GPI allowed students to work at their own pace on a computer in a face-to-
face environment with the support of instructional staff. GPI’s president maintained,
Every district puts together alternative programs . . . but the truth is the kids who
are academically behind who have never had an honest educational relationship –
within the independent world – they need teachers who converse with them and
who are mentors and facilitators.

In effect, GPI offered the best of both worlds – the personalized environment of a
continuation school coupled with the ability for students to work at their own pace as in
independent study. The CEO went on to say, “We had to come in with a programmatic
solution that was different enough for the students to want to come in, attend, and keep
coming back.” Data suggest that they have succeeded.
District administrators confirmed that the partnership enabled them to provide a
new option for students:
Here we’re able to offer them something a little bit different because you know
you can have rice and beans for dinner every day, but it’s nice when you come in
and there’s a pot of spaghetti, and so I think that’s what we were able to offer the
children, something new and different.

110
The principal added that having another layer of prevention is necessary because students
drop out of the district’s continuation school. Newspaper articles also pointed to the fact
that reengaging students involves offering a real alternative: “Coaxing students back to
school is of limited use if their only choice is the same classes and schedule that led them
to truancy in the first place” (Learning that clicks, 2009, p. 2).
Indeed, GPI offered a viable alternative program different from traditional public
schooling and typical forms of alternative education via computer-assisted instruction to
enable students to work at their own pace and make up credits quicker. Moreover, the
instructional day was shorter for GPI students, only four hours long; students got a choice
of morning, afternoon, or evening sessions (except in the case of the charter school whose
teachers insisted on working just two sessions, morning and afternoon, due to safety
concerns). According to GPI’s website, GPI provided students the following:
• A safe, state-of-the-art professional learning environment more conducive to
learning for its student population
• A new academic option – students attend 5 days per week for 4 hours per day
• Flexible scheduling options – select the morning, afternoon, or evening session
• Personalized Learning Paths – students work on a customized set of courses at
their own pace and move on as soon as they demonstrate mastery in each subject
area
• Individualized support – each teacher works with the same group of students for
the duration of their academic journey
• A high-quality, rigorous curriculum – students are intellectually stimulated and
are able to address any gaps or problem areas where they may be behind
• A high school diploma – students satisfy the same graduation requirements as
their peers in the traditional high school and earn state recognized high school
diplomas
• Post-secondary and work skills preparation

Teachers and students also pointed out features that distinguish GPI from other
alternatives. Students noted that earning credits is quicker; they have multiple chances to
111
pass quizzes and tests; and they get to choose what session they will attend and which
courses they will work on in any given day. Teachers confirmed other features that
distinguished this from other alternatives: “It’s a non-traditional way of learning with less
stress.” Another teacher added, “It’s based on what students know, so they can test out of
things . . . and they move at their own pace.” Teachers also mentioned students’
opportunity to work with technology more than in traditional classrooms.
In short, the various data sources pointed to the fact that the partnership solved a
problem by providing a viable alternative through the use of computer-assisted
instruction, which allowed students to work at their own pace, choose which classes they
were going to work on, and avoid repeating content that they already knew. Students also
chose when they came to school. Finally, staff provided individualized academic and
personal support, another unique feature of the program. But all these variations did not
change the fact that students were working toward their ultimate goal: a high school
diploma. Thus, the partnership offered a viable alternative toward earning a high school
diploma within the district. Incidentally, GPI mentioned that computer-assisted
instruction frees students from embarrassment and enables teachers to meet the needs of
numerous students simultaneously. The CEO added, “Technology leverages the staff
costs; it leverages the students’ time.”
Existed Within the System

The benefit of existing within the district was shared across all stakeholder
groups. For district officials, the partnership served a face-saving function, enabling the
112
district to do what it could not have done itself: “We did not have the expertise to do it,”
said one superintendent. The charter operators stated,
We knew coming into this [the charter school conversion] that we just didn’t have
the bandwidth to be able to . . . create a program that we felt like would be a
sound program for kids that were credit deficient. And we knew if we tried to
create it, we wouldn’t have the same fidelity as GPI has because they already
have a program in place.

A common sentiment was the fact that district administrators knew they were not serving
a group of students well; they were failing: “[GPI’s] doing what we failed to do in these
other [alternative] programs.” The upshot, and a problem solved for this group of
stakeholders, was the fact that GPI is a district program. One superintendent was pleased
that GPI is not a charter entity, which might compete with the district, pushing students
out, but rather a “relationship where it is still our teachers that work for us . . . . it’s our
program. [Our] Unified Schools’ name is on it.” Another superintendent also mentioned
that the program is not a charter entity, outside the district, but rather another option the
district provides to its students. In fact, the partnership allowed districts to address a gap
from within in a way that district officials could take credit for it.
For students, addressing the problem from within the district meant the
convenience of not having to search for an outside option. GPI’s management indicated,
Because we’ve set this up as a school within a school, we are one of many district
programs, and we try to work with district staff to make sure students from our
program can move back to mainstream, and kids in mainstream programs can
come to us – we’re an option.

Indeed, several students mentioned the possibility of returning to their regular high
schools once they made up their credits, one of the motivating factors for persevering in
the program. Students seemed to acknowledge the convenience in getting to stay within
113
the district. When asked why they did not enroll in a program outside the district, one
student indicated that this program is “convenient and free.”
Teachers also benefited from being part of the system. They were in fact district
employees who retained the same benefits as their counterparts in other schools in the
district. Teachers at all three sites specifically mentioned the support they received as the
result of being part of the district such as assistance with student behavior.
For the GPI management team, working within the system was also beneficial for
both ideological and practical reasons. Other options they considered were becoming a
charter entity or contract services provider, but they chose to partner with districts
instead. First, they themselves as well as their children went to public schools, and they
expressed desire to transform public schooling. For practical reasons, the management
team did not want to be seen as “competing for kids” like charters schools.
To sum up, the partnership between GPI and school districts allowed districts to
address the dropout problem from within, which saved face for the district while carrying
the possibility of building internal district capacity. Students and teachers were also
served because they did not have to go outside the district for school or work. Students
were connected to school activities and had the potential to transfer back to their home
schools to graduate if they chose. Teachers retained district privileges such as seniority,
union membership and district support. For GPI, the attachment to a district created
legitimacy and business.

114
Enabled Partners to Take Advantage of One Another’s Resources
A final problem solved as the result of the partnership between GPI and districts
was each partner’s ability to use one another’s resources. As for GPI management, they
took the risk up front and provided money to renovate a building on the school’s property
and hire teachers even before students enrolled. GPI’s regional director, speaking from
the perspective of his past role as deputy superintendent said,
They gave me a whole, brand-new classroom, the staff development that goes
along with it – you’re talking close to $.5 million. We didn’t have to come up
with anything. They were paying the teachers during the summer before we even
started in January ADA. They give you your entire staff even before you have the
kids. So there aren’t many out there who are going to front that kind of money.

All superintendents recognized the value in GPI’s up-front risk. When asked why the
district did not try to create a program like GPI itself, one superintendent said,
Mostly because of our resources. We felt like we had a long-term solution that
didn’t include district resources and with the instability of state funding moving in
a direction that we weren’t really able to predict real well what to expect in the
coming years, we felt like GPI was willing to use some of their own resources and
so that was something that was attractive to us and so we felt like the risk for us
was minimal and yet the pay off potentially great.

In short, the district lacked the resources needed to create a program, and GPI came in
and took the financial risk up front.
Most contracts between GPI and districts were a 90-10 split with a stair-step
rebate built in such that schools got more money back if student enrollment increased.
GPI took 90% of the ADA for their enrolled students at a rate of $6,700, less than 2009
California ADA. Out of this 90%, they credited the district back the funds to pay the
academy staff: teachers, aides, and the registrar. The remaining 10% was for overhead
costs provided by the district. A potential caveat, in the words of the GPI regional
115
director was that “smaller districts really can’t afford to sustain it.” Indeed, the third site
under investigation, the charter school, was one such school, so the partnership presented
a financial burden and represented an outlier. Overall however, the financial arrangement
between GPI and districts seemed to allow districts to address the dropout problem in
what GPI management called a “cost neutral to revenue positive” way.
All in all, the partnership enabled districts to take advantage of private dollars to
provide a program that they could not afford for students who were not previously being
served. From the perspective of GPI’s management team, another issue was also
addressed: the reluctance to spend money to serve an unpopular group of students who
typically cost districts more money to educate than traditional students:
A superintendent could not tell the public, ‘I’m going to spend a million dollars to
create this modern academy . . . for kids that were considered delinquent trouble
makers, disruptive.’ The good parents would go bananas, but that’s what we’re
doing.

In fact, the partnership enabled a private company to utilize private dollars to educate a
group of students that was traditionally more expensive and less popular to educate.
GPI management continued to argue the power of the public-private partnership:
You’re able to provide this level of service and opportunity for these students at a
cost no greater than what they expend on the typical high school student. We’re
leveraging private dollars that are being invested to augment the public education
and in fact level out the expenditures so that it’s not added to the cost of the
district. That’s really a revolution because when you do that you create self-
sustaining programs that are good for the public – you maximize benefits.

Clearly GPI got something out of the arrangement in return. They admitted they
were able to take advantage of district resources as well: “We benefit from working under
116
the district umbrella in back up support, the financial reporting. We don’t need to find
facilities.”
Another member of the management team added,
We bring the curriculum, but we can leverage their Curriculum and Instruction
group; we bring the model but can leverage their ability to secure teachers, hire
teachers in the interview process and provide that continuing benefit for the
teacher being employed by the district. That’s the power of the partnership; we’re
each doing the things that we are really good at.

The partnership created a win-win for both entities; the private company did not
need to find facilities or even the students to generate the funding needed to operate, and
they were able to access district personnel’s expertise in terms of curriculum and
instruction and staffing. At the same time, the district did not have to take a risk and
invest money up front to provide services to difficult-to-educate students – students who
need an alternative because they were not successful in traditional environments and
students whom the public would rather not spend money to educate.
While staff and students were not as aware of the benefits of mixing private and
public resources, staff did mention, “We’re not facing the same kinds of budget crises as
the state of California,” and staff from all sites agreed that GPI was quicker and more
efficient than the district in terms of accessing resources to get immediate needs met such
as software and hardware issues. Moreover, students liked the fact that the program was
free. Indeed all stakeholder groups benefited from this partnership, which has allowed
each entity to take advantage of the other’s resources to create a meaningful alternative.
All stakeholders agreed that problems were also created when districts partnered
with GPI. The partnership jeopardized effective teaching and learning practices, lacked
117
criteria for enrolling students and hiring staff that fit, and created confusion among
stakeholders.
While computer-assisted instruction has advantages, it also created a problem by
jeopardizing effective teaching and learning practices. Use of computers as the primary
means of educating students simultaneously solved and created a problem for educators
unfamiliar with how to balance individualized, computer-assisted learning with tried and
true methods of constructing knowledge collaboratively in traditional classrooms.
Furthermore, the partnership lacked criteria for enrolling students and hiring staff.
Uncertainty surrounded what students could be successful in this particular program. As
for teachers, while the skills needed to be successful in this environment differ from those
required in traditional classrooms, partners continued to use district protocols for hiring
and evaluating GPI teachers, and concerns about staff fit persisted.
Finally, though the contract specifically spelled out roles and responsibilities of
both partners, confusion was evident. Both teachers and principals argued that they were
often caught in the middle and uncertain of roles and responsibilities given two sets of
leadership teams. Data also suggested that top district officials had questions about roles
and responsibilities. Even students were confused about whether they were earning a real
high school diploma at GPI. In short, clear communication and articulation of the
contract were challenges.
Jeopardized Effective Teaching and Learning Practices
All educators acknowledged the difficulty in defining and implementing good
teaching and learning in this particular program due to the imbalance between
118
individualized, computer-assisted learning and high quality, interactive small group
activities. While teachers were less likely to admit teaching and learning issues, their
comments about computer-assisted learning suggested they had concerns. Students’
comments, however, consistently pointed to the difficulty in defining and implementing
good teaching and learning at GPI.
All administrators referenced this first problem created. For example, a principal
noted that students’ use of computers to learn was “more efficient but not necessarily
more effective.” Teachers explained that the focus on finding correct answers to multiple-
choice questions, a ubiquitous feature of the curriculum, was “not the best way to learn
higher thinking skills.” Teachers also noted the lack of support for kinesthetic learners
and the absence of hands-on and collaborative activities:
I think for students that do enjoy collaborative work in groups, this [computer-
assisted learning] is a negative aspect of the program for them cause they don’t
have the opportunity to work with other students and pair share and have
collaborative group work.

This teacher described an incident where she led one such group, a writing workshop, and
students’ comments were quite positive; one student thought the activity was so much fun
and asked when they were going to do it again. Unfortunately, none of the staff at any of
the three sites turned this conversation – from the negative aspects of the teaching and
learning environment – into a springboard for discussion about how to improve the
environment.
Ironically, management from GPI indicated that creating a positive learning
environment in which individual and small-group instruction are balanced was up to the
119
teacher: “The teachers do have a responsibility to – on a daily basis – differentiate their
instruction.” The same upper-level manager noted,
Teachers should be walking around – proactively engaging the students . . . . If
you don’t have a clear understanding of the model and you lose track of what
you’re doing, you would fail to engage with the small learning and the small
group instruction and bringing those opportunities to the students.

However, he went on to say that this failure is merely a “process challenge.” Small group
instruction was only observed at one site, and it amounted to a one-hour per day teacher-
led CAHSEE preparation activity.
The regional manager’s comment clearly demonstrated that he was aware of the
problem:
The biggest challenge is to help people understand that while there is a lot of
information on the computer . . . you’re still a teacher – it’s not a computer lab.
That’s been the biggest challenge . . . you’re going around and teaching the
teachers how to ask the correct questions.

The manager went on to describe how teachers failed to engage with students by asking
simple questions like, “How’s it going today.” While the regional manager was charged
with creating professional development opportunities surrounding small group lessons
this year, the reality, in the words of a charter school administrator was, “It’s just not
happening.”
In fact, charter school administrators were the most keenly aware of the problem
of defining and implementing good teaching and learning in this unique setting. One top
administrator noted, “A premise of why we liked GPI is because of that small group
instruction . . . . but they do very little small group instruction in there.” Unfortunately,
the teachers at this site did not want to run three shifts during the day, so they had 75-90
120
students in the room at one time. The cluster director argued that in the absence of small
group instruction, students have to wait if they have questions about content on the
computer, which results in “a lot of off task behavior.” He concluded by asserting, “If
you did that [small group instruction], you would really see a more active and engaged
group of students.”
Another official from the charter school argued that the reliance on computers as
the chief instructional delivery method undermines effective teaching and learning:
We need to find a way to really get that small group piece and the independence
too because it is computer assisted; it’s not computer run, so we haven’t cracked
the nut on the role of the teacher and how do you help struggling students. We’ve
had kids tell us, ‘I don’t learn this way. I need to have the teacher telling me what
to do and how to do it,’ so . . . it’s a challenge we’re facing.

Interestingly, students at all three sites questioned their learning at GPI:
You basically don’t learn here. You read, do the questions and forget about it . . .
In regular school, you actually go over it with the class and with the teacher and
you have to remember it for the test, which is more than 10 questions and multiple
choice. At least there’s something that’s stuck in your head . . . You’re actually
writing and copying off the board, and listening to someone teach you . . . regular
high school helps you more when you’re writing and someone’s teaching you.
Over here, no one’s teaching you; GPI isn’t really serious. You just do it. If you
don’t know the answer, guess and you might get it right and you’ll pass.

When asked how staff ensure student learning, one teacher said that she can really
see if students have an understanding of the content when she grades their essays, and
each course contains several essays in addition to multiple choice quizzes and tests.
However, observation revealed that the majority of student learning was measured by
multiple-choice quizzes and tests, and at one site, students do not write any essays other
than the personal narrative because, according to the lead teacher, “These students will
121
never have to write.” Essentially, the one positive feature of the program in terms of
learning, essay writing, was not implemented consistently at all the three sites.
Students were quick to note that they were able to access answers and that much
of the work in the program was “ridiculously easy”; observational data confirmed that
students simply copied and pasted quiz and test questions from the computer software
into Word documents and retook them until they passed. One student even joked, “You
can take PE [physical education] on the computer here,” suggesting that students were
aware of missing out on quality learning experiences in this computer-run program.
Several students argued that independent learning is not as effective as learning in a
traditional classroom.
You can get much further over there [in traditional school] than here. It’s only so
far you can take yourself if you need help. Before, you get to read Romeo and
Juliet out-loud in class. Here, I read it and not much was understood. I got the
main idea; I got some of the stuff they were talking but there’s some words . . . I
needed help, and no one helped.

Comments from students at all three sites suggested that effective teaching and learning
were compromised in this partnership. Students wanted to finish their quizzes before they
left for the day because they were concerned that they would forget all the information:
“That’s why I want to finish my subject before I go home because when I come back
tomorrow or I might not come back tomorrow but you’re going to forget your answers.”
Another student agreed, “The computer is not really teaching us.”
Superintendents were far less critical of computer-assisted learning than their
counterparts from the charter school, but one superintendent acknowledged that the
interaction piece characteristic of traditional classrooms was missing at GPI. He
122
suggested that maybe GPI students no longer need this interaction. However, when I
spoke with students at the two sites where silent classrooms were the norm, they were
very critical of the fact that they could not interact with one another. One student likened
his school experience to a trench: “You go to school every day; it’s like you’re stuck in a
little trench. It’s boring, and you keep doing that, you get burned out. Let us talk!” When
probed, students were able to articulate the pedagogical advantages of working together,
a feature of traditional schooling that they missed: “Sometimes the teachers don’t know
how to explain it to us, but we could help each other.”
In short, observational data confirmed that effective teaching and learning have
been compromised because of heavy emphasis on computers despite the fact that
computers also allowed districts to provide a viable alternative. Students often could not
articulate what they were learning and interaction with staff consisted of asking for
answers to quiz and test questions. Much of the problem rested in staff’s inability to
balance individualized learning with quality group instruction due to over reliance on the
computer as the sole teaching tool.
Lacked Criteria for Enrolling Students and Hiring Staff that Fit
Interview data also revealed the difficulty in determining whether students or
teachers were the right fit for the program. First of all, different stakeholders had different
criteria for student enrollment. For example, a member of GPI’s management team
acknowledged that they were working with the districts to create a profile for identifying
students based on
academic indicators, behavioral indicators, lifestyle indicators, relationships with
other students, truancy . . . . There is a profile of students who would be
123
successful; they’re disengaged and disenfranchised, but they’re not students who
have given up the dream of education – they simply don’t know how to get their
education.

On the other hand, a principal argued that a typical student should be one who “has not
functioned well in a traditional setting, a student who was not attending school, who had
lost their desire to be a student.”
The two quotations demonstrate a lack of agreement regarding what kind of
students fit the GPI program. Should a GPI student be motivated or, by contrast, someone
who has lost his/her desire to be a student? All stakeholders agreed that students need to
be credit deficient to enter the program, but most stakeholders maintained that students
need to be self-motivated, independent, comfortable with technology, and mature in order
to finish the program successfully. One principal remarked on the irony: “I guess it’s
somewhat ironic that we ask for maturity and independence because we figure that they
wouldn’t be credit deficient if they had that in place, but under the circumstances, that’s
pretty much what is considered.”
A superintendent mentioned the importance of student fit; students should not just
go to GPI because there is no other place for them. Unfortunately, when I asked what
happens to students who do not fit, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “maybe adult ed,”
an option that has existed for decades, where students attend evening classes to earn a
diploma. Both administrators from the charter school mentioned that it was not clear
whom the program fits and that criteria were needed to identify the students who will be
successful at GPI: “We’re still trying to figure out who those kids are for whom this
124
works and still haven’t figured that out.” These administrators were actively engaged in
searching for options in addition to GPI.
The problem of student fit was the same for teachers. While top district officials
and GPI management alike maintained that having the right staff in place was critical for
success, questions surrounded whether or not the sites did, in fact, have the right staff on
board. At one site, a top district official admitted that one of the biggest constraints facing
the partnership has been finding the right teachers for the program. He stated that they
had not found the right match yet. He continued by explaining what that match might
look like:
We need a stronger presence in the classroom . . . . [staff that] can build
relationships with kids, are not afraid of seniors and fifth year seniors . . . . and a
lead teacher who has a better grasp on what classroom management actually looks
like . . . [who can also] lead in professional development.

Indeed, the lead teacher’s role at a GPI site is critical in that he/she takes on duties much
like a principal at a traditional school site. The lead teacher, in the words of GPI’s
regional director, sits on the interview panel for the other teachers, communicates
between the district and GPI in matters such as data handling and ordering, addresses
most of the discipline problems on site, and so on. Finding the right match in a lead
teacher is thus critical, but so is finding the right staff in general. According to GPI’s
regional director: “If you don’t hire the right people, you’re dead in the water. That’s the
bottom line.”
GPI’s management team mentioned two chief characteristics to consider when
hiring staff, empathy first and then high expectations. Ironically, one of the principals
specifically mentioned staff’s lack of empathy toward students. Furthermore, at the site
125
where students did not have to write essays, the lead teacher’s expectations of students
was clearly not high. In short, concerns about staff fit were apparent at all sites under
investigation, particularly with respect to the lead teachers. Interview data revealed that
GPI teachers go through an identical hiring process as all teachers in the district, which is
problematic given the challenges unique to working at GPI. Moreover, GPI teacher
evaluation mirrors the traditional district evaluation process despite the fact that GPI
classrooms are quite different from regular classrooms. All in all, the partnership lacked a
set of criteria to match staff and students to the program.
Created Confusion among Stakeholders
Besides jeopardizing effective teaching and learning practices and the lack of
criteria for identifying students and teachers that fit the program, data revealed a third
significant theme under Problems Created: The current partnership created confusion
among stakeholders. To begin, teachers at all three sites consistently stated that working
with two separate entities, the district and the private provider, created confusion
particularly when the two bosses had conflicting expectations. Furthermore, uncertainty
regarding roles and responsibilities along with constant change resulting from two
partners working together represented challenges. A teacher at one site commented,
We have too many bosses, and we have sometimes too many people asking for
things and quite often they want it yesterday, and they have no idea that the other
side is asking for things yesterday as well, so on occasion, not always, there is
some stress involved in having too many bosses.

Another staff member confirmed, “Sometimes they’re at odds; one side wants one thing
and GPI another; sometimes they don’t want the same things. The district says we want it
126
this way and GPI wants it this way.” One teacher spoke about different and competing
agendas:
Sometimes the district has a political agenda . . . GPI has their own agenda; you
know theirs is a product they’re trying to sell. We [teachers] try to play it to
what’s going to be most advantageous to the kids.

Teachers recognized that balancing priorities was more complicated when working with
two entities as opposed to one school district.
Teachers also noted confusion surrounding who is supposed to do what:
Sometimes we are saying we need this or we want this and it’s like the district is
saying, ‘Well that’s up to GPI’ and GPI is saying, ‘It’s up to the district . . .’ It
takes so long to get anything done.

Staff also mentioned constant change resulting from having two entities in charge:
There’s constant flux; things keep changing about how to do things. . . .You’re
always up in the air; there’s always a fog about expectations . . . . There are a lot
of cooks in the kitchen and different ideas about ways to do things.

Similarly, top district officials and the GPI management team cited confusion
resulting from working with two separate entities. Perhaps the greatest confusion
occurred surrounding roles and responsibilities. For example, one top district official was
unsure who fixes and maintains computers. He also mentioned that GPI promised to
bring on a community liaison for recruitment and attendance; however despite
discussions with API six months ago, no action had been taken to fill the position.
The contract clearly stated who was responsible for maintaining computers;
however, another superintendent said that when something is wrong with technology
“sometimes our guys go over there and fix it.” GPI management, by contrast, indicated
that district employees are not allowed fix computers. Incidentally, a principal at a
127
different site was curious about why the district pays the utility bill and installed
computer drops. Here again, these items are clearly articulated in the contract.
Evidentially, not everyone with whom I spoke had access to the contract or they simply
had not read it. Perhaps the language was too complicated, but a more likely possibility,
one confirmed by teachers and GPI management, is that certain individuals had access to
the contract and did not clearly communicate its contents to all stakeholders.
For this reason, the role of the site principals was ambiguous in the present
partnership. GPI management blamed the “districts’ inability to clearly articulate the
partnership down the ranks.” But GPI management admitted that oftentimes they sit at
the table to discuss the partnership with top-level district administrators while the
individuals who are responsible for carrying it out, the “worker bees,” are not part of the
process. Though the regional director is supposed to communicate with site principals
and staff, interview data suggested that confusion about roles was still apparent. One
principal indicated that staff plays a game between both administrations. When he was
hired, the district told him, “the program just runs itself,” but this principal found that he
needed to bring certain things under control, and getting a copy of the contract was the
first order of business. He needed to “make it clear to the staff what the expectations are,
what their roles are, and what my functions and responsibilities are.” This principal
indicated, “We’re working with two different entities and so decisions have to go through
two different groups and many times I’m in the middle playing middle person . . . without
absolute decision-making authority.”
128
The principal’s role at the charter school was particularly troublesome. This
individual was in charge of two alternative programs, one operated by the charter and the
other by GPI. Student enrollment at the two schools totaled 255, but 180 of those students
were at GPI. In the first year of operation, the principal spent the majority of her time at
GPI, according to GPI management, “not because she needed to but because she wanted
to.” From the charter school operator’s perspective, “The principal was trying to find out
what her role was.” Moreover, charter school officials indicated that GPI did not deliver
the professional development that was promised in the first year, and the principal took
on that responsibility. Hiring the regional director, they said, eliminated this problem.
However, the charter school pays the principal’s salary. GPI management maintained that
a principal should spend no more than 5% of his/her time supervising the academy. This
case was unique in that the partnership may not be sustainable partly because of
confusion surrounding the principal’s role.
Finally, interview data revealed confusion about student recruitment (See
Appendix H). According to GPI’s website, the firm recruits out-of-school youth.
However, one principal indicated that GPI has not “provided everything they promised in
terms of recruitment.” Her superintendent, by contrast, understood that the recruitment
strategy had changed from outside in:
One of our chief concerns was that although they were coming in with a promise
to recover students that had already dropped, they were actually going to be
recruiting from inside our current enrollment . . . . What’s happened is the
principal has done an excellent job of embracing GPI to the point where she’s
actually allowed GPI to be a choice for those kids, those that need it the most so
to some degree, some kids have been taken from our ranks, but ultimately our
main concern is that they graduate.

129
In this case, the principal seemed to be in charge of recruitment though she did not appear
to understand that the strategy had changed, and she questioned GPI’s role in recruitment.
Another superintendent seemed aware of the shifting recruitment strategy despite
initial concern that GPI would not add to district enrollment:
We’ve learned and come to appreciate that it’s probably more effective to catch
them before they finally get out the door, so we don’t have a problem with putting
them in there because we think that it serves their needs, and they’re successful
there, so it’s far better than to lose them to the street and try to get them back.

Despite the fact that the contract clearly outlined the roles and responsibilities of both
partners in regards to student recruitment, in effect, reality altered the terms of the
contract. The original idea of bringing students back who had already dropped out of
school was far-fetched, according to top district and GPI officials, and the strategy
changed. Unfortunately, not all stakeholders were aware of the shift.
Though students were generally safeguarded from conflicting priorities between
the two organizations and resultant confusion, interviews revealed that students
questioned whether they were earning a real high school diploma at GPI. Here again, the
contract stipulated that students who complete the program would be awarded a regular
diploma from their host district. In short, all stakeholders, even students, were subject to
confusion resulting from the partnership.
RQ #2 Lessons Learned
All stakeholders, with the exception of students, were asked to reflect on lessons
learned as the result of the partnership. This section is unique because lessons learned
differ by stakeholder group whereas the problems solved and created were common
across stakeholders. Moreover, lessons learned are those that potentially impact the
130
future, to enable districts and the private provider to continue to partner successfully to
create options for off-track youth. Top district officials and GPI management identified
three lessons learned: the importance of commitment and shared values in partnering, the
notion that there is no silver bullet to the credit deficiency and subsequent dropout
problem, and finally, the importance of leadership. Teachers’ responses varied and none
fit into the category of lessons learned as it has been defined.
Both the districts and private providers mentioned the importance of shared
values and a commitment to at-risk youth that enabled both entities to persist in the face
of obstacles. As for the second lesson learned, all the top district officials recognized that
one size does not fit all when it comes to credit recovery and the dropout problem. Of the
three sites under investigation, however, only charter school officials mentioned the need
to continue seeking alternatives if available options do not work. Finally, the notion that
leadership matters, though not a new lesson, was reaffirmed through the organizations’
participation in the partnership. Both public and private officials alike acknowledged that
leadership is a key feature of a successful partnership.
Shared Commitment and Values
The most-often cited lesson learned from both public and private administrators
was the importance of commitment. When I asked the administrators from GPI what
lessons they learned, one joked, “I should have found an easier business to be in.” The
other chimed in, however, and his quotation emphasized the notion of commitment: “I
wanted to do this because these kids need help getting their diploma and going on to
131
college. It’s about improving society not just about academics.” GPI’s commitment to the
mission enabled them to persevere despite challenges they faced working with districts.
Likewise, a superintendent commented that shared commitment overshadowed
the tension of working with a private entity:
There’s probably not a lot of folks that are always comfortable with this sort of
new concept of a private-public partnership, but it’s worked out really well for us
. . . I think it’s really a function of the people at GPI wanting to make it work and
us wanting to make it work . . . . I mean, they’re obviously in it to make profit . . .
but I think there’s a certain – the CEO in particular – sense of social
responsibility.

A principal at another school confirmed GPI was committed to serving at-risk students:
“GPI really has a heart for educating students.”
In a partnership, commitment from both parties to address a problem is critical,
and in this partnership, both entities seemed to recognize this fact. A member of GPI’s
management team put it well: “Partnership is a marriage, and you have to have a shared
vision and agreement on how you’re going to accomplish goals.” The quotation suggests
that commitment to solving a problem alone is not enough to sustain a partnership in
education between a public school and private provider but rather both organizations
must have shared values about students, and in this case, at-risk students, and an agreed-
upon strategy for how to serve these students. GPI was unique in that many members of
the management team were former teachers, principals and superintendents. In addition,
the CEO and president, though not educators, worked with school districts as executives
in an educational software company for 18 and 16 years, respectively. Several public
school administrators and one teacher mentioned that GPI shared the public schools’
values. A top official from the charter school noted for example, “It was a good fit for us
132
because they had similar philosophies around students and similar missions.” A principal
echoed the sentiment: “GPI is similar to us with regards to thinking about what kids need;
it’s not just us.” She continued by noting that the two companies certainly have their own
missions and visions but “at the heart of it, we’re both student-centered. Students’ needs
are served, and anything that might get in the way is not really that important.”
This same principal added that the goal of the partnership was for students to get a
diploma but also look beyond the diploma to “some type of higher education
opportunity.” Likewise, GPI encouraged students to think beyond high school as
evidenced by a previous quotation from the CEO, “. . . these kids need help getting their
diploma and going on to college.”
Even a teacher noted that the program is student-centered, compatible with her
own teaching philosophy:
I like that it’s student-centered. As opposed to my planning for a classroom and
they just have to fit in, we try to plan towards them . . . . I think the program really
meets my philosophy of education really well.

In my conversation with GPI’s CEO, he expressed the importance of student-
centeredness: “Here,” he said, “it’s about the student. Everything starts with the student.”
Both the private provider and the public school administrators learned that to sustain a
partnership, both needed a shared commitment to addressing the dropout problem and
preparing students for life beyond high school.

133
No Silver Bullet
Besides the importance of commitment and shared values, another lesson learned
that was fairly consistent across the administrator stakeholder group was the notion that
one size does not fit all:
There’s no one size fits all program for credit deficient students; there’s no silver
bullet – it takes a lot of hard work, and this is something that’s working for some
kids but there are still other kids that we need to work on, figure out what the best
solution is for them so they can be successful.

The organization most aware of this fact was the charter school. At the time of the study,
this school pieced together a variety of services to respond to the needs of students for
whom none of their existing programs worked, including GPI. In fact, leaders were
actively seeking other alternative solutions to help students. A top official of the charter
school envisioned a third alternative for students, beyond services they offered. When
probed about her vision, she maintained,
What we’re trying to do now is go look at other alternative programs. We did that
at the beginning, but now that we’ve been in it for a year, we want to go back with
a frame of reference and say, ‘Talk to us about how you handle X, Y, and Z.’

At another district, recognition that a variety of options were needed to serve at-
risk students resulted in multiple strategies to tackle the dropout problem: “We didn’t just
add GPI; we did other things as well.” This district hired liaisons to go door to door to
attract dropouts back into the district. However, when probed, the superintendent did not
detail options other than liaisons to ameliorate the dropout problem. And indeed,
although all top district officials learned that there is no silver bullet, not all were actively
seeking alternatives to what they offered. All in all, district officials learned that GPI did
134
not fit all students, and one school in particular was actively seeking alternatives based on
what they learned via the partnership with GPI.
Leadership Matters
A final lesson learned was the importance of having the right people on board in
order to sustain a successful partnership, that leadership matters. One superintendent
noted that any system requires highly motivated people who believe in what they are
doing. With respect to the partnership, he talked about how it was a struggle initially
because the lead teacher did not have the skills to make the partnership work. When they
replaced this teacher, they saw the program take off. The superintendent concluded by
saying, “Leadership matters – it just affirms that once again. You have to have good
leadership there. It will make things happen.”
Though not all individuals mentioned leadership when asked about lessons
learned, the majority acknowledged the importance of having the right individuals on
board, and the lead teacher in particular. One of the Problems Created – lack of criteria
for enrolling students and hiring staff that fit – was rife with examples of the importance
of good leadership, particularly in the classroom. The other theme in that section –
confusion among stakeholders – highlighted the importance of leadership in articulating
the partnership down the ranks. Specifically, communication was a key component of
good leadership. One principal learned that his own ability to communicate was vital to
the success of the program.
Finally, when asked about lessons learned, a top district official specifically
talked about the importance of having the right teachers in place for this program. He also
135
indirectly mentioned the importance of his own leadership. He maintained that he
originally backed down from offering three sessions per day, bending to teachers’ desire
to work only two due to safety concerns. The administrator stated that he learned the
importance of leading in the direction of student priorities; he noted that 90 students in
one classroom were too many and that he needed to create a third session.
The recognition that staff fit was a concern was evidence that top administrators
learned the importance of leadership in order to sustain a partnership. All sites under
investigation struggled to find the right fit in terms of the lead teacher. In all three cases,
the experience of partnering reaffirmed the notion that leadership matters, and district
officials and GPI management alike spoke of this final lesson learned.
RQ #3 Principal Advantages and Disadvantages
Themes for this section were derived by noting commonalities respective to each
stakeholder group. To qualify as a theme, the majority of individuals within a stakeholder
group needed to have mentioned it. They are private-partner responsiveness, which GPI
management, top district officials, and teachers cited; learning, which was a common
theme for the staff at all three sites as well as top officials from the charter school; and
finally, positive classroom relationships, which teachers and students consistently
mentioned. Staff spoke most often about the advantages of working with their colleagues.
Students, on the other hand, were pleased by the chance to form positive relationships
with teachers, an opportunity they missed out on in previous schools.

136
Private Partner Responsiveness
All stakeholder groups, with the exception of students, mentioned that a chief
advantage of the partnership was GPI’s responsiveness particularly in the areas of
maintenance and professional development. In terms of maintenance, GPI was committed
to fixing computers and office equipment and resolving software issues within 48 hours.
Teachers maintained, “When GPI does things, we get them done a lot quicker [than the
district]. That’s for sure.” At a different site, a teacher commented, “Because they’re a
business, they’re able to move much, much more quickly and efficiently in terms of
getting needs met. If we have some problem, we don’t have to go through as much
paperwork.” A superintendent noted, “They’ve been incredibly responsive. When there’s
an issue, like the software, they’re right there to fix it.” GPI management confirmed that
they are able to move a lot quicker than a district when it comes to maintenance issues.
Besides maintenance, stakeholders agreed that GPI was also extremely responsive
regarding professional development particularly since the company hired regional
directors for both Northern and Southern California in the 2009-2010 school year.
Indeed, the private provider listened to district concerns and made changes. In fact, when
I first met the GPI team in Las Vegas, the curriculum director for GPI presented the
results of a survey GPI administered the previous year. She proceeded to discuss the
ways in which GPI was addressing districts’ concerns. One area was professional
development. A common sentiment from school administrators during our interviews was
how much better things were this year since the regional director was working with staff
at each site:
137
Their professional development for teachers is above and beyond what we knew
we could offer them . . . . We haven’t found anything better than GPI based on the
support we’re getting from them. Their regional manager is probably here once a
week working with the teachers and classified staff, and he’s done a great job.
The teachers love him. He’s there to support them.

The regional director noted that other organizations fail to provide the support that GPI
provides to districts:
It’s a true partnership. Everybody else is like, ‘We’ll get you started and then fine
we’ll see you later’ and in these days . . . when you don’t have that much money,
you have to make sure you get the bang for your buck, and you’re going to get
that ongoing support with us.

Thus, a chief advantage of this partnership was the quality of the private
company, a firm responsive in the areas of maintenance and professional development.
Evidence pointed to the fact that GPI communicated with its partner districts, solicited
feedback, and made changes. A couple superintendents confirmed that the organizations
talked to one another, and not just when things were going well. GPI did not simply
collect money; they were very involved in the enterprise of educating at-risks students. In
the words of the CEO, we “get into the nitty-gritty underwear of the district.”
Learning

Ironically, more than any other stakeholder group, teachers mentioned a second
principal advantage of the partnership, learning. They commented on how GPI’s
classroom arrangement encouraged teachers to learn new subjects. However, none of the
staff mentioned pedagogical learning. Only the regional director suggested that such
learning was possible at GPI. The charter school administrators were the only other group
that considered the potential to learn about best practices in credit recovery a chief
advantage.
138
To begin, teachers at all three sites enjoyed learning new content. In traditional
classes, teachers stay in their rooms and teach one subject whereas at GPI, teachers share
a room and help students in an array of subjects. A teacher commented, “I have a lot of
wide interests, so this job satisfies that because you don’t just deal with your specialty;
you have all areas, and I feel as if I’m learning a lot and enjoying it.” A teacher at another
site made a very similar comment,
I’m relearning everything from high school over again; I love helping students
with social studies and world history. They’re taking the test and in my head I’m
going, ‘I know this answer,’ and I’m sitting there waiting for them to say it. I get
so excited! Obviously, because I’m a teacher, I love learning.

From the teachers’ perspectives, a principal advantage of the partnership was the
opportunity to interact with students in all content areas.
However, only the regional director mentioned the possibility of learning new
techniques to educate students in this unique classroom environment. He talked about the
creativity involved in balancing computer-assisted learning with small group instruction.
Unfortunately, this learning could more accurately be described as a potential advantage
of the partnership given that small group instruction was absent. Instead, teachers roamed
the room and helped individual students on different content, a process they enjoyed.
Finally, while most administrators from the private or public spheres did not
comment on their own learning opportunities, the charter school officials mentioned this
advantage on many occasions throughout our interviews. In fact, the school originally
partnered with GPI to learn best practices: “Our expectations were – we would learn what
the best practices of alternative education and credit recovery are. We’re definitely doing
that all the way with GPI.” Learning at the charter school went one step further. Charter
139
school officials have watched how GPI infuses technology into the classroom, prompting
them to begin thinking about how to do the same in the traditional schools they operate:
Our kids [at GPI] are exposed to a different way of delivering instruction and
information – this is another part for us to learn from – not just the credit recovery
reasons – but how do we start to really take a look at technology and use of
technology across the board in our programs and in our schools.

The charter school officials were also very aware of the pitfalls of relying on computers
to teach students; however, their experience in the partnership opened their eyes to the
possibility of delivering instruction differently while preserving best practices from
traditional classrooms such as small group instruction and collaborative learning.
Relationships and Support
Based on the conversations at the teacher-training seminar in Las Vegas,
relationships between teachers and students are a cornerstone of an effective partnership
between a district and GPI. From focus groups, it was apparent that staff and students
viewed their relationships with one another as an advantage of the partnership. Moreover,
teachers considered the relationships and camaraderie they formed with their peers, in
stark contrast to traditional schools, a significant advantage of the partnership.
Students from two of the three sites pointed to the fact that they considered their
relationships with GPI teachers more positive than those in their traditional high schools.
The one-on-one support students received from GPI teachers seemed to encourage close
relationships, which may facilitate learning: “The teachers are very helpful and patient. If
you don’t understand, they’ll sit there and explain it to you till you get it, one-on-one. In a
regular school, teachers never had time to work with you.” Students also mentioned
140
support beyond the classroom as well; teachers provided information to students about
jobs and colleges:
They put job postings up, help you get to college, tell you about college fairs; we
did our financial aid applications together – the whole class did. They leave out
applications to get your driver’s license. Basically they give us information, but
we just got to be able to go forward and do it.

Observational data confirmed that teachers went beyond academics at all three sites. I
heard teachers telling students about job postings at two sites; at a different site, students
were invited to a Saturday tour of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
campus. At one site, two instructional aides took additional roles beyond their classroom
duties. One acted as a community liaison, informing students about opportunities like
jobs or higher education in the community. The other made sure students “get to be
students” and participate in school-wide activities such as prom.
Positive student-teacher relationships were not as apparent at one site where the
students tended to be very critical of their teachers who they perceived as too strict. The
teachers at the site, however, commented on their close bonds with students:
We’re like a family. I spend more time with these kids than I do with traditional
kids cause it’s four hours a day with the same group . . . . I feel like a lot of times I
see that I made a difference in these kids’ lives.

Teachers consistently spoke about how they were able to form much more positive
relationships with students at GPI than in traditional schools: “I’ve always had good
relationships with my students . . . but here it’s much deeper.” In short, relationships
between students and staff and the support that is a hallmark of these relationships was a
key advantage of the partnership from the perspective of all stakeholders.
141
All teachers also noted that a chief advantage of the partnership was the
relationships they formed with one another in contrast to the isolating experiences of
teaching in traditional school environments:
Being a classroom teacher . . . you’re kind of a loner . . . most of the time you
were all by yourself in your classroom with all these kids every day, and here we
have each other . . . . It’s nice to have all these resources in one classroom. I like
the camaraderie.

Besides the support teachers receive from one another in terms of student behavior and
curricular content, the academy provided a context for new teachers to learn from
experienced staff. One teacher took the job because she wanted the opportunity to work
with other teachers and “continually learn and grow from experienced teachers.”
What is missing from this section on relationships and support however is
student-student support. None of the stakeholder groups mentioned students’ opportunity
to form relationships and support one another. Observational data demonstrated that
students often do not know their classmates even those that sit right next to them.
However, the partnership enabled teachers to form close, supportive relationships with
one another and with students, a final advantage of the partnership.
Principal disadvantages of the partnerships were also noted based on
commonalities respective to each stakeholder group. The first disadvantage of the
partnership was negative perceptions associated with the program and the students
enrolled at GPI, which principals and students mentioned though students seemed to be
much more bothered by these perceptions than other stakeholders.
In addition, distance was a disadvantage of the partnership. The firm was located
on the East Coast, which hindered communication between GPI management and district
142
administrators. Distance was also a problem at one of the sites where the principal
worked off campus, which staff considered a disadvantage. Teachers also mentioned
isolation from their traditional-school counterparts, which represented an ideological
distance. Because top district officials and GPI management did not cite distance as a
disadvantage of the program, I placed this theme under Disadvantages as opposed to
Problems Created.
The final disadvantage of the partnership was the result of two different entities
with different priorities and processes working together. Both parties were challenged by
characteristics of the other. For example, staff at all three sites were frustrated with GPI’s
focus on numbers, which, they believed, made working for a business more difficult than
working for a school district. Interestingly, neither principals nor top district officials
mentioned this concern. As for GPI management, working with public schools was a
challenge. GPI mentioned that districts did not treat them as equals but rather as vendors
trying to sell a product, which made collaboration difficult. Districts also had constant
turnover of personnel, which was a disadvantage for a company trying to communicate
its mission and procedures to district staff. Finally, GPI considered school districts to be
large, bureaucratic institutions, slow moving and resistant to change.
Perceptions
A couple principals mentioned that a challenge of the partnership was others’
perceptions; traditional educators viewed the GPI curriculum as watered down and
perceived GPI as a credit factory rather than a rigorous program:
143
Getting other people who are outside of the academy to realize that students are
experiencing academic rigor is a challenge . . . sometimes it is other teachers and
sometimes other administrators as well . . . because it’s not a credit factory.

From what I observed, this perception was perhaps well founded given the lack of
deep interaction between students and teachers about content. The fact that principals
failed to question students’ exposure to academic rigor was particularly troublesome
given that they were the individuals responsible for teacher hiring and evaluation. Two of
the three principals mentioned the problem of perceptions but did not seem aware of – or
were unwilling to admit – concerns surrounding teaching and learning at GPI.
Students continually mentioned perceptions as a chief disadvantage of attending
GPI. Students at one site were concerned about their parents’ perceptions of the program:
I don’t think our parents are too happy. They want us to graduate from an actual
high school and get our diploma . . . . I think they think it’s going to affect our
future, the college we go to.”

While students at the other sites argued that their parents were happy they were
enrolled at GPI, a couple students wanted to go into the military after graduation and
mentioned their recruiters “said our diplomas weren’t equivalent to a diploma from a
regular school.” Another student commented, “We don’t get a lot of respect from other
people like outside our school. Like my insurance guy raised my insurance. He took away
my good student discount because he said it wasn’t a real school.”
At the last site, the issue of perceptions was particularly troublesome for students.
GPI sites were located on the same campus as a continuation high school, a regular high
school, and a special education program, respectively, but the expectation was that GPI
students would remain separate from the other students on their campuses. At the site
144
where students were very concerned about perceptions, the GPI facility was located on
the campus of a traditional high school. The students spoke quite a bit about negative
perceptions others have of them. To compound matters, they wore different colored shirts
than their peers, and several times they sneered at the term “green shirts” used to describe
them:
They treat the other side better than us, like when they throw stuff for graduation,
like events, we’re not invited because we’re at GPI. We’re not allowed to go on
that side. We’re restricted to be on this side. They treat us like inmates, like we’re
bad, but we’re all the same.

Comments from students underscored the fact that they realized others perceived
them as bad because they were in GPI. Interestingly, GPI’s CEO mentioned that the
environment created inside the academies was designed to make students feel “… special
in a good way. Hence the name academy.” Unfortunately this hope did not translate to
students’ reality. In the words of a student, “This program is not for regular kids that are
in the process of graduating that have their credits. I think it’s for” I interrupted, “bad
kids?” and the student replied, “That’s how people see us. The see the green side – those
kids are stupid.”
Distance

Perhaps negative perceptions were caused or exacerbated by the second
disadvantage, distance. In all three cases, GPI students remained separate from their
peers; however only the campus that was shared with a traditional school was a closed
campus. The Green Shirts were literally locked inside their own space unable to interact
with other students on campus. The fact that GPI students were separated from peers who
studied at the same campus created distance. Generally speaking however, teachers and
145
principals most frequently mentioned distance as a disadvantage. Teachers were
concerned about the distance between themselves and their principals and host schools
whereas two principals mentioned the disadvantage of having GPI headquarters located
so far away, in Virginia.
Distance was a disadvantage for the staff whose site was on the continuation high
school campus and the staff that shared a campus with a special education program. The
third staff did not have an issue with distance probably due to the fact that the principal
spent much of her time in their facility. In the case where GPI shared a facility with a
special education program, the principal was located on a different campus as he oversaw
three other alternative programs in addition to GPI. As for the continuation high school,
the principal was within walking distance. In this case, the distance bothered teachers in
the past, but they seemed to have gotten over it:
Initially, I was a bit like, ‘Hey you forgot about us,’ but I think we’re all over that
now; we’re used to being forgotten when it comes to whole district stuff and we
just do our own thing and it seems to work just fine.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to mention their concern. Though physical distance was not
such a great obstacle, the partnership seemed to create an ideological difference. Teachers
at GPI, though they were technically district employees, were members of a separate,
business-sponsored program, which could account for the fact that they were often
forgotten when it came to district activities.
Distance seemed to present the biggest challenge for the staff whose principal was
located on a different campus, particularly as it related to student behavioral issues:
Admin is how many miles apart? If we have some problems, we have to wait for
him to get here. . . . I have to make phone calls and then wait for a response and
146
that could take anywhere from all day to the next day to five minutes so it’s kind
of over the phone or via email which isn’t always consistent so that is kind of
difficult.

The principal overseeing this particular site echoed the concern. He also
mentioned the distance between himself and GPI management as a disadvantage:
There have been some occasional issues that have surfaced that I think could have
been avoided or handled better . . . given that the company is based on the East
Coast. Even though they have regional directors, it makes it a little bit difficult to
get to the bottom of certain thing efficiently.

When I asked for examples, he mentioned the confusion surrounding whose
responsibility it was to ensure that enough students were enrolled in the program. He
concluded by saying, “If they were centralized, local, I think issues could be handled
differently.” A second principal mentioned the same issue: “Having this long-distance
relationship with technical support and people in the office – that’s a little bit of a
disconnect.” To sum up, distance was a disadvantage for a few stakeholder groups:
students, who were separated from their peers; staff, who were not part of their host
school faculty or who had limited access to their principal; and principals who mentioned
GPI’s location on the East Coast as a disadvantage.
Business Partner
Teachers at two of the sites spoke of the disadvantages of teaming with a business
partner. Most of their concerns centered on the private partner’s focus on enrollment
numbers, a concern public schools generally shelter teachers from:
There’s a focus on ADA – but there’s a focus on ADA on both sides. The
difference I think for me is that I was sheltered from that in other schools because
it wasn’t something the teachers knew about; it was just handled by the office, so
the fact that we know so much about ADA and trying to increase attendance is a
difference as opposed to a traditional teaching job.
147
This staff was not nearly as critical of GPI’s focus on numbers as a staff at a
different site:
There’s such a fine line between business and education . . . . I’m not a
businessperson. I feel like they’re so polar opposite. When you’re in education
and you’re a teacher, you’re there for the students. You’re not thinking – you
shouldn’t have to be thinking about money and numbers. . . . It could be because
they care about the kids’ education but most of the time it seems like it’s a push
for the money. It’s like, we just need those bodies in there and sometimes even if
it’s not the best place for the students, we don’t care because we need this many
bodies in there and that’s the part when I feel like the business and education
sometimes shouldn’t go together.

Interestingly, teachers were the only stakeholder group that mentioned a disadvantage in
working with a private company.
District Partner
GPI management, by contrast, was quite vocal about the disadvantages in
partnering with school districts. The team talked quite a bit about how districts treated
them like vendors as opposed to partners, and they spoke of the problems associated with
constant district turnover. But perhaps the greatest disadvantage was district bureaucracy.
The first concern from GPI’s perspective was the tendency for districts to view
them as subordinate, like vendors who come in and sell a product and then leave, not
equal partners with whom to collaborate. I heard some of this tension when interviewing
a superintendent: “They’ve been good about bending with us and realizing that we do
have the level of expertise.” The sentiment was that GPI brings nothing to the partnership
by way of its own expertise in the area of credit recovery despite having a management
team made up of many former public school educators. One member of GPI’s
management team likened his relations with top district officials to a waltz:
148
You’re trying to do this little waltz with these people and you’re taking the lead
but you have to kind of like maneuver them to make them think they’re doing the
leading –that’s what gets really frustrating.

In short, a principal disadvantage of working with districts was the tendency for districts
to ignore GPI’s expertise.
GPI’s management team also brought up the inconvenience of constant turnover
in districts. GPI had to make decisions quickly because people changed jobs so much in
the districts. Furthermore, GPI had to be cognizant of maintaining its vision in the face of
this constant turnover: “As turnover occurs, as leadership changes, as people begin to
move to other responsibilities – how do you sustain that energy, that vision, so that’s a
challenge we continue to face.”
The greatest disadvantage GPI faced, however, was bureaucracy. GPI found its
district partners slow moving and resistant to change. At the same time, GPI bore the
financial burden of district decisions such as when to hire staff or whether to run two
sessions in the academy instead of three. Indeed, the literature reminds us that district
tradition can serve a “homogenizing effect” (Gold, et al., 2007, p. 198) on a private
company’s mission. Needless to say, GPI’s management team voiced this concern:
If there’s a disadvantage, it’s a – the danger of the bureaucracy or the size, girth,
tradition of the district overpowering the model and taking away from its
efficiency and efficacy, and I think that’s what we have to always be vigilant
about. It can be commuted and lost inside the system.

The metaphor of being handcuffed was consistent among the three GPI managers
interviewed. District bureaucracy limited the private company’s ability to move quickly
and efficiently and threatened the mission of the firm.

149
Summary of Findings
Data revealed some significant findings for each of the research questions. The
partnership between GPI and the three districts under investigation solved several
problems for districts: It addressed a gap, represented a viable alternative, existed within
the system, and enabled each entity to take advantage of the other’s resources. On the
other hand, the partnership also created some problems: It jeopardized effective teaching
and learning practices, lacked clear criteria for enrolling students and hiring staff that fit,
and created confusion among stakeholders.
The next research question addressed lessons learned from the perspective of
different stakeholder groups. Stakeholders were asked what they know now that will help
them in the future with this and other partnerships. School administrators and GPI
management learned that a successful partnership involves shared commitment and
values. Second, district officials came to realize that there is no silver bullet solution for
credit deficient students. A third lesson learned, while perhaps more of a confirmation,
was the importance of leadership and clear communication.
Data for the final research question surrounding the principal advantages and
disadvantages of the partnership revealed several themes as well. In terms of principal
advantages, districts and GPI alike recognized that the private firm was responsive; they
did not just collect money but were very involved in operations. Second, teachers
considered the opportunity to learn new content a chief advantage of the program.
Charter school operators agreed, too, that learning was a key advantage of the partnership
since they themselves learned best practices in credit recovery. Finally students and
150
teachers mentioned the relationships they formed with one another as a final advantage of
the partnership.
Data also suggested certain disadvantages of the partnership. For principals and
students, others’ negative perceptions represented a chief disadvantage. Distance was a
second disadvantage for students, teachers, and principals. The last two disadvantages
were somewhat related. Teachers considered working with a business – as compared to
solely a public school – a disadvantage due to the focus on numbers as opposed to
students. GPI management considered working with districts to be challenging because of
GPI’s inability to achieve equal partner status with districts, constant district turnover,
and finally, district bureaucracy.
The following chapter will link the results of the present study to relevant
literature. Recommendations for future research, policy, and practice will also be
provided.
151
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Many of the results from the current study are consistent with the literature on
PPPs and alternative education. For example, partnerships typically form to address
serious problems in a more efficient manner than one organization can address alone.
They help organizations build internal capacity, as was the case with the charter school
partner in the present study. On the downside, however, partnering may result in
communication problems and confusion. Furthermore, district bureaucracy may thwart
progress in a partnership while private companies may focus on numbers at the expense
of people. These data have been confirmed in the present study. With respect to
alternative education programs, improved relationships between staff and students are a
common advantage; however disadvantages include imbalances between relationships
and rigor and the difficulty in matching staff and students to specific programs.
Some of the findings of the present study, namely the disadvantage of distance
and the advantage of teacher learning and camaraderie at GPI, were probably unique to
this particular partnership. On the other hand, the present study contributes to the
literature in a number of ways. First, this particular partnership relied on data to support
its effectiveness, unlike most PPPs and alternative education programs. Second, the
present study made clear that increased innovation does not necessarily result in
improved student outcomes. Finally, the partnership under investigation led district
administrators to realize that a variety of strategies are needed to address credit deficient
students.
152
Problems Solved and Created
In the present study, the partnership between GPI and three districts began with
the recognition of a problem – credit deficient students are at risk of dropping out –
coupled with the hope that a partnership with GPI could address the problem. The
literature notes that partnerships form to solve “wicked issues” (Stewart, 1996, p. 2, in
Connolly & James, 2006, p. 69) defined as problems so complex as to require
collaboration from several groups to solve. The dropout problem clearly constitutes a
wicked issue. Research suggests that public schools cannot serve all students well, and
private providers are well suited to address the needs of “difficult-to-educate students”
(Beales & Bertonneau, 1997, p. 1). Research also points to the fact that partnering results
in improved academic outcomes for at-risk students (Relave & Deich, 2007). In all three
cases, the partnership addressed a gap that public schools and traditional forms of
alternative education have not: providing credit deficient students the opportunity to
make up credits quickly and get back on track for graduation.
Since all districts studied primarily moved at-risk students from district schools
into GPI as opposed to recruiting students from the outside, it was difficult to discern the
extent to which the partnership truly addressed the dropout problem. However, unlike
most alternative education programs and PPPs, GPI collected various data to support the
program’s effectiveness: CAHSEE data, individual student progress data, and data on
outcomes such as completion, dropout and transfer. Present literature notes little student-
outcome data to support the effectiveness of alternative education programs (Aron, 2006;
Lehr, et al., 2009) and PPPs alike (Beales & Bertonneau, 1997; Patrinos et al., 2009;
153
Savas, 2000; Wettenhall, 2003). The present study thus extends the literature in that GPI
was committed to sharing student-outcome data. The CEO noted, “Schools are academic
environments; they want data – they want to see your efficacy and results.” Indeed, data
suggest that the partnership has had some success in getting credit deficient students back
on track for graduation.
Nevertheless, a number of students who attended GPI ended up dropping out, and
it is impossible to know whether the students who were successful would have dropped
out had they stayed in their home schools. Determining the effectiveness of the program
is further complicated by the fact that GPI does not collect data on students once they
leave. Questions remain such as what happens to students who graduate from GPI? Why
do students drop out of the program, and where do they go when they leave? Such
questions, if answered, might present a clearer picture of the effectiveness of the
partnership.
Perhaps part of the problem in deciphering the extent to which the program was
successful lies in a problem created by the partnership: the lack of criteria for student
enrollment. Literature on alternative education suggests that programs need to fit
particular students in order to be effective (Allen, Philliber & Hoggson, 1990);
nevertheless alternative education programs are often developed to fit district needs as
opposed to student needs (Hill, 2007). Worse, some administrators prioritize getting
certain students out of their schools over matching students’ needs and interests with
appropriate alternative options (Cox, 1999; Hill, 2007; Kelly, 1993). In the present study,
top district officials noted that GPI provides “another layer of prevention,” but all agreed
154
that lack of criteria for student enrollment represented a challenge consistent with the
data on alternative education. Administrators admitted that GPI did not serve all credit
deficient students well; however, only the charter school officials endeavored to continue
to research other options beyond GPI. In this respect, the charter school stood out from its
traditional school counterparts.
In addition to the fact that the partnership both addressed a gap, a problem solved;
and lacked criteria for student enrollment, a problem created; the partnership
simultaneously represented a viable alternative, a problem solved; and jeopardized
effective teaching and learning, a parallel problem created. The literature suggests that
partnerships can foster innovation (Patrinos, et al., 2009) but a deeper look into
innovation in managed and charter schools suggests that innovation is lacking (Gold,
Christman & Herold, 2007; Lubienski, 2003). All stakeholders in the present study
converged on the notion that GPI provided an innovative approach to earning credits and
graduating because the program made use of computer-assisted learning. However the
imbalance between individualized, computer learning and small-group instruction
represented a serious challenge. Students were unable to articulate what they were
learning, and they themselves questioned whether they were learning at all. The present
study compels us to separate innovation and student outcomes. Clearly, an increase in
innovation does not always translate to improved student performance. Indeed, the
present program jeopardized effective teaching and learning consistent with research that
suggests that students in alternative education programs do not have access to rigorous
content and do not participate in knowledge construction in meaningful ways (Foley &
155
Pang, 2006; Groth, 1998; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Muñoz, 2004; Wilkins, 2008).
Research surrounding the benefits of computer-assisted learning highlights a program
where students have just one computer-assisted learning class per day (Traynor, 2003).
Such benefits cannot be generalized to a program in which students spend all their time
working alone at a computer.
Nonetheless, the fact that GPI offered computer-assisted instruction in a face-to-
face environment made this program a viable alternative with the possibility of
combining the best features of traditional classrooms with the flexibility of computer-
assisted learning. A complication that seemed to thwart this potential lay in the fact that
GPI and its partners did not have clear criteria for hiring staff. Indeed, the alternative
education literature notes the difficulty in attracting and retaining quality staff (Brown-
Ruzzi & Kraemer, 2006), which might be connected to the lack of small-group
instruction in GPI academies. It is possible that teachers are attracted to alternative
education because they assume they will not have to work as hard as teachers in
traditional schools. GPI teachers commented on how much they enjoyed working one-on-
one with students; the absence of small-group instruction points to a mismatch in
priorities that diminishes effective teaching and learning. Unfortunately, neither hiring
nor evaluation practices were mentioned as means to ensure quality learning.
A final problem solved is consistent with the literature on PPPs: Such
arrangements allow partners to leverage resources such as money, time and expertise
(Martin & Brand, 2006; Relave & Deich, 2007). In the case of GPI, funds stayed with
students so districts could use per pupil funding to outsource alternative education
156
(Martin & Brand, 2006). At the same time, partnering did not result in loss of jobs for the
district (Pallesen, 2006) because GPI was a school-within-a-school and employed district
staff. GPI took the up-front risk in providing a fully equipped classroom and hiring staff
before students enrolled; at the same time, they did not have to find facilities or students,
and they were able to use district protocols and expertise in terms of hiring and
professional development. The private vendor served the district with its core
competency in credit recovery and economies of scale (Savas, 2000). In short, both
parties benefited by taking advantage of one another’s resources.
At the same time, however, the partnership created a parallel problem: confusion
among stakeholders. Research on outsourcing notes transactional costs, which are those
incurred as the result of planning, initiating, modifying and monitoring task completion
(Brown & Potoski, 2005); communication problems often occur in PPPs as partners
struggle to define operations (Wohlstetter et al., 2005). In the present partnership,
confusion resulted from not having the “worker bees” at the table during initial
conversations about partnership formation. Furthermore, constant district turnover
created confusion particularly with respect to new staff. Nonetheless, the partnership
simultaneously solved a related problem in that it existed within the district. Research
suggests that partnerships are often formed to address issues that carry the highest
transactional costs, perhaps because of internal lack of capacity (Brown & Potoski,
2005). Providing alternative education to at-risk students is definitely a service with high
transactional costs; confusion among stakeholders was apparent. At the same time,
stakeholders benefited from the school-within-a-school model.
157
Perhaps the most significant finding was that the partnership enabled districts to
build internal capacity in the area of credit recovery, which served a face-saving function
for the districts that claimed GPI as their own program. For the charter entity in
particular, this capacity encouraged them to seek alternative options for students that did
not fit at GPI. The partnership taught them what questions to ask as they work with other
vendors and create options on their own to address the issue of credit deficiency.
The partnership between GPI and school districts simultaneously solved and
created a number of problems. The partnership addressed the dropout problem though it
lacked criteria for student enrollment, making it unclear to what extent the problem was
addressed. In addition, the partnership provided a viable alternative though effective
teaching and learning were compromised. Moreover, while the partnership resulted in
confusion among stakeholders, it also existed within the district, enabling districts to save
face and build internal capacity. Finally, the partnership allowed both entities to take
advantage of the other’s resources.
Advantages, Disadvantages, and Lessons Learned
In the current study, GPI was able to meet immediate staff needs in a much more
efficient way than districts could. Indeed, efficiency is a common benefit of partnering
with private entities (Connolly & James, 2006; David, 1992; Patrinos et al., 2009; Relave
& Deich, 2007; Savas, 2000; Wettenhall, 2003). Nevertheless, this advantage was offset
by the disadvantage of district bureaucracy, which threatened GPI’s efficiency and
effectiveness, a phenomenon similar to the homogenizing effect that district bureaucracy
had on the DPM reform effort in Philadelphia (Gold, Christman & Herold, 2007).
158
Another disadvantage of the partnership was negative perceptions of GPI students
and the program itself, consistent with literature surrounding alternative education
programs. Such programs are perceived as dumping grounds for bad students and
inadequate teachers (Groth, 1998; Hill, 2007; Kelly, 1993; Muñoz, 2004). Surely the
reliance on individualized, computer-assisted learning exacerbated others’ perceptions of
the extent to which students were truly learning at GPI.
Moreover, GPI staff was displeased by GPI’s focus on attendance and funding.
Similarly, literature suggests that private companies focus on profits at the expense of
people (Savas, 2000). At the same time, the present study echoes the literature on
alternative education in that a chief advantage is the relationships that are formed
between people, students and teachers in particular. (Christenson, et al., 2001; Cox, 1999;
Dugger & Dugger, 1998; Lehr et al., 2003; Masten, 2001; Prevatt & Kelly, 2003; Quinn,
et al., 2006; Sauders & Saunders, 2001; Tissington, 2006; Wilkins, 2008). The present
study also highlighted a related disadvantage: the difficulty in balancing relationships
with rigor in alternative education programs (Groth, 1998; Muñoz,, 2004; Quinn et al.,
2006; Saunders & Saunders, 2001; Wilkens, 2008). Students mentioned teachers’
patience and understanding, but little attention was given to how relationships between
students and teachers facilitated learning. And students’ mention of relationships with
one another was conspicuously absent. Thus, the present study fails to extend the
literature and define effective classroom relationships.
As for learning, the charter school operators viewed the opportunity to learn best
practices in credit recovery as an advantage of the partnership consistent with literature
159
suggesting that partnerships are formed when an organization lacks internal capacity to
address a problem on its own (Brown & Potoski, 2005). For the charter school operators,
this lesson learned resulted in a drive to pursue other options in credit recovery, both
externally and internally.
Generalities and Idiosyncrasies
Some findings from the present study seem idiosyncratic to the case under
investigation while others appear characteristic of PPPs in general. For example, the fact
that effective teaching and learning practices were jeopardized in the present partnership
is likely due to over reliance on computers coupled with teachers’ unwillingness to teach
small group lessons. Both are characteristic of this particular partnership, not all PPPs.
Furthermore, because negative perceptions were largely the result of ineffective teaching
and learning practices at GPI, this particular disadvantage is also likely to be specific to
the case under investigation. Moreover, the relationships formed between students and
teachers and among teachers at GPI, one of the advantages of the partnership, is more
than likely the result of specific GPI operations; teachers work together in the same
classroom and interact with the same group of students four hours a day. As for the lack
of criteria for enrolling students and hiring staff that fit the program, this problem created
is also likely characteristic of the partnership between GPI and the districts under
investigation. Specifically, in the current arrangement, districts take the lead on hiring
and use established protocols to hire teachers, a practice that is apparently not working.
Finally, the distance disadvantage is another idiosyncrasy as GPI headquarters are in
Virginia while most GPI sites are in California.
160
On the other hand, research suggests that certain findings from the present study
are generalities that apply to most PPPs. In terms of problems solved, partnerships are
formed to address needs that one organization cannot address on its own. GPI addressed a
gap and represented a viable alternative; these findings are generalities rather than
idiosyncrasies. Moreover, by definition, partnerships exist within their respective
systems, and they enable two or more organizations to take advantage of each another’s
resources (Releve & Deich, 23007). As for a problem created, the literature is consistent
in demonstrating that partnering results in high transactional costs (Brown & Potoski,
2005); therefore, the fact that this partnership created confusion among stakeholders
represents a general finding with respect to PPPs and should be anticipated when PPPs
are formed.
PPPs are defined as collaborations that are initiated to pursue common goals
(Releve & Deich, 2007). Thus, in terms of lessons learned, the need for partners to share
values is a general finding as is the fact that leadership matters when two or more
organizations partner together to achieve a particular goal (Releve & Deich, 2007;
Wohlstetter et al., 2005). However, in this study, the partnership resulted in the awareness
that no silver bullet exists to address the dropout problem. This finding may be specific to
the case under investigation especially considering that dropout is such a complex
phenomenon, and dropouts, so extremely diverse. Indeed, no single approach is likely to
make the difference for all at-risk students.
As for principal advantages and disadvantages, general findings include the fact
that private providers are often more responsive and efficient than school districts.
161
Furthermore, ideology clashes coupled with basic differences in organizational structures
and operations make it difficult for school districts and private companies to work
together. Such disadvantages, noted in the present study but probably common to most
PPPs, are likely to present continued challenges as public and private organizations work
together to address complex issues. An upshot of this challenge however is the last
general finding: Partnering carries the potential to build internal capacity on both sides of
a partnership.
Recommendations
The results of the present study point to several recommendations for future
research, policy and practice. In terms of future research, in order to create options to
help youth for whom traditional public schools and available alternative options do not
fit, it is necessary to determine why students leave GPI and where they go. GPI did not
collect data on what dropouts or graduates do beyond the program so assessing the
effectiveness of this particular partnership is not straightforward. Collecting longitudinal
data on why students leave if they drop out and what students do beyond this program,
whether they are graduates or dropouts, would begin to paint a more accurate picture of
the extent to which the partnership is effective as well as help devise other alternative
education options to engage students who have been unsuccessful.
The present research also highlighted a difference between the charter school and
the two districts under investigation. For the districts, having another layer of prevention
satisfied the need to address the dropout problem despite the acknowledgement that some
students did not succeed at GPI. However, for the charter school, this recognition
162
propelled them to seek other options to meet the needs of all students. The phenomenon
of taking a lesson learned and using it to independently forge new solutions in an area
that for others constitutes a “wicked issue” (Stewart, 1996, p. 2, in Connolly & James,
2006, p. 69) was unique to the charter school and warrants further investigation. In
particular, what organizational characteristics, individual characteristics or leadership
styles foster the drive to seek solutions to such complicated problems as dropout
prevention and recovery? Finally, the present study reminds us that partnering will not
result in increased internal capacity if organizations treat their private partners like
vendors and fail to learn anything from them.
The present study pinpointed a final area that necessitates further research. While
none of the top district officials mentioned the drawbacks of working with a private
company, GPI’s management team unanimously cited several disadvantages of working
with districts: being treated as vendors, constant turnover of district personnel, and
district bureaucracy. How private companies negotiate and thrive inside the district space
in order to collaborate to create solutions for difficult problems certainly deserves
attention in the research.
In terms of policy, findings suggest that encouraging multiple education pathways
whereby private providers work with districts to provide an array of options to ameliorate
the dropout problem makes good sense. Indeed, many students for whom traditional
school was ineffective and who were unsuccessful in alternative education programs
found success in the partnership between GPI and their districts. They earned credits,
passed the CAHSEE, and graduated or embarked on other educational paths. Granted,
163
this partnership did not save all credit deficient students. To further complicate matters, it
was impossible to discern how many of the students who left their high schools to attend
GPI would have actually dropped out. Nevertheless, data pointed to the effectiveness of
the partnership in helping students get back on track so that graduation was indeed a
possibility. The fact that top district administrators noted that there is no silver bullet for
credit recovery also supports a partnering policy. Moreover, two of the three schools
under investigation did not have plans for creating options themselves while the charter
school sought solutions both internally and externally; all three cases suggest that
multiple education pathways are necessary. In short, policy must allow collaboration
between public and private entities to ensure that an array of options exist to meet the
diverse needs of all credit deficient students.
General practice recommendations are geared towards reducing the negatives and
increasing the positives so that partnerships can flourish. They include encouraging
shared values and good leadership. Both the present study and prior research indicate that
shared values and leadership are critical components in building and sustaining
partnerships. Shared values enable partners to persist in the face of difficulty while good
leaders can facilitate building internal capacity among stakeholders as well as ameliorate
problems common to PPPs such as confusion. The regional director positions at GPI are a
good example of how key individuals in a partnership can be utilized to facilitate
communication and understanding and to encourage learning. Since transactional costs
are high when two unlike organizations tackle a difficult issue, effective leadership is
164
critical. Ultimately, effective leadership is needed in order to minimize inherent conflict
between public and private partners.
As for specific practice recommendations for the case under investigation, GPI
should strive for a balance between individualized, computer-assisted learning and small
group collaborative learning. The partnership between GPI and host districts should
embody the best features of both traditional schooling and alternative education. To
achieve this balance, teacher evaluation tools have to encourage small group instruction
where students have the opportunity to collaborate and form relationships with one
another and construct knowledge as a group. Clearly GPI’s professional development
focus on small group instruction was not enough to make it happen in the classrooms.
Thus, teachers need to be evaluated on how well they balance such instruction with
individualized learning.
Moreover, hiring practices should be adjusted to ensure staff embodies the
priorities that GPI and district administration agree on, empathy and expectations. When
interviewing potential staff, interview questions could focus on identifying individuals
who have high expectations for students but also empathize with them and are capable of
balancing relationships and rigor. The hiring procedure should include site visits to the
academies by potential applicants whereby they have the opportunity to work with
students and teach a small-group lesson. After site visits, the interviewers should require
potential staff to describe how they would incorporate small-group instruction into this
particular environment. In short, the process might involve two interviews separated by a
site visit where the first interview focuses on general screening for a balance between
165
empathy and expectations and the second interview, finding staff that can problem solve
and balance individualized and small-group learning in this unique environment.
Part of improving the learning environment at the academies might also involve
staff collaboration to create several non-negotiables related to what an academy
environment should look like in terms of teaching and learning. This way, staff buy-in
regarding small group instruction can be fostered. Staff should have the opportunity to
discuss the benefits and drawbacks of small-group instruction, and professional
development should focus on how to facilitate a small-group lesson so that it is
collaborative rather than teacher directed.
As mentioned, data also clearly pointed to the benefit of having regional directors
in place at GPI to communicate expectations among stakeholders and encourage effective
teaching and learning at the sites. These positions were an integral part of the partnership
and should be continued. The Southern California regional director has already addressed
some of the problems and disadvantages of the partnership such as distance and
confusion. He can also ensure that individuals responsible for academy operations are
present at the table when potential partnerships are developed and that new staff has a
copy of the contract in the case of turnover. Furthermore, the regional director can serve
as a go-to person for clarification regarding roles and expectations.
Most importantly, GPI management should be careful to communicate the
importance of both relationships and rigor. When I attended the lead teacher summit in
Las Vegas, relationships was a key theme. Academic rigor, by contrast, was mentioned
much less frequently. Furthermore, GPI’s CEO argued that a teacher must be empathetic,
166
first and foremost. Placing a higher value on relationships and empathy – either
intentionally or unintentionally – can communicate the message that rigor is secondary.
Alternative schools should not operate according to a “bizarre affective principle . . .
[that] students need to feel ‘good’ about themselves, from which academic performance
will follow” (Muñoz, 2006, p. 14). Indeed, educational programs, regardless of whether
they serve at-risk or traditional students, must equally prioritize both relationships and
rigor. In fact, positive relationships in the classroom must be defined to include a focus
on rigorous and challenging learning. When this balance is achieved, negative
perceptions of students will no longer be an issue. When people see students sitting at
computers all day – either not talking at all or talking about anything other than
academics, copying and pasting instead of learning – negative perceptions will mirror
reality. If, on the other hand, students are engaged in learning, communicating with one
another and constructing knowledge in groups part of the day while working
independently at their own pace as well, both insiders and outsiders alike will perceive
the program favorably.

167
References
Allen, J. P. & Philliber, S. (2001). Who benefits most from a broadly targeted prevention
program? Differential efficacy across populations in the teen outreach program.
Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 637-655.

Allen, J. P., Philliber, S. & Hoggson, N. (1990). School-based prevention of teen-age
pregnancy and school dropout: Process evaluation of the national replication of
the Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,
505-524.

Amos, J. (2008, August). Dropouts, diplomas, and dollars: U.S. high schools and the
nation’s economy. Alliance for Excellent Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved
February 17, 2009, from http://www.all4ed.org/files/Econ2008.pdf

Aron, L. Y. (2003). Toward a typology of alternative education programs: A compilation
of elements from the literature. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Aron, L. Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.

Baker, J. & Sansone, J. (1990). Interventions with students at-risk for dropping out of
school: A high school responds. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 181-186.

Beales, J. R. & Bertonneau, T. F. (1997). Do private schools serve difficult-to educate
students? Analysis and Michigan case studies of how nongovernment schools
educate disabled, incarcerated, and at risk youth (S97-03). Midland, MI:
Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Belfield, C. R. & Levin, H.M. (2007a). The economic losses for high school dropouts in
California. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara,
California Dropout Research Project.

Belfield, C.R. & Levin, H.M. (2007b). The return on investment for improving
California’s high school graduation rate. Santa Barbara, CA: University of
California, Santa Barbara, California Dropout Research Project

Bickel, R. (1989). Opportunity and high school completion. The Urban Review, 21, 251-
261.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: MA: Pearson.

168
Brody-Hasazi, S., Proulx, R., Hess, K., MacKinnon, C., Morgan, P., Needham, B &
O’Regan, B. (2001). Report on alternative education schools/programs in
Vermont. State of Vermont, Department of Education.
Brown, T. L. & Potoski, M. (2005). Transaction costs and contracting: The practitioner
perspective. Public Performance and Management Review, 28, 326-351.

Brown-Ruzzi, B. & Kraemer, J. (2006). Academic programs in alternative education: An
overview. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.

Catterall, J. S. & Stern, D. (1986). The effects of alternative school programs on high
school completion and labor market outcomes. American Educational Research
Association, 8, 77-86.

Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Lehr, C. A. & Godber, Y. (2001). Promoting
successful school completion: Critical conceptual and methodological guidelines.
School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 468-484.

Cohen, S. (2001). A strategic framework for devolving responsibility and functions from
government to the private sector. Public Administration Review, 61, 432-440.

Connolly, M. & James, C. (2006). Collaboration for school improvement: A resource
dependency and institutional framework of analysis. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 34, 69-87.

Cox, S. M. (1999). An assessment of an alternative education program for at-risk
delinquent youth. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 323-336.

Cox, S. M., Davidson, W. S. & Bynum, T. S. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment of
delinquency-related outcomes in alternative education programs. Crime &
Delinquency, 41, 219-234.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

David, A. (1992). Public-private partnerships: The private sector and innovation in
education (Policy Insight Number 142). Santa Monica: CA, Reason Foundation.

Dugger, J. M. & Dugger, C. W. (1998). An evaluation of a successful alternative high
school. The High School Journal, 81, 218-228.

Eggert, L. L., Seyl, C. D. & Nicholas, L. J. (1994). Preventing adolescent drug abuse and
high school dropout through an intensive school-based social network
development program. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8, 202-215.

169
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at-risk. Washington, DC: The
National Center for Education Statistics.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Foley, R. M. & Pang, L. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student
characteristics. The High School Journal, 89, 10-21.

Freire, P. (1970/1998). Pedagogy of the oppressed (20
th
-Anniversary ed.). New York:
Continuum.

Gold, E., Christman, J. B. & Herold, B. (2007). Blurring the boundaries: A case study of
private sector involvement in Philadelphia public schools. American Journal of
Education, 113, 181-212.

Greene, J. P. (2006, April). Leaving boys behind: Public high school graduation rates.
(Civic Report No. 48). New York, NY: The Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research.

Groth, C. (1998). Dumping ground or effective alternative dropout-prevention programs
in urban schools. Urban Education, 33, 218-242.

Hill, E. G. (2007). Improving alternative education in California. Sacramento, CA:
Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Hokanson, A. (2008, January 11). Academy puts students on right path. Glendale News
Press, 1-3. Retrieved January 7, 2010, http://advancepath.com/pr/pr-glendale.pdf

Howe, K. & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A
prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-9.

Kelly, D. (1993). Last chance high: How girls and boys drop in and out of alternative
schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kleiner, B. Porch, R. & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative schools and programs for
students at risk of educational failure: 2000-01 (NCES 2002-004). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Knesting, K. (2008). Students at-risk for school dropout: Supporting their persistence.
Preventing School Failure, 52, 3-10.

Knesting, K. & Waldron, N. (2006). Willing to play the game: How at-risk students
persist in school. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 599-611.

170
Kronholz, J. (2001, December 18). Politics & policy: Various ways of calculating
dropout rate leaves subject open to much interpretation. The Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-
politics.htm

Laird, J., Cataldi, E.F., KewalRamani, A., and Chapman, C. (2008, September). Dropout
and completion rates in the United States: 2006 (NCES 2008-053). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Lange, C. M. & Lehr, C. A. (1999). At-risk students attending second chance programs:
Measuring performance in desired outcome domains. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at-risk, 4, 173-192.

Learning that clicks. (2009, March 21). The Los Angeles Times, p. 1-2. Retrieved
January 7, 2010, http://advancepath.com/pr/learningthatclicks.pdf

Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D. T. (2003). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 353-393.

Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M. F. & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond
dropout towards school completion: An integrative review of data-based
interventions. School Psychology Review, 32, 342-364.

Lehr, C. A., Tan C. S. & Ysseldyke, J. (2009). Alternative schools: A synthesis of state-
level policy and research. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 19-32.

Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the
impace of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 40, 395-443.

Martin, N. & Brand, B. (2006). Federal, state, and local roles supporting alternative
education. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56, 227-238.

McKeon, D. (2006, February). Research talking points: High school attendance,
graduation, completion, & dropout statistics: Who stays? Who goes? National
Education Association. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 17, 2009,
http://www.nea.org/home/13579.htm

McNamara, K. (2000). Outcomes associated with service involvement among disengaged
youth. Journal of Drug Education, 30, 229-245.

171
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Muñoz, J. S. (2004). The social construction of alternative education: Re-examining the
margins of public education for at-risk Chicano/a students. The High School
Journal, 88, 3-22.
Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing
corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

O’Toole, L. J. & Meier, K. J. (2004). Parkinson’s law and the new public management?
Contracting determinants and service-quality consequences in public education.
Public Administration Review, 64, 342-352.

Pallesen, T. (2006). The politics of contracting out in school districts: The case of
Washington state. State & Local Government Review, 38, 34-40.

Patrinos, H.A., Barrera-Osorio, F. & Guàqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-
private partnerships in education. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, M. (2005). Understanding school district budgets, a guide for local leaders. Palo
Alto, CA: Edsource.

Platts, K. W., Probert, D. R. & Cáñez, L. (2002). Make v. buy decisions: A process
incorporating multi-attribute decision-making. Int. J. Production Economics, 77,
247-257.
Prevatt, F. & Kelly, F. D. (2003). Dropping out of school: A review of intervention
programs. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 377-395.

Quinn, M. M., Poirier, J. M, Faller, S. E., Gable, R. A. & Tonelson, S. W. (2006). An
examination of school climate in effective alternative programs. Preventing
School Failure, 51, 11-17.

Relave, N. & Deich, S. (2007). A guide to successful public-private partnerships for
youth programs. Washington, DC: The Finance Project.

Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J. & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical
procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 22, 90-109.

172
Ruiz de Velasco, J., Austin, G., Dixon, D., Johnson, J., McLaughlin, M. & Perez, L.
(2008). Alternative education options: A descriptive study of California
continuation high schools. Stanford, CA: John W. Gardner Center for Youth and
their Communities.

Saunders, J. A. & Saunders, E. J. (2006). Alternative school students’ perceptions of past
[traditional] and current [alternative] school environments. The High School
Journal, 85, 12-23.

Savas, E.S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships. New York: CQ Press.
Retrieved August 21, 2009, from http://www.cesmadrid.es/documentos
/Sem200601_MD02_IN.pdf

Schatz, C. G. (2007, October 3). The Sun, 1-2. Retrieved January 7, 2010, http://advance
path.com/pr/pr-sanbern.pdf

Shumer, R. (1994). Community-based learning: Humanizing education. Journal of
Adolescence: 17, 357-367.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L. Evelo, D. L. & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Dropout
prevention for youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement
procedure. Exceptional Children, 65, 7-21.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L. & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school
completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 71, 465-482.

Spring, J. (2007). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education of dominated cultures in the United States (5
th
ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tissington, L. D. (2006). History: Our hope for the future. Preventing School Failure, 51,
19-25.

Traynor, P. L. (2003). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30, 137-143.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). A uniform, comparable graduation rate.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.ed.
gov/policy/elsec/reg/proposal/uniform-grad-rate.pdf

173
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and
integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed.),
Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2
nd
ed., pp. 83-99,
104-109). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Watson, J. & Gemin, B. (2008). Promising practices in online learning: Using online
learning for at-risk students and credit recovery. Washington, DC: North
American Council for Online Learning.
Wettenhall, R. (2003). The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships. Public
Organization Review, 3, 77-107.

Wilkins, J. (2008). School characteristics that influence student attendance: Experiences
of students in a school avoidance program. The High School Journal, 91, 12-24.

Wohlstetter, P. Smith, J. & Malloy, C. (2005). Strategic alliances in action: Toward a
theory of evolution. The Policy Studies Journal, 33, 419-442.

Worrell, F. C. & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived
school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 370-388.

174
Appendix A
Top District Official Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Interviewee: Interviewer:
Job Title: Date:
Start Time: End Time:

Introduction

As you know, I am working on a dissertation with the University of Southern California.
In particular, I am interested in learning about why your district decided to partner with
GPI to provide alternative education for at-risk youth.

The purpose of this interview is to learn more about your partnership with GPI and in
particular, the history, current operations, and lessons learned. This interview should take
approximately one hour.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify
you or your district by name in my dissertation. I would like to tape record this interview
in order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

Do you have any questions before we begin the interview?

History

1. Could you describe what led to the decision to contract out to provide alternative
education?

a) How were at-risk students being served prior to the partnership?
b) What need was identified/when?
c) What other [alternative school] options exist for this student population?
d) Why GPI as opposed to/in addition to these other options?
e) What were some things you had to take into consideration in the initial phase
of the contracting process?
f) What questions did you ask yourself when deciding to contract out services?
g) How did the district evolve to a point where they engaged GPI/when?
h) What were your reasons for contracting with GPI as opposed to another
vender or trying to do it yourself?

2. What were the steps in forming the partnership? Take me through the process…

a) How did you learn about GPI?
b) Who initiated the partnership and how?

175
Appendix A continued
Top District Official Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

c) What were some of the constraints you faced in deciding to contract with GPI
and how did you negotiate these constraints? (Probe for political, social,
cultural constraints.)
d) What were some of your chief concerns as you began to develop this
partnership and how have those concerns evolved?
e) Describe the school community’s reaction to the formation of the partnership
between your school district and GPI (Probe for students, teachers, parents,
board reactions.)
f) What needed to happen to move the partnership along and who made that
happen?
g) What were some challenges in the initial phases of the partnership formation?

3. What were your initial expectations relative to the partnership and how, if at all, have
those expectations changed?

4. What are the goals of the partnership and how are they measured?

a) In what ways do the goals coincide with your school’s mission and vision?

Operations

1. I’m interested in how the partnership operates. First off, what are your roles and
responsibilities relative to the partnership?

a) Now could you describe GPI’s roles and responsibilities?
b) What do you retain control over and what does GPI control?

2. What are the terms and limitations of the contract?

3. How are students identified for the program?

a) Describe the typical GPI student.

4. Now what about teachers. How are teachers identified for GPI?

a) How are teachers hired?

5. Could you describe the financial relationship between the district and GPI? How is the
program financed?

a) How do teachers get paid?
176
Appendix A continued
Top District Official Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

b) Who provides curriculum and computers? Facilities? Other operational costs?
c) Who is in charge of staff development? (Probe, describe it.)
d) What is the relationship between GPI and the union?

6. I’m interested in your perception with regards to the give and take of this relationship.
What does your district give to GPI and what do you receive in return?

7. How do you gauge and monitor GPI’s performance? (Probe for actual quantitative
measures.)

8. I’m curious about whether you think the partnership is working, from your own
perspective as well as from the perspective of your school community.

a) your perspective
b) the board’s perspective
c) the teachers’ perspective
d) students’ perspective
e) parents’ perspective
f) GPI’s perspective

9. In terms of pedagogy, could you describe how students earn credits in the GPI
program?

a) Why does the GPI program make use of computer-assisted learning?
b) Can you comment on the pros and cons associated with computer-assisted
learning in the GPI program?

Lessons Learned

1. How has the partnership evolved from its original inception?

2. As you think back on the relationship you have formed with GPI, what are some of the
lessons you have learned?

3. What are some challenges you continue to face?

4. As you think back on why you contracted with GPI, from your perspective, what has
GPI offered that you felt you couldn’t provide and how – if at all – have your views on
this changed?

177
Appendix A continued
Top District Official Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

5. From your perspective, what are the principal advantages and disadvantages of the
partnership between your district and APA?

6. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

178
Appendix B
GPI Management Team Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Interviewee: Interviewer:
Job Title: Date:
Start Time: End Time:

Introduction

As you know, I am working on a dissertation with the University of Southern California.
In particular, I am interested in learning about why public schools have partnered with
GPI to provide alternative education for at-risk youth.

The purpose of this interview is to learn more about your firm, GPI, and in particular,
about your relationship with your partner school districts, including history, current
operations, and lessons learned. This interview should take approximately one hour.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify
you or your firm by name in my dissertation. I would like to tape record this interview in
order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

Do you have any questions before we begin the interview?

History

1. Could you describe how GPI came about?

a) Who had the vision for this firm and what was it?
b) What factors have led to the expansion of the program?
c) I understand that you elected to be a managed-service, private-public
partnership. What other arrangements did you consider and why did you elect this one?
d) How did you identify your target student population/target districts? (How did
you figure out this market?)
e) What other options exist for the “at risk” population?
f) Where does GPI fit in the universe of alternative education programs/how is
GPI the same or different from these other options?

2. Take me through a typical case partnership… What are the steps in forming such a
partnership with a school district?

a) Describe your strategy for engaging different districts.
b) Who initiates the partnership?
c) What needs to happen to move it along and who makes that happen?
d) What are some challenges in the initial phases of partnership formation?
179
Appendix B continued
GPI Management Team Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

3. What were your initial expectations relative to creating partnerships with school
districts and how, if at all, have those expectations changed?

Operations

1. I’m interested in how the partnership operates. First off, what are your roles and
responsibilities relative to the partnership?

a) Could you now describe the districts’ roles and responsibilities?
b) What do you retain control over and what does the district control?

2. What are the terms and limitations of the contract?

3. How are students identified for the program?

a) Describe a typical GPI student.
b) What does a typical day look like for a student in the program/a typical
month…
c) I understand that GPI is made up of different categories of students (“late
entrants”, “late strugglers” and “re-enrollers.” What are your strategies for
recruiting these different students?
d) I also understand that certain students do not do well at GPI/fit the GPI profile
for a successful student (ie. “academic priority students” and younger
students). First, how do you know this? Second, what alternative options do
you recommend for these students.
e) I understand that you intend to grow as an organization (to different
districts/different markets ie. middle school). How did you determine the
need/market? What is your strategy for this growth?

4. Now what about staff. How is staff identified for GPI?

a) How are teaching staff hired?
b) What are some characteristics you look for in a GPI teacher/staff member?
c) What does the day look like for a GPI teacher/staff member?

5. Could you describe the financial relationship between your firm and the district?

a) How do teachers get paid?
b) Who provides curriculum and computers? Facilities? Other operational costs?
c) Who is in charge of staff development? (Probe, describe it.)

180
Appendix B continued
GPI Management Team Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

d) What is the relationship between GPI and the union (probe re. collective
bargaining agreement surrounding hours of work, wages, benefits, evaluation,
etc.)?
e) I understand that you have been able to obtain different investors. Who are
these investors and how have you garnered their support/relationship to
district? What is the plan for future investors?

6. I’m interested in your perception with regards to the give and take of this relationship.
What does GPI give to school districts and what do you receive in return?

a) How do you balance financial solvency and quality?

7. How is your performance gauged and monitored? (Probe for actual quantitative
measures.)

8. I’m curious about the factors that contribute to a successful partnership with a school
district. What needs to be present for such a partnership to work?

a) What factors impede the partnership?

9. I’m curious about whether you think the partnership is working, from your own
perspective as well as from others’ perspectives.

a) your perspective
b) the district’s perspective
c) the teachers’ perspective
d) students’ perspective
e) parents’ perspective
f) investors’ perspective
g) other (ie. Computer partners for courseware and learning management
system)

10. In terms of pedagogy, could you describe how students earn credits in the GPI
program?

a) Why does the GPI program make use of computer-assisted learning?
b) Can you comment on the pros and cons associated with computer-assisted
learning in the GPI program?

181
Appendix B continued
GPI Management Team Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Lessons Learned

1. As you think back, how have your partnerships evolved from their original inception?

2. What are some of the lessons you have learned (probe re. districts, investors, teachers,
students, parents, politicians, online courseware providers, other)?

3. What are some challenges you continue to face?

4. From your perspective, what does GPI offer that school districts cannot provide for
themselves?

5. What do you see as the principal advantages or disadvantages of partnering with
school districts to provide alternative education services to at-risk youth?

6. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

182
Appendix C
Student Focus Group Interview Protocol

Interviewees: Interviewer:
Date:
Start Time: End Time:

Introduction

I am working on a dissertation with the University of Southern California.

The purpose of this focus group interview is to learn more about your experiences at GPI
as well as in your previous high schools. This interview should take approximately one
hour. A focus group interview is quite different from a regular one-on-one interview in
that I’m not going to ask a question and wait for everyone to take turns answering it.
Instead, I’m going to ask questions that are meant to be discussed as a group, so that
means you can jump in and add to what someone else has said. You could agree or
disagree and then talk about your point of view. The objective is for everyone to get a
chance to share his/her perspective.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify
you by name in my dissertation. I would like to tape record this interview in order to have
an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

Do you have any questions before we begin the interview?

1. Why did you come to GPI?

a) What factors in your life led to your decision to attend this program?
b) What other options did you consider besides GPI?
c) Why did you end up selecting GPI (as opposed to another option)?

2. Describe what a typical day looks like for you at GPI… a typical month.

3. What kind of support do you receive in this program?

a) to complete your school work
b) with personal issues
c) activities
d) beyond graduation
e) other

4. Think back to the school you attended before coming here… What kinds of things did
you like about the school?
183
Appendix C continued
Student Focus Group Interview Protocol

a) What didn’t you like about your last school?

5. Now consider GPI. What do you like about this school?

a) What don’t you like about GPI?

6. What types of district activities do you participate in now that you’re in GPI?

7. Now I’m interested in hearing about your learning experiences in particular. How is
GPI different from the other schools you have attended in terms of your learning
experiences?

a) How do you know what to do each day?
b) How do you keep track of your progress?
c) How do classes compare between GPI and your old high school and what’s
your opinion about the similarities and differences?
d) How is the work similar or different between the schools and what do you
think about the schoolwork in both settings?
e) How are your relationships/conversations with teachers similar or different
and what is your opinion about these similarities and differences?
f) How do you think you learn best? (What is your ideal learning situation?)
g) Can you comment on what’s good and bad about how you use computers in
this school to learn?

8. Some of you may have been behind in credits at your last school. What caused you to
be behind in credits?

a) Now you may be catching up. What factors have influenced your success?
b) What factors hinder your success in learning here?

9. What happens once you make up all your credits?

a) What do you plan to do once you graduate?
b) How do you intend to meet that goal?
c) Who will support you?

10. If you could change anything about your previous school, what would it be?

11. If you could change anything about GPI, what would it be?

12. In your opinion, is GPI working for you? Why or why not?
184
Appendix C continued
Student Focus Group Interview Protocol

13. What do you wish I had asked you today that I didn’t think to ask?
185
Appendix D
Staff Focus Group Interview Protocol

Interviewees: Interviewer:
Job Titles: Date:
Start Time: End Time:

Introduction

As you know, I am working on a dissertation with the University of Southern California.
In particular, I am interested in the partnership between your district and GPI.

The purpose of this focus group interview is to learn more about your experiences
teaching at GPI. The interview should take approximately one hour. I won’t be asking
questions and having each person take a turn in answering. Rather, the intent of this focus
group interview is to generate discussion around the questions. So feel free to jump in
and add to what someone else has said, to agree or disagree and offer your point of view,
and so on. The objective is for everyone to have the opportunity to share his/her
perspective.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. I will not identify
you, the district or GPI by name in my dissertation. I would like to tape record this
interview in order to have an accurate record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

Do you have any questions before we begin the interview?

1. What brought you to GPI?

a) What led to your decision to teach here?
b) What were some other teaching positions you considered?
c) Why GPI as opposed to these other options?

2. How are students identified for GPI?

a) What are some characteristics of GPI students?
b) What type of student is not well-served at GPI and how/when do you know
and what do you do once you understand this?

3. Take me through a typical day… What does an average day look like for you?

4. What do you like about working in this setting?

5. What do you wish you could change about this setting?

186
Appendix D continued
Staff Focus Group Interview Protocol

6. How does an average day look for a student? A typical month?

7. Describe how you interact with students in this program.

a) What kinds of conversations do you have with students?
b) How do you ensure student learning?
c) How do you keep track of students’ progress?
d) other

8. GPI students are presumably behind in credits. What factors lead to student success in
catching up at GPI?

9. What about students who are not successful here. What factors prevent their success?

10. Please describe what you consider the advantages of the GPI program.
a) from the students’ perspectives
b) from your own perspective
c) other

11. Please describe what you consider the disadvantages of the GPI program.
a) from the students’ perspectives
b) from your own perspective
c) other

12. Could you describe some of the lessons you’ve learned so far and how you’ve learned
them…
a) re. curriculum/changes to the curriculum
b) teaching… relationships with students…
c) relationships with colleagues (ie. Collaboration/charters that Jean described, if
applicable)
d) creating a culture at the site
e) other

13. Compare and contrast GPI with traditional schools or other alternative schools that
you are familiar with.
a) How is GPI the same/different?
b) How is GPI better/worse?

14. What kinds of support do you provide students in this program?
a) to complete their school work
b) with personal issues
187
Appendix D continued
Staff Focus Group Interview Protocol

c) activities
d) beyond graduation
e) other

15. Can you comment on what’s good and bad about how students use computers in this
school to learn?

16. In your view, is GPI working from your own perspective?
a) from the district’s perspective
b) from GPI’s perspective
c) from students’ perspectives
d) from parents’ perspectives
e) other

17. As you think about the partnership between GPI and X School District, what are
some of the advantages and disadvantages?

18. What do you wish I had asked you today that I didn’t think to ask?

188
Appendix E
Parents Informational Letter
October 1, 2009

Dear Parents of GPI Students:

Who: Hello. My name is Valerie Callet. I have been a teacher for 13 years and am
currently a student at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a study
about GPI.

What: I wish to hold a focus group interview with a group of GPI parents. I want to tape-
record the conversation we will have together, but rest assured, your comments will
remain anonymous.

When: I would like to hold the focus group interview on Thursday, November 5, from 5
pm until approximately 6:30 pm.

Where: The location is to be determined. I will either hold the interview at the school,
The Pacific Avenue Education Center, or at a local restaurant. Either way, I will provide
dinner for attendees.

Why: I am interested in learning about your perspective about the strengths and
challenges of the GPI program. I will also hear from students, teachers, and
administrators. Results will be shared with the GPI leadership team in order to help
improve the program and better serve students.

Next Steps: If you are interested in participating, please contact me: 562-901-4023.

189
Appendix F
Observation Protocol

Site: _____________________________ Date: __________________________
Start time: ______________________ End time: _________________________
Total number of students in classroom and demographics (ethnicity, gender):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Total number of teachers, subject area(s) and demographics (ethnicity, gender):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Total number of teachers’ assistants and demographics:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Workstations (Check one): __ At capacity __ Under Capacity __ Over Capacity
Comments:
190
Appendix F continued
Observation Protocol

Indicate the level of engagement of students in the class:
# of students on task/engaged and who (demographic):
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
# of students only somewhat engaged and who:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
# of students not on task/engaged and
who:____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Comments:
The observer might ask the teacher/students: “Tell me what is going on today?”
Responses/Comments – note from whom:
191
Appendix F continued
Observation Protocol

Check all that apply to the activities observed in the classroom:

______ Whole class instruction ______ Peer tutoring
______ Small group instruction ______ Student-led instruction
______ Individual instruction ______ Cooperative/Collaborative learning
______ Computer-assisted instruction ______ Class opening activities
______ Hands-on activity ______ Class closing activities
______ Student presentation ______ Other, Describe:

Comments:

Appendix F continued
Observation Protocol

Place a check to indicate Observed=O or Not Observed=N

O N 1. Student Learning: Observation focuses on how students learn
and develop through learning opportunities that support their
intellectual, social, physical and personal development.
1.1. Students work independently
1.2. Students make use of visual representations (notes,
calculators, etc.)
1.3. Students participate in collaborative and cooperative learning
activities
1.4. Students use templates, graphic organizers, etc.
1.5. Students discuss short-term goals/expected outcomes with
teacher or other students
1.6. Students discuss long-term goals/expected outcomes with
teacher or other students
1.7. Students work in small groups
1.8. Students work in whole class configuration
1.9. Struggling students (ie. ELLs or students with special needs)
are assisted in the classroom through scaffolded instruction,
allowing 100% access to content
1.10. Students are able to describe the relationship between their
prior knowledge and new concepts
1.11. Students are at ease in sharing what they have learned
1.12. Students demonstrate learning in many ways
1.13. Students understand and embrace learning challenges
1.14. Students ask basic questions related to their needs
1.15. Students ask meta-cognitive questions to clarify and support
their learning
1.16. Students self-evaluate their individual progress
Comments (especially on which students engage in which behaviors):

193
Appendix F continued
Observation Protocol

O N 2. Classroom Environment: Observation focuses on how
students are safe to explore and construct new knowledge and
engage in positive social interaction, active learning, and self-
motivation.
2.1. Students articulate classroom rules, incentives or rewards and
consequences
2.2. Students follow classroom rules
2.3. Students interact appropriately with peers
2.4. Students are generally engaged in learning
2.5. Student work/artifacts are displayed
2.6. Students monitor their own and their peers’ behavior,
correcting one another res
2.7. Students participate effectively in collaborative and
cooperative learning activities
2.8. Students are on time class
2.9. Students work in pair and groups
2.10. Students are on task and productive
2.11. Students demonstrate classroom leadership roles such as
group facilitator and student teacher
2.12. Students follow procedures and routines
2.13. Students are responsible for return and/or distribution of
work and materials
2.14. Students initiate and plan their individual learning goals and
refer to them
2.15. Students move smoothly between class work and activities
2.16. Students enter the classroom and prepare for learning
without teacher assistance.
2.17. Students deal with materials and paperwork independently
with few teacher reminders/interventions
2.18. Students work independently and efficiently following
procedures or exhibiting self management (they know what to do)
Comments (especially on which students engage in which behaviors):

194
Appendix F continued
Observation Protocol

O N 3. Teacher and Classroom Practices: Observation focuses on teacher
practices and classroom practices and management.
3.1. Teachers use progress monitoring
3.2. Teachers use formative assessment to inform instruction
3.3. Teachers vary instructional strategies, activities, procedures, and
experiences
3.4. Teachers motivate students and encourage student effort and
ownership of learning
3.5. Teachers provide additional support for all students as needed
3.6. Teachers use appropriate instructional strategies to make curriculum
accessible to all learners
3.7. Teachers give students feedback using a variety of methods to
improve their performance
3.8. Teachers use appropriate instruction strategies to make curriculum
accessible to all students
3.9. Classroom has established procedures for routine tasks and
managing transitions
Comments (especially regarding which students teachers work with and how):

195
Appendix G
Document Review Tool

The purpose of document review is to add to the findings from interviews and
observations relative to the questions.

Directions:

Attach a copy of the document to be reviewed to this review tool and respond to the
following questions.

(1.) Check the following document for review:
Contract agreement
Board Report
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Newspaper article
GPI website
District website, identify: _____________________________
Curriculum, identify: _____________________________
Student work sample, identify: _____________________________
Other, identify: _____________________________

(2.) Information relative to main research question: What problems are solved and
what problems are created when different school districts partner with a single
provider, GPI, to provide alternative education for at-risk students.

(3.) History of partnership

196
Appendix G continued
Document Review Tool

(4.) Current operations

(5.) Lessons learned

(6.) Principal advantages and disadvantages of partnership

(7.) Other

197
Appendix H
Contract Sample Student Recruitment

Example from the
contract, Student
Recruitment
Student
Recruitment

Implement dropout
acquisition/retention
initiatives
District
• Train Academy
personnel to manage
student attendance
“case-load”
• Provide and manage
resources (personnel
and financial) for
external marketing
• Provide and manage
resources to engage
community-based
• Implement student
incentives to
encourage student-to-
student referrals /
retention
• In instances where a
student is better
suited for alternative
program, GPI can
recommend and help
facilitate student
transition into that
program (e.g., return
to the home school)
• GPI will not solicit
students currently
enrolled in a District
program.
• With district support,
articulate process and
guidelines for
enrolling Special
Education Students
into the program
GPI
• To the extent
allowable by law,
provide GPI with up-
to-date dropout and
enrollment
information
• Provide GPI with
access to personnel
coordinating current
District outreach
• Provide District
support in identifying
key community
agencies
• If the District wants
to make a direct
referral, the School
site administrator or
designee will
recommend to GPI a
list of currently
enrolled at-risk
students
• Articulate process
and guidelines for
enrolling current
District students in
the GPI program
• Work with GPI and
Academy staff to
ensure optimal
student placement
either in the
Academy or other
district program

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the present study was to determine what problems are solved and created when two school districts and one charter school partnered with a private company to provide alternative education to at-risk students. The research also aimed to address lessons learned as well as principal advantages and disadvantages of the partnership. Data collection included interviews with top district officials and principals along with the private company's management team. Focus group interviews were conducted with students and staff from the sites. Observational data, documents, and student-level data were also collected. Data analysis consisted of comparing the responses of individuals who occupied similar roles at different sites and those who occupied different roles. Data from observations, documents, and students were used to test the reliability of the results.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The at-risk student perspective of education in an alternative education program

PDF

The implications of using online classes with at-risk students in an alternative education setting

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

Promoting equity in discipline practices for Latino students: a gap analysis

PDF

The effects of online courses for student success in basic skills mathematics classes at California community colleges

PDF

The effect of reading proficiency on student success in online credit recovery programs

PDF

Principal implementation of Education Code 215: pupil and student suicide prevention policies in southern California public middle schools

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

PDF

Perception of barriers: the experiences of lecturers in adapting to changing institutional expectations in upgraded private technological university in Taiwan

PDF

Special education outsourcing: district privatization of therapeutic day schools for students with severe emotional disabilities

PDF

Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

Helping students find a way home: one case at a time

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

Asset Metadata

Creator Callet, Valerie (author)

Core Title Problems solved, problems created: A critical-case analysis of a public-private partnership in alternative education for at-risk students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/14/2010

Defense Date 03/25/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag alternative education,at-risk,computer-assisted learning,dropout,intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,public-private partnership

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Dwyer, David C. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email vcallet@hotmail.com,vcallet@insightfaculty.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2912

Unique identifier UC175799

Identifier etd-Callet-3441 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-317449 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2912 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Callet-3441.pdf

Dmrecord 317449

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Callet, Valerie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu